Sitting of 19 March 2002

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Consolidated Fund Act 2002

  Office of Communications Act 2002

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Jim Sheridan: How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the minimum income guarantee in April. [41515]
    Rachel Squire: How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the basic state pension in April. [41517]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): In Scotland, around 181,000 claimants will benefit from the increase in the minimum income guarantee in April and around 900,000 people will benefit from the increase in the basic state pension. Once again, a Labour Government are delivering for Scotland's pensioners.
    Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. No doubt, he will be aware that many of my constituents receive the minimum income guarantee, which provides a crucial safety net, but what worries me—this is the substance of my question—is that many people may not he aware of it. The minimum income guarantee is no accident. It is a direct result of sound economic policy and the Government's social responsibility, and it is coupled with the national minimum wage and the principled politics of socialism.
    150
    I came into politics to deliver those kinds of benefits to our people. However, I emphasise that there are a number of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, but perhaps the Minister can answer from the information that he has already.
    Mr. Foulkes: But it was a good speech, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend knows, the minimum income guarantee will increase in line with earnings, and that is welcome for the poorest pensioners. We have also, thankfully, made it easier to claim the minimum income guarantee. The form has been reduced from 40 pages to 10, and we have introduced a new telephone claim service, all of which has made it easier for pensioners to claim the minimum income guarantee.
    Rachel Squire: I certainly welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and so will 10,760 pensioners in Dunfermline and west Fife when they receive their increases. Does he agree that a sizeable group of pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives and put a little aside in savings or extra pension, still lose out, especially as their increases go to pay extra council tax, water charges or fuel bills? Will he join me in saying that we must all work together to ensure that the pension credit, when it is introduced next year, delivers to those pensioners and provides decency and dignity in their retirement?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend, like myself, represents a mining area and knows that many miners and widows on very small additional pensions are affected in the way that she describes. The pension credit will benefit about half the pensioner households in Scotland. Pensioner couples with incomes below £200 and single pensioners with incomes below £135 a week will benefit, and it will reward those with savings on low and modest incomes. We are the first Government ever to reward thrift in pensioners.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the Minister found time in his busy diary to read the recent MORI survey that reported that only slightly more than one in four people in Scotland were content with the Government's attempt to tackle pensioner poverty? Bearing in mind his links with Age Concern Scotland, which co-sponsored that survey, what is he doing to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that future Government policy tallies with Age Concern Scotland's requests?
    Mr. Foulkes: I also made time in my busy diary to vote against foxhunting last night, and the hon. Gentleman might have managed to do so, because, after all, he claims to be a Unionist. He is right to suggest that I used to work for Age Concern Scotland, and I know that pensioners in Scotland now feel better than they have ever done under any previous Government, which was shown very strongly when they voted in the last election to return a Labour Government with a majority almost as large as in 1997.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 January 2050,

    151
    he will be 108 years old? Would he care to contemplate PricewaterhouseCoopers' recent estimate that, in that year, the basic state pension will be worth 6 per cent. of average earnings? Does he think that a weekly income of less than £30 a week at today's prices is an adequate foundation on which to build future retirement incomes?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman will know that, on 4 July this year, I will have been married for 33 years—he was there in a very particular role on that occasion. He will know that with the basic pension, minimum income guarantee, winter fuel allowance and a range of other measures, and with the way in which we are tackling the problem of private pensions, the Government are taking every possible action to ensure that pensioners, including members of the Government who might soon be pensioners, are well off in future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has great concern about the implications for company pensions, about recent announcements, and especially FRS17, which I know will worry my hon. Friend. He has asked the Accounting Standards Board, which is independent of government, to consider these matters, which may be out of line with international accounting standards.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing pensioners' income has been the introduction of the £200 winter fuel allowance? Will he take steps to ensure that any pensioner aged over 60 in Scotland who has not yet claimed this year's allowance will be advised that he or she must do so before the end of March? We must ensure that everyone in Scotland benefits from this generous allowance.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. I ask everyone—colleagues, Opposition Members and the media—to publicise the fact that men who are over 60 and eligible for the allowance can still claim up to the end of this month—[Interruption.] No, I am not eligible, but almost.
    Winter fuel payments are paid in addition to the cold weather payments. The Scottish National party wants weekly payments, which we already provide. Last year, 945,000 Scots received cold weather payments. In addition, they received £200 in winter fuel allowance, at a cost of £8 million. They would receive much less in an independent Scotland.
    John Thurso: Would it surprise the Minister to know that at a recent gathering of pensioners in my constituency, 14 of the 22 present were not receiving their proper benefits or credits? Given that those numbers are probably replicated throughout Scotland, is it not time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ditched his complicated credits and gave pensioners the decent pension that they deserve?
    Mr. Foulkes: They are getting a decent pension and much more besides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board and let his constituents know. Members have a responsibility to spread this information. They must ensure that it appears in their local newspapers and make it known in their surgeries. They must talk to Age
    152
    Concern groups and pensioner groups. Labour Members are doing that and Opposition Members should do it as well.
    Mr. James Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the Government's policy to eradicate poverty, especially pensioner poverty? I am concerned that the latest statistic shows that four of the 10 worst areas in the United Kingdom are in Glasgow. Could we make an extra effort through the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament to do something about the problem?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are the first Government—the Scottish Executive support this—to commit ourselves to ending pensioner poverty and child poverty. It will take some time to achieve that after 18 years of Tory Government, but we are determined to do it.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am sure that we will not forget, but in case we do, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his wife on their wedding anniversary in July? Given the Government's ambition of increasing substantially the number of people who can to rely on private pensions, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of retired people on means-tested benefits will increase from 40 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. next year? How does he plan to encourage people to save for their retirement when the Government take £5 billion a year from pension funds and will not reform annuities? Is not the pension system in a crisis of the Government's own making?
    Mr. Foulkes: No. We keep being told about the £5 billion a year that is taken from pension funds and advance corporation tax. There were the exact equivalents in the reductions of ACT. We do not hear about that. The main problem with pension funds recently has been the fall in the stock market and FRS17, which I mentioned earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has taken action on FRS17. He has also set up the Pickering review, which will report by June or July 2002. We are therefore taking swift and effective action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to sort out the mess of the mis-selling of private pensions created by the previous Government.

    Europe
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What steps she will be taking to promote Scotland's interests in the future of Europe debate. [41516]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate. Indeed, the Spanish presidency of the European Union is organising a major seminar on that issue next month in Segovia, where I shall speak.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is taking part in that conference. As she is aware, one of the key issues facing Europe is enlargement. As she knows, enlargement will mean that more than 70 million

    153
    people will join the eurozone. Does she agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs are likely to suffer if more countries join the eurozone while the United Kingdom remains outside? Does she therefore agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs need more than ever an early decision on British membership of the single currency?
    Mrs. Liddell: Scottish business and Scottish jobs need to be certain that the economic conditions are right for Britain's membership of the single currency. We are the only Government ever to have said that we have no objection in principle to the single currency, but joining it must be within the context of meeting the five economic conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about enlargement, which may mean something like £175 million per annum coming to Scotland; however, that money will come to Scotland only if Scottish companies are prepared.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State identify for the House the precise benefits that will accrue to Scottish workers from the Prime Minister's new right-wing alliance with Silvio Berlusconi? Can she draw on her own experience to warn him of the dangers of becoming entangled with unscrupulous media tycoons?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the Prime Minister should have any contact with democratically elected Prime Ministers. Indeed, as well as working with the Italian Government—I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about that Government—the Government have worked with all the other 14 members of the European Union. Consequently, we now play a leading role in the European Union. As a direct result of the Government's policies on a flexible work force, increasing skills, and developing the knowledge economy, we have the lowest unemployment for more than a generation, more people in employment than for 40 years, the lowest interest rates and one of the most prosperous economies in Europe.
    What a big difference from what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—Britain as part of the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area. Under an independent Scotland, our partners would be Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that Scotland has a greater interest in European prosperity because we have a much greater proportion of trade with Europe than does the rest of the UK? Does she accept that if we consider joining the euro, we must ensure that we do so at the right rate? Joining at the present rate would lock in a degree of uncompetitiveness that would not serve us well in future. Does she accept that the devaluation that would be necessary if we changed the rates in the short term would cause inflation, which would be in no one's interest?
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government's policy on exchange rates is that they will fluctuate and find their own balance in the medium term, which is as it should be. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz); it is important that the five economic tests are met. A key issue is ensuring that we have a robust
    154
    place in the European Union and are able to withstand external shocks; I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was referring to that.
    The Government's logical position of prepare and decide is a lot more sensible than the position expounded by Baroness Thatcher, who said that we should never enter the European Union and, indeed, blamed everything that has ever gone wrong in Europe on our partners in continental Europe; her angle was narrow-minded, regressive and backward-looking.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a world of difference between promoting Scotland's interests and doing what she has been doing—trying to promote the interests of the Prime Minister? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wants a united states of Europe, with a single constitution, a single currency, a single foreign policy, a single economic policy and a euro-army? Is not that why Ministers are not standing up for Scotland against the rising tide of euro-federalism? Would not Scotland's interests be better served by a free market, flexible union of member states, to enable Scotland to retain its national identity and its own currency?
    Mrs. Liddell: Every time the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box, he displays his lack of knowledge about Scotland. Scotland benefits more than other parts of the European Union from our membership. A greater proportion of our exports goes to our European partners than goes to the United States of America, for example. We have benefited from the Government's policy of playing a leading role in Europe, rather than the previous Government's bonkers policy of trying to pretend that we could pull up the drawbridge on Europe. Businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are appalled by the attitude that the former leader of the Conservative party propounds in her most recent book. I urge him to come to the Dispatch Box and repudiate the views of Baroness Thatcher.
    Mr. John McFall: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will take no cognisance of the Conservative party, which wants to come out of Europe? That is the honest message that the Conservatives should be putting across. When she discusses the future of Europe in Spain next month, will she keep in mind the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the number of financial services jobs now exceeds 250,000? Apt financial regulation and EC directives are extremely important if the industry is to flourish in the future.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The financial services sector in Edinburgh is a major engine for growth in the Scottish economy. Last Thursday, representatives of the financial community met my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and me to discuss liberalisation and the completion of the single market in financial services. One of the great successes of the Barcelona summit was the movement towards completion of the single market in financial services. Already 25 measures have been approved; seven more are likely to be approved by the end of the year. Such measures are crucial to Scotland and represent a great opportunity for Scottish financial services. If we listen to the Conservative

    155
    party, we hear euroscepticism that is damaging to Scotland's best interests. If we listen to the nationalists, their policy is to take us out of the European Union, because two former eurocrats said that perhaps, if they were awfully good, an independent Scotland might get into the EU. That is backward looking and regressive. We speak about the real issues; they speak about separation.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on how the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will affect Scotland. [41514]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of matters.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that the Minister is appalled, as I am, that Scottish rail passengers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It says here."] It certainly does. I am sure that he is appalled that Scottish rail passengers are again being inconvenienced by strikes by the drivers. What action are he and his counterpart on the Scottish Executive taking to tell the unions that the strikes are out of order? If he does not take action, does he realise that the strikes will continue for two days a week until the end of the year? Can he tell me what part he played in the £34 million handout?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are concerned at the way that the Scottish travelling public will be inconvenienced—and have been inconvenienced—by the strikes. Our first concern is for the Scottish passengers. Both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive believe that the operators and the trade union representatives should get back round the table as quickly as possible to resolve the dispute. I take the opportunity today to call on the management and the unions to resolve the matter through negotiation as soon as possible.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Last week, at a meeting with the leader of East Lothian council, the chief executive of Great North Eastern railway confirmed that the company still wants to build a new Edinburgh Parkway station at Musselburgh. Does he agree that such a station will encourage more people to travel to London by rail rather than by air, which itself would be a good thing, and provide a better service for commuters into Edinburgh, which would lead to more people travelling by rail to Edinburgh, which would also be a good thing? Will my hon. Friend give such a station his full support?
    Mr. Foulkes: The SRA wants to encourage more people to use the railways and a 50 per cent. increase in passenger kilometres is envisaged. My right hon. Friend will know that the £400 million redevelopment of Waverley station is included, and he will welcome that. I shall certainly take on board his specific suggestion, discuss it with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Scottish Executive and write to him in due course.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the unions have announced another 11 days of strikes against commuters
    156
    in Scotland, will the Minister take any action or will he just talk about taking action? What plans does he have in his busy diary to champion the commuters and stop that disruption to the wealth-creating community in Scotland where growth is still below trend?
    Mr. Foulkes: I thought that I answered that in reply to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). Unlike the hon. Lady, I am a regular user of trains—trains in Scotland and to and from Scotland—so I understand the concerns. I even travel to Tynecastle by train occasionally, and very fruitful it has been recently. What I said earlier is important. We do not want to interfere. Interfering Governments can create more problems. I suggested earlier that negotiations round the table between the unions and the management should take place as quickly as possible to resolve the matter and, once again, I repeat that that is what should happen.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998. [41539]
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [41540]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998. [41542]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 12 February, 36 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, and 17 of those concerned questions of delay in criminal proceedings in relation to article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights. Last week, I argued a case in the High Court of Justiciary over four days, which may help to resolve some of the difficulties in devolution cases based on delay.
    Annabelle Ewing: I draw the Advocate-General's attention to another important devolution issue that was raised in the House a couple of weeks ago and in the Scottish Parliament last week, and that concerns the important issue of planning consent for new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will she take this opportunity to clarify the matter once and for all and to agree with her colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport, who, on 14 March in the Scottish Parliament, said that the final decision lay with the Scottish Parliament and that there

    157
    could be no question of Westminster reclaiming jurisdiction on the matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament?
    The Advocate-General: I do not think that the hon. Lady fully understands my role, despite my best efforts. My role is to consider devolution issues when they are intimated to me and, in due course, if a devolution issue is intimated to me on that matter I shall certainly consider it, but I am not here to give answers to hypothetical questions in relation to legislation that does not yet exist.
    Mr. Dalyell: What advice does the Advocate-General have as to the proper authority to address the concerns of my former constituent, ex-Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, about the alleged suppression of police evidence in relation to Lockerbie?
    The Advocate-General: I am certainly aware of my hon. Friend's long interest in these matters and I am sure that he will make his usual strenuous efforts on behalf of his former constituent but, as he knows, these matters are devolved. The matter is for the Scottish Executive under the Scotland Act 1998 and he should direct all inquiries to them.
    Miss McIntosh: With regard to the vexed issue of who will have the final say on planning future nuclear power stations, the Advocate-General will understand that the particular problem is who will have the last word. Is it an energy problem, and will it be the Department in London, or is it a planning problem, and will it be the Scottish Minister?
    The Advocate-General: The hon. Lady must understand that that depends entirely on how the legislation is framed and the form in which it comes. The legislation can be framed in a variety of ways, and if and when it is passed by the Scottish Parliament—or if it comes to me in my role as Advocate-General—I shall deal with it.

    Inland Revenue
    Sir Robert Smith: How many cases she has been asked to pursue by the Inland Revenue; and how many she has pursued. [41541]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There has been provision in legislation since 1857 to the effect that proceedings in the Court of Session raised by the Inland Revenue shall be in the name of the appropriate Law Officer. Following devolution, the Advocate-General became the appropriate Law Officer. The Advocate-General has no responsibility for raising or conducting proceedings. That responsibility, along with all policy decisions, remains with the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Proceedings are instructed or conducted by the office of the solicitor to the Inland Revenue, and, since May 1999, more than 1,300 Inland Revenue actions have been dealt with, as I have just explained.
    Sir Robert Smith: I am disappointed to hear that there does not seem to be discretion as to whether to take those
    158
    actions forward. Perhaps the Advocate-General will consider whether, once legal advice has been sought, some actions should not be pursued on the grounds that there may have been a genuine mistake. In particular, will she consider whether a growing number of cases are having to be pursued because of the complexity of the tax system? Perhaps she will encourage the Chancellor to consider simplifying the tax system, especially in the light of self-assessment.
    The Advocate-General: As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, policy matters and the conduct of litigation in Inland Revenue cases are not matters for me as Advocate-General. In my role as a constituency Member, however, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Lay Magistrates
    Simon Hughes: How many serving lay magistrates there were in (a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c) 2001; and how many are expected to be serving in 2003. [41544]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): In 1979 there were 24,021 magistrates; in 1987 there were 27,926 magistrates; and in 2001 there were 28,735 magistrates. It is impossible to say how many magistrates will be serving in 2003. I would expect that there will be more or less the same number as were serving in 2001, but the number appointed and the numbers leaving the magistracy fluctuates inevitably from year to year.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that the figures show that there was growth in the number of lay magistrates every year from 1979 to 1997, but, that since 1997, there has been a considerable net reduction? Indeed, there are now fewer magistrates than there were 10 years ago. Is it Government policy that more lay people should be encouraged to be lay magistrates taking part in the criminal justice system in that way? If so, why have the numbers tailed off in the last five years of the Labour Government? What will the Government do to make sure that the numbers get back on the upward trend that they were following in each year of the predecessor Government?
    Mr. Wills: The Government's policy is to have adequate numbers of people joining the lay magistracy. We feel that that is currently the case, although, inevitably, numbers fluctuate. The important point lying behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that we want people to continue to apply to become lay magistrates, as they play a very important part in our system of justice. We are making considerable efforts not only to encourage more people to apply but to ensure that we have a proper range of diversity, in terms of class and ethnic composition. We are doing pretty well on gender at the moment, but we need to drive our efforts forward. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committees are doing a

    159
    splendid job at the moment, but we will shortly announce a national recruitment strategy to keep the pressure up and to make sure that we get the magistrates that we deserve.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Minister feel that the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are succeeding in their efforts to try to make magistrates benches more representative of the areas in which they serve? Does he feel that there are sufficient numbers of working people in many areas on magistrates benches? Is the work load of magistrates increasing and becoming impossible to manage?
    Mr. Wills: I shall take my hon. Friend's questions in sequence. We are having considerable success. I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees in broadening the diversity of the magistrates bench. To give one example, 9.3 per cent. of magistrates recruited last year were from ethnic minorities. The proportion is therefore increasing, and we are having considerable success. There are not enough people from as wide a social class base as we would wish, and we need to do better on that, too. The work load of magistrates has not been increasing unduly, and there is no evidence that that is a disincentive to people joining the bench.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that there was a degree of complacency in the way in which he has addressed this question? After all, there has been a sharp drop in the number of lay magistrates—down by 5.2 per cent. between January 2000 and April 2001. As he tacitly admitted, under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the number of justices of the peace increased. Despite what the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions last week, does the Minister accept that the sharp drop in the number of magistrates—together with the recent admission by the Lord Chancellor that the number of criminals brought to justice last year fell by 80,000—is the primary reason why more and more criminals are getting away scot-free? The Government have flaunted their manifesto commitment in this respect.
    Mr. Wills: It is extremely unwise of the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the previous Conservative Government's record. Under them, crime doubled and the system of criminal justice came very close to collapse, not least because they invested nothing like the funds that need to be invested. We are now investing them.
    However, to pass on from the Conservative party's record in government—I would have thought there is nothing that the hon. Gentleman would like to remind anyone about—I shall now give him the good news about what we are doing. There is no complacency in any area, so he was obviously not listening to what I said. Let me tell him some of the things that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees are doing to make sure that adequate numbers of people come into the lay magistracy and that they are from the diverse backgrounds that we require. The committees are advertising and putting articles in local newspapers, they are targeting leaflet drops, they are holding open days in courts, they are putting poster displays in public places, they are talking to local groups and employers and they are establishing many contacts with local organisations. That shows no complacency, but a determination to make sure that we get the lay
    160
    magistracy that we deserve. I very much hope that, instead of criticising the efforts, the hon. Gentleman will support them.

    Witness Allowance Act
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will review the provisions of the witness allowance Act to ensure that those appearing as witnesses are not out of pocket. [41545]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): There is no single witness allowance Act. Allowances are set in various regulations and are paid to non-expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases. Financial loss allowances, which are reviewed annually, are set payments whose size depends on the time that a witness spends at court. The current levels are calculated to ensure that those with average earnings or less should not be out of pocket. Travel and subsistence are paid separately.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but wish to point out that being a witness can he both stressful and time consuming. People are also sometimes left out of pocket. When she reviews the payments, will she undertake to consider the other measures that could be taken to make the whole process a much less stressful experience, especially for those witnesses who are particularly vulnerable?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, about which we have been concerned. We have introduced a number of changes, such as video links and witness liaison officers. The Crown court in Bristol is already up and running with a witness support centre and it is using the new pager system, so that witnesses do not have to wait around court for hours on end. Such measures will particularly help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
    Tony Wright: We know that we have a long-standing problem about providing proper support and facilities for witnesses and particularly in trying to ensure that the physical structure of the courts provides proper places for witnesses to go and to be supported. Will my hon. Friend say something about progress on that front?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Such important facilities should be available, in particular for family cases. We are making progress in all courts to ensure that proper facilities are available, including witness support centres, and that there are also facilities for the separation of witnesses when that is necessary.

    Queen's Counsel
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on progress with the Office of Fair Trading report with reference to the Queen's counsel system. [41546]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The appointment of Queen's counsel is one of a number of issues relating to

    161
    the legal profession raised in the OFT report that fall to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider. We will consult shortly on the issues raised.
    Mr. Dismore>: I remind my hon. Friend that the OFT report questioned
    "whether…it was right for the Government to have responsibility for conferring on selected practitioners…a title that manifestly enhances their earning power and competitive position",
    stated:
    "There remain concerns…that there is no continuous quality appraisal…inadequate peer review…and…no professional examinations",
    and concluded:
    "it is questionable what the value of the system is to consumers."
    We do not have Queen's plumbers, Queen's electricians, or even Queen's metalworkers. How can there be any justification for the anti-competitive, price-rigging cartel which is the Queen's counsel system? My hon. Friend promised the consultation many months ago, but nothing has happened. It is about time we had some action to end that appalling practice.
    Mr. Wills: As always, my hon. Friend states his views with great eloquence and force. As he is well aware, those matters raise complex issues of law, which have taken time to consider. We will make an announcement shortly about the process of consultation on action in respect of those matters.

    Judges
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What initiatives are being pursued to improve the rate of recruitment of judges to the High Court bench; and if he will make a statement. [41547]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that he continues to be able to appoint practitioners and circuit judges of the highest quality to the High Court bench. The Government have decided to accept the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendation that the salaries of High Court judges be increased by 8 per cent. over two years. That recognises the importance of maintaining the high quality of appointments to the High Court bench. The increase is in addition to a wide range of other initiatives, including the creation of a commission for judicial appointments.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is an increasing body of opinion that many able candidates are not putting in for appointment at the present time because of the package available to those on the High Court bench. I appreciate that salary is not the only issue, but there is now a huge gulf between the earnings of senior silks and those of those on the High Court bench, which might in future undermine the quality of appointments made.
    Mr. Wills: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but as he acknowledges salary has never been a factor deterring people from taking up an appointment to the High Court bench. Those who have refused appointment
    162
    in the past three years have cited lifestyle and family reasons. Judges being appointed earlier in life—in their 40s—but having families rather later in life may provide reasons to decline the Lord Chancellor's offer. It has long been the case that those in practice at the senior Bar take a significant drop in income if they decide to undertake public service by going on to the High Court bench, but there is no shortage of candidates: 52 practitioners and seven circuit judges applied for appointment in 2000, and of those 25 were determined to be appointable.

    Lord Chancellor
    Vera Baird: Whether the Lord Chancellor intends to continue sitting as a judge; and if he will make a statement. [41548]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): It is important to the Lord Chancellor's role as head of the judiciary that he should sit from time to time on appeals, as all previous Lord Chancellors have done. In deciding whether he is eligible to sit on an appeal, the Lord Chancellor is guided by the same principles as apply to all judges.
    Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but since there are—rightly or wrongly—concerns, especially since the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed, about the Lord Chancellor's position as both a judge in the House of Lords and a senior Cabinet Minister, and since there is not a single woman in the House of Lords judiciary, would he not be praised far and wide if he announced that he would not sit again and appointed a women judge to fill the gap?
    Ms Winterton: The Government believe strongly that the Lord Chancellor's combined role as head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet is important to maintaining the independence of the judiciary. As I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware, the Lord Chancellor is hardly the retiring type, nor is it up to him to nominate his successor, but I am sure that he will make careful note of her application.

    Criminal Sentencing
    Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on how judges and magistrates are trained in the comparative efficacy of criminal sentencing. [41550]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, which is an independent and non-departmental public body that also supervises the training of magistrates.
    All newly appointed recorders and deputy district judges are required to attend a residential induction course before they commence sitting, and to visit the probation service and a prison. Thereafter, every three years both judges and recorders attend residential continuation seminars, which cover both sentencing policy and practice. They also attend sentencing seminars, which are run by their presiding judges.

    163
    Magistrates are trained by their legal advisers in their local courts, and they receive guidance on sentencing from the Magistrates Association.
    Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that magistrates, in particular, do not receive sufficient detailed information on the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, which is perhaps reflected in the disproportionate number of custodial sentences handed down by magistrates courts? Will he therefore look into the matter further and try to increase the number of non-custodial sentences imposed by magistrates courts?
    Mr. Wills: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are constantly looking at the best way to achieve efficacy in sentencing. He will be well aware of the recommendations of the Halliday report. They are still under consideration, and the Government will announce their decision shortly.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    House of Lords Reform
    Fiona Mactaggart: What recent discussions he has had on reform of the House of Lords. [41558]
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on responses received to the Government's public consultation on reform of the House of Lords. [41564]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government are giving careful consideration to the responses to their consultation paper. More than 1,000 were received, and the Lord Chancellor has promised that we will publish them.
    I also welcome the Public Administration Committee's thoughtful contribution to the debate, which has proved that it is possible to find a centre of gravity on the composition of reform among those who want a reformed second Chamber.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what discussions—if any—have taken place between Cabinet Ministers since the conclusion of the consultation process? What work is under way to produce within seven weeks a response to the Public Administration Committee's report, and to produce plans for reform of the House of Lords that are acceptable to this House? In a recent speech, the Prime Minister described that as a necessary part of the "third phase" of new Labour.
    Mr. Cook: Like my hon. Friend, I read that speech with great care, and I was encouraged by its commitment to House of Lords reform as part of the Government's "third phase". She asks whether members of the Government have discussed this issue, and I can assure her that there are constant discussions between us. I have
    164
    no doubt that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering when it will be appropriate to bring us together to consider the responses formally.
    We have undertaken that we will respond to the Public Administration Committee's report within the normal two-month period. I hope that we can indeed do so, but I ask the House to bear it in mind that that period includes three weeks in which the House is in recess.
    Mr. Bryant: It is interesting to learn from my right hon. Friend how many people have replied to the consultation exercise, but it would be particularly interesting to know how many of those respondents prefer an elected element to the second Chamber, especially bearing it in mind that almost half the Members of this House signed an early-day motion calling for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber. We should also remember that, in giving evidence to the Public Administration Committee, the Lord Chancellor said that a majority of Members oppose a large elected element.
    Mr. Cook: A number of Members of Parliament and peers responded to the White Paper, and their views are on the record. As I said, we will publish the responses in full in due course, so the House will understand if I do not go into them in detail. However, my hon. Friend asked me a direct question, and I would be misleading the House if I did not say that the overwhelming majority of respondents favour a substantially elected second Chamber.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House consider that the outcome of this evening's vote on hunting in the other place could affect the time scale for House of Lords reform? Have the discussions to which he referred dealt with the way in which the Parliament Act could be employed in such circumstances?
    Mr. Cook: I was rather hoping that our questions might provide a 15-minute interlude in the debate on hunting. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no—I cannot see that that has any bearing on the timetable for House of Lords reform.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does not the right hon. Gentleman face a real dilemma, in that a majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, of the Opposition parties, of the Public Administration Committee and of the public want a largely elected second Chamber, but just one man—the Prime Minister—wants to sustain a House of cronies? Will the right hon. Gentleman properly represent the views that exist in the House by going to Downing street this week and telling the Prime Minister that he has got it wrong on this issue, and that he should back down? Or is he afraid that, if he did that, he might be sent to the other place?
    Mr. Cook: I entertain no such apprehensions. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read with more care, as I am sure that he would wish to, the speeches my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They are always rewarding, and frequently inspiring. In my right hon. Friend's most recent speech, he will find a very clear commitment to reform.

    165
    If a dilemma exists in the House, it rests with the Opposition. How on earth do they square their commitment to having an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber with a lifetime opposition to having any elected Members of that Chamber?
    David Taylor: Should not House of Lords reform aim to give future Members of that House a greater spirit of independence? Would not measures such as long, non-renewable terms, the exclusion of Ministers and the development of an investigative rather than legislative role weaken the grip of Whips, and reduce the often malign influence that they exert, in this House and elsewhere?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot hold out any prospect of a second Chamber without Whips, but my hon. Friend touches on what I think is a broad consensus in the debate—that the purpose of the second Chamber should be to revise, deliberate and advise, and not to usurp the role of the first Chamber. That is why it is important that we get the balance right: the second Chamber must be legitimate, in that it represents the British people, but it must not compete with this House in terms of the democratic mandate.
    Joyce Quin: What is my right hon. Friend's definition of the phrase "in due course" in relation to the response to the consultation? Does he agree that the experience with appointed second Chambers in other countries is that they are as likely as elected second Chambers to flex their muscles and disagree with their lower Houses? Might not the debate taking place in the other House today be a further illustration of that?
    Mr. Cook: I do not want to predict the outcome of today's debate in the other place, although I shall follow it with close interest. My right hon. Friend asks about the definition of "in due course", but the House should bear in mind that—quite rightly and properly—we delayed the end of the consultation period so that we could take account of the report from the Select Committee on Public Administration. We have committed ourselves to responding to that report in the course of April. I think that it would be sensible to publish the responses in the same period.

    Select Committees
    Vera Baird: What plans he has to pursue the reform of Select Committees. [415591]
    David Cairns: What plans he has for implementing reform of the Select Committee system. [41560]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Modernisation Committee published last month its proposals to strengthen the Select Committees, including a more independent and impartial system of nomination to the Select Committees, more specialist staff to support them, and a larger Committee size to enable more members to take part in scrutiny.
    166
    I warmly welcome today's report on our proposals from the Liaison Committee. It concludes that the Committee can support "most of the proposals", and welcomes our statement of core tasks as a valuable contribution to improving the focus of Committee work. Good scrutiny makes for good Government, and I believe that the House is on course for better scrutiny through stronger Committees.
    Vera Baird: Given my right hon. Friend's view that good scrutiny makes for good Government, and that Select Committees are the most developed vehicle for scrutiny, will he do his best to ensure that, in future, Bills are produced in draft in sufficient time to allow thorough scrutiny before they are brought to this Chamber for Second Reading?
    Mr. Cook: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's proposal, and with the thrust of her question. I have said repeatedly to the House that, if we want the House of Commons to shape legislation, it is important that it and its Members have an opportunity to intervene early, when a Bill is still in draft form. It will take time to achieve the objective of making pre-legislative scrutiny the norm and the routine for most Bills, but I hope that we will produce more draft Bills in the course of this Session than was the case in the previous Session, and that we continue to increase the number in the next Session.
    David Cairns: I begin by declaring an interest to my right hon. Friend. Under the current system of appointing Select Committee members, and despite my best endeavours, I have been completely unsuccessful in getting on to one, so I welcome any reform.
    I warmly welcome the plans described by my right hon. Friend to strengthen the role of Select Committees. Does he agree that if that reform is to be successful it must be funded reform, and that if Committees are to be given more tasks, especially in scrutinising legislation, they will require more in the way of clerking and expert advice? What plans does he have to ensure that Select Committee reform will be accompanied by an increase in resources?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the proposal to increase the size of the membership of Select Committees, which will allow another 50 Members to join them. I hope that his ambition will thereby be fulfilled when the report is accepted.
    On resources, we have proposed that specialist staff should be appointed, especially to help Committees with financial scrutiny. I am grateful to the National Audit Office for its willingness to second staff to carry out that role. In return, we ask Select Committees to apply more discipline and consistency in the way in which they tackle financial scrutiny.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Has the Leader of the House noted—I am sure that he has—the strong view expressed by the Liaison Committee that all Select Committees should get more involved in Departments' estimates? Has he further noted the willingness of the National Audit Office to get involved in the work of advising Committees? Does he agree that Parliament built

    167
    up its powers on the basis of financial scrutiny and that there is much more that Select Committees can do to hold the Executive to account on financial matters?
    Mr. Cook: Yes, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for welcoming our proposals on providing staff. I referred to the National Audit Office; its offer is very helpful. If the Select Committee system is to be successful in carrying out the high-quality standards of scrutiny that we all desire, it must be able to tackle financial estimates and to look at outturns at the end of the financial year.
    Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House is correct that the Liaison Committee broadly supported the proposals by the Modernisation Committee, but does he accept that one suggestion that did not command support from the majority of its members was that the number of Select Committees should be substantially increased, and that many Chairmen and members of Committees take the view that the present number of Committees is an optimum number that enables effective scrutiny and effective participation in the work of Committees?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not get a 100 per cent. score, but in his press release the Chairman of the Liaison Committee described the reports as excellent, and I shall happily settle for that as a pass mark.
    The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) say that he and many others are excluded from participation in Select Committees. I do not think that a Committee of 15 members, which is after all the size of the Modernisation Committee, should preclude us from reaching consensus.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Before 1997, I served for eight years on the Select Committee on European Legislation—now European Scrutiny—which scrutinises European Union matters and does valuable work for the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that its authority should be extended so that it can deal with individual nations in the European Union—taking that brief away from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—and its work can be much more substantial as regards dealing with matters that go beyond procedural issues and are concerned with the entire politics of the European Union?
    Mr. Cook: I got myself into some hot water with the Foreign Affairs Committee last July, and I would not wish to repeat the experience. However, my hon. Friend is right
    168
    that we need to consider how we scrutinise European policy and regulations. I am looking forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on that issue, and I give hon. Members an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at ways in which the House can improve its scrutiny of European affairs.

    Legislation (Programming)
    Mr. Graham Brady: What assessment he has made of the implications for legislative scrutiny of the experimental arrangements for programming of legislation. [41561]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am delighted that anticipation of my answer to the question seems to have filled the Conservative Benches. When hon. Members from all parties have worked together constructively, I believe that programming has achieved its objective of providing a more robust framework for scrutiny of legislation.
    Mr. Brady: Does the Parliamentary Secretary share my concern that under the new programming arrangements, Committees are all too often denied the opportunity properly to scrutinise legislation, especially through the operation of what have become known as knives, used by Government Whips? Are not important aspects of legislation undebated by hon. Members? The Education Bill, which has gone to the House of Lords, included powers for the Secretary of State to form companies, powers for school governors, provisions for forming federations of schools and for admissions, exclusions and attendance. All were undebated by the House of Commons and we now have to depend on another place to do our job for us. Is not that regrettable?
    Mr. Twigg: We shall, of course, keep the progress of programming under review. Flexibility is built into the programming regime. For example, an additional day was provided for discussion of the Education Bill on Report. Programming can benefit all hon. Members, but the Opposition have a choice about whether they want to use it for delay and obstruction or for genuine scrutiny and debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the memo that the shadow Leader of the House sent last September. It stated:
    "We should be more discriminating in targeting Bills in Standing Committee, putting 'A' teams on the bigger … Bills to ensure searching scrutiny, testing out Ministers, and that the Bill cannot he completed in the allocated time, thus passing it to the Lords imperfectly scrutinised."
    The Opposition have a choice about how to handle their tactics. Better programming gives an opportunity for better scrutiny, better debate and therefore better law.

Afghanistan
3.31 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the war in Afghanistan.
Yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the deployment of a British battle group of 1,700 soldiers for combat operations came as a surprise and represented a major escalation of British combat operations in Afghanistan. It was inevitable that yesterday's exchanges only touched on some issues, such as complications arising from the split chain of command, the intended length of 45 Commando's tour and the fact that it is unusual to deploy such a large force in combat operations without dedicated air support. The House is entitled to discuss such urgent matters fully before 45 Commando is deployed; it will already be deployed by the time we return from the Easter recess on 9 April. The subject cannot wait until after Easter.
Yesterday's statement also compounded the uncertainties that surround the future of the peacekeeping force under British command. On 10 January, the Government led the House to believe that Turkey had made a firm offer to take over the leadership of the international security assistance force. We expected the Turkish Prime Minister to confirm that at 4 pm our time yesterday, but no announcement was made and the question continues to hang in the balance.
The matter is also urgent because by the time we return from the Easter recess Turkey may have refused to lead ISAF. The House has had no opportunity to discuss that eventuality. We should hold such a discussion before decisions are made in our absence.
Moreover, yesterday I asked about the financial contribution that Britain is being asked to make to support Turkey's leadership. I understand that Turkey is now demanding $300 million for a six-month operation to be funded by the United States and the United Kingdom alone. If ISAF's mandate is to be extended, we should discuss it before it is a fait accompli. The Government should account to the House before entering into any unforeseen financial commitment on our behalf.
Let there be no doubt that we shall continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in the war against terrorism. As I said yesterday, we support the decision to accede to the US request for 45 Commando. However, that does not absolve the House of its obligation to debate all the urgent issues. We have only four sitting days before we rise for the Easter recess. Without such a debate, we shall fail in our duty to hold the Government to account.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely the war in Afghanistan. I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under the Standing Order.
The leave of the House leaving been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have to draw your attention to one more case of Parliament being bypassed on a very serious matter.
Yesterday afternoon, there was a break-in at Castlereagh police station in Belfast. A number of people broke into the Special Branch office and subsequently made good their escape. It is not known what they took, or what information they obtained, but it will be clear to the House that any breach of the security of special branch, particularly in Northern Ireland, is an extremely sensitive matter. The information held by special branch, and the identity of the people who may have made that information available, is crucial to policing operations.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said this afternoon that the operations of Special Branch are
"crucial not only for the safety of people in Northern Ireland but for national security more generally."
The trouble is that he made that statement not here in the House but to the press. He has answered questions from the press, but he has not made himself available to answer questions in the House.
This is not the first time that I, or other colleagues, have had to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, abuses of this kind by this Government over the last few months. Under the powers available to you, can you do anything to bring home to the Government their responsibilities to Parliament? Given that I cannot see on tomorrow's Order Paper any question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that would provide the opportunity for us even briefly and superficially to get to grips with this serious matter, can you do anything to give Members a chance to ask vital questions about the unfortunate situation following the break-in?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will therefore be aware of his concerns.
Lady Hermon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I bring to the House's attention the fact that the break-in at special branch's office at Castlereagh occurred on Sunday evening, not yesterday? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in America at the time, and returned only this morning. In the interim, there has been extreme speculation about the origins of those who committed the break-in. The Secretary of State spoke to the Chief Constable this morning—it was the right thing to do in the circumstances—and ordered that a review be conducted in conjunction with the criminal investigation that had already been ordered by the Chief Constable.
In his press interview, the right hon. Gentleman declined to give details of the break-in, saying:
"I think you will understand that I may have to make further details available to Parliament."

171
He will have an opportunity to do so at Question Time tomorrow, and I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that would be an appropriate time for him to address what he has acknowledged to be a very serious breach of national security.
Mr. Speaker: I heard what the hon. Lady had to say, and it is not a matter for the Chair. Once again, however, I am sure that the Secretary of State will take note of the concerns that have been expressed.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that this break-in represents a catastrophic failure of security. It is not an everyday occurrence, or one of those ordinary run-of-the-mill situations in Northern Ireland that we have learned to live with over the past 30 years. It is a total failure of security in the most sensitive area of Government policy in Northern Ireland.
I understand your situation exactly, Mr. Speaker, but would it not be possible for you to issue—even in the most veiled terms—a direction to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss the matter when he comes to the House tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The best thing I can say is that, obviously, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will involve himself in a full investigation. I am sure that when it has been completed he will come to the House.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are entering into a debate about this matter. There is not much more that I can say about it.
Mr. Gale: The issue directly concerns your own powers, Mr. Speaker, and the defence of the privileges of Back Benchers.
It is clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has sheltered behind the opportunity to make a statement to the House. Surely it is open to you, as Speaker and as defender of Back-Bench privilege, to say to the Secretary of State that the opportunity is available to him to come to the House tomorrow and make the statement that he has already indicated to the press he is willing to make.
Mr. Speaker: There is no evidence that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has shown the House any discourtesy. I repeat that he will endeavour to be involved in a full investigation, and I am sure that he will come to the House. I think that the matter is now best left alone.

Age Discrimination
3.41 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on grounds of age in connection with employment or the provision of goods; to establish an Age Equality Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting age equality generally; and for connected purposes.
We have a caste system in this country. It is not a caste system based on race, creed or class; but on age.
Ageism is rife in our country. Ageist assumptions lead employers to cast thousands of people on the scrapheap, and to ignore the pool of talented over-50s. Ageist attitudes lead to arbitrary rationing of access to care on the basis of a person's age rather than a personal assessment.
There is no such thing as a typical older person, and age is a poor proxy for ability. My Bill is intended to confront this ageist mindset head-on.
A poll conducted for Age Concern and published earlier this year found that 70 per cent. of our fellow citizens believe that age discrimination occurs in this country. The same poll found that 65 per cent. believe it is time Parliament legislated to make discrimination on the ground of age illegal.
Quite apart from any moral case for anti-discrimination legislation, there is a powerful economic case. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that age discrimination costs UK plc £31 billion a year. At present one in three people between 50 and state-pension age are out of work—2.8 million. Only a minority of those affected have made early retirement a lifestyle choice. Almost half depend on benefits for most of their income.
Help the Aged recently published the results of a survey of employers. In the case of half the companies surveyed, fewer than 10 per cent. of employees were over 50, and one in 10 employed no one over that age. That is not surprising given that, according to research by the Institute of Employment Rights, more than 50 per cent. of managers admit that they have used age-based criteria for recruitment purposes. The Government's own research reveals that for every £100 spent by companies on training, just £10 is spent on training older workers.
Over the past five years, the Government's response to ageism—particularly in employment—has been to promote a voluntary code of practice to extol the virtue of change, but not to extend the right to protection against discrimination. The code has not worked: it has had little or no impact on employers. Research by the Employers Forum on Age reveals that just one in four know of its existence.
When we delved further, we discovered that employers do not understand the code. Half of them thought that it deals with age limits in advertisements; five per cent. thought that it is about fast-tracking younger workers; and 30 per cent. had no idea what it covers.
In four years' time, the Government will be obliged by the EU directive on equal treatment in employment to introduce age discrimination legislation. Four more years is a long time to wait for legislation that is already long overdue. Legislating now on age discrimination would provide the necessary time and space for a body of

173
practice, case law and expertise to develop. Delay runs the risk that age discrimination will always be the poor relation of discrimination.
My Bill addresses ageism not just in the labour market but in the provision of goods and services. Last year, the Government published the national service framework for older people, which aims to tackle age bars in health and social care, but a King's Fund survey of health and social care managers found them ill-equipped to implement the fine words of the framework.
The use of upper age limits across a range of health and social care services is well documented. Most recently, Help the Aged has compiled a comprehensive picture of age discrimination cutting across public policy.
In January, the King's Fund report, "Old Habits Die Hard: Tackling age discrimination in health and social care", reported that three out of four senior health and social care managers believe that age discrimination exists in their local services. Those include policies that restrict access to units, facilities and treatment by setting upper or lower age limits. For example, in several areas specialist rehabilitation services for patients with brain injuries focus on return to work and so have an age restriction of 65. Those findings led the King's Fund to call for age discrimination legislation.
I do not pretend that legislation by itself will make discrimination go away, but it will give public and private service managers the incentive and the leverage to make meaningful changes in their organisations. It may even stop us trying to get care of the elderly on the cheap. The fact that we pay so much less for residential care for the elderly compared with other age groups is itself discrimination—it should not take a Rose Cotter presenting a petition to Downing street to tell us that.
174
Legislation will send a signal. Lessons from abroad suggest that legislation has a positive effect on the employment rates of older workers. However, age discrimination legislation will only be as effective as the way it is enforced. That is why the Bill also proposes an age equality commission with powers to conduct research and issue promotional material, to carry out formal investigations of individual or group complaints and to issue compliance notices and back them up with judicial orders if compliance does not take place.
Since 1997, 15 attempts have been made to put age discrimination legislation on the statute book; all have foundered or been blocked. Today, 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 EU directives and recommendations make up the body of UK anti-discrimination law. Age barely gets a mention.
Ageism is economic madness—it is costing this country a fortune. Age is a very poor indicator of a person's competence or ability to contribute. It is time that the House put age at the centre of our discrimination law. I urge the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Burstow, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Roger Berry, Andrew Selous, Hywel Williams, Mr. A.J. Beith, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Steve Webb and Dr. Evan Harris.

AGE DISCRIMINATION
Paul Burstow accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on grounds of age in connection with employment or the provision of goods; to establish an Age Equality Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting age equality generally; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 113].
Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Education and Skills Training
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the mounting crisis in education; regrets that unauthorised absences from secondary schools are rising, and that examination standards in mathematics fell last year among 11-year-olds; further notes that morale among teachers has fallen so low that three teaching unions are currently engaged in industrial action, including an unprecedented ballot on industrial action among head teachers; regrets the early departure from the teaching profession of so many qualified teachers; notes that teachers themselves blame the excessive workload caused by Government interference for many of these early departures; condemns the Government for its lack of support for teachers seeking to cope with disciplinary problems in schools; asks the Government to explain fully the precipitate ending of Education Action Zones; calls on the Government to restore confidence in the examination board system after the various fiascos faced by Edexcel; notes that morale among university teachers and students is also low because of funding problems; further condemns the way decent training providers, including FE colleges, were let down by the failure of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs); and calls on the Government to make an immediate announcement about how it intends to help those affected by the ILA collapse, and what scheme it proposes to replace ILAs.
  This Government are energetic at peddling myths. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Government that they never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of education. Relentlessly, the Secretary of State rushes out press releases announcing how our schools are prospering as never before; how teachers gladly welcome each new day and each new initiative; how head teachers open their post each morning, thrilled by the prospect of another 100 pages of guidance about how to do their jobs; how students and university teachers are grateful for the decisive way in which the Government are dealing with higher education funding; and how training providers and their customers were so impressed by ILAs that the whole system had to be closed down because it was so successful.
  The myth is polished every day, and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the fact that the central core of her Department—the press office—still functions, unlike in some other Departments. So the polish goes on but, sadly for the Government, the truth is beginning to emerge from beneath the polish. Five years in, the real failures cannot be disguised any longer. When parents see teachers on strike for the first time in 20 years; when they see head teachers threatening industrial action for the first time since state education was introduced; when they notice that teachers are leaving the profession earlier and faster than ever before; and when they see that initiatives
  176
  such as education action zones are introduced one year and ditched the next, they know that the crisis is getting worse, and they know who is responsible.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman talks about five years on. In 1997, there were 1,100 infant children in Warwickshire in classes of over 30. Today there are none. Is that a myth?
  Mr. Green: We are talking about standards—[Interruption.] The Government may not find standards important, but many of us do.
  The Department's problems stem from four distinct causes: broken promises, weakness, policy failures and sheer Government incompetence. Let me deal with these in reverse order. It is plain incompetence on the part of the Government to say that they want to relieve teachers of unnecessary red tape and then continue tying teachers up in it.
  The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) talks about facts and figures. Let us look at the facts, as revealed in a series of written answers to me from the Minister for School Standards. I asked for monthly totals of the paperwork sent to schools by the Department. Last April, documents 853 pages long were sent to every primary school in the country. Let us assume that a conscientious head teacher takes two minutes to read each page. That means that those documents would take over 28 hours just to read. That is three and a half normal working days for each head teacher, even before any action is taken on the basis of the documents.
  April may have been the cruellest month for head teachers, but others were nearly as bad. Last December, secondary schools received 510 pages of wisdom from the Department: probably not the most helpful early Christmas present any school received. Even in September—which most people involved in education, although not, apparently, the Department, recognise is rather a busy time, at the start of the school year—primary school heads had to cope with 402 pages and secondary heads 388 pages; over one and a half working days per head teacher to read these alone.
  The full magnitude of the Government's imposition on schools is revealed by a simple addition exercise. If we add all the documents sent between April last year and February this year—the last date for which the Government will give me answers—we find that there were 4,333 pages for head teachers to plough through. If every head teacher in Britain fulfilled their duty to read all this stuff, that would create 859 years' worth of work; nearly 900 years' worth of bureaucracy in just 11 months.
  That is the true monument to the education policy of new Labour: heads prevented from managing; teachers prevented from teaching; and standards prevented from rising, all because the gentlemen and ladies in Whitehall still think that they know best. When will they learn to get off the backs of teachers and let them get on with their proper job?
  I would like to use this debate to give the Secretary of State the chance to recant something that she told the House on 10 January this year. She said:
  "I say to the House and to head teachers that sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need".—[Official Report, 10 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 661.]

  177
  Can she really believe that? If she does, she should get out more. I hope that she will withdraw that absurd view today.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The hon. Gentleman is giving a chapter of woe in the education service. Would his case not be stronger in some respects if he acknowledged that since the Conservative Government left office in 1997, the number of children achieving the appropriate standard in numeracy has gone up from 50 per cent. to approximately 80 per cent; and likewise, the number of children achieving appropriate standards of literacy at 11 has risen by a similar amount from 50 per cent.? How does he square that with his tale of denigration and crisis?
  Mr. Green: I will come to standards in a moment. Labour Members are interested in the fact that standards started rising after the 1980, reforms and carried on rising until, coincidentally, last year. I find it instructive that the Whips' handouts all refer backwards. I am interested in looking at what is happening in our schools now and what is likely to happen as the Government's policies move forward. That, I think, will convince Labour Members who have an open mind on the subject that any of the benefits that may come from their Government's policies are already beginning to wear off. That is the most significant fact that the Government need to address.
  I was giving various examples of incompetence, which is one of the problems faced by the Government. I know—I just feel it—that the Secretary of State will talk about investment. Indeed, the Government's amendment refers to sustained investment. It may be worth while drawing the House's attention to what that means. The Government continually boast about investment, but unfortunately, in another written answer to me, they have been forced to admit that, in 2000–01, they underspent the money allocated to the Department by £1.7 billion.
  The Government appear to be adept at finding initiatives and other ways in which to spend money. The next time we hear the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister boasting about how much sustained investment they are putting into schools, perhaps they will tell us why they cannot even spend the money given to them. That money could have paid for laptop computers for all 429,300 teachers in England. The Government are keen on laptops and they could have provided them—a measure that I support—if they were not so incompetent. They cannot even spend the money that the Treasury gives them.
  Mr. Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the first two new primary schools to be built in Ipswich for 25 years have been built since 1997? One is at Ravenswood and one at Raeburn and, at a cost of more than £1.5 million apiece, they have replaced the concrete and chicken-wire prefab schools that had been there since the 1920s and 1930s. Does he further accept that since 1997 my Suffolk local education authority area has had the best capital settlement for many years, and that the backlog of minor works in schools that had
  178
  accumulated while the Tories were in Government, and which stood at £9 million, has been reduced to less than £2.5 million?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give the hon. Member who is addressing the House an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has the two new primary schools in his constituency—he will soon learn their names without having to read them. However, he should talk to the teachers in those primary schools and see what they say about all the bureaucracy and paperwork that the Government are imposing on them, which I have been talking about. He will recognise over time, when the shine wears off, that teachers' morale is as low as it ever has been in this country, and that that is entirely due to the actions of this Government.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: Certainly—I will always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Levitt: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as one who taught for 20 years—most of that time under the Tories—that morale today is considerably higher than it was in those days.
  Mr. Green: I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit any school in London—many of them were closed last week by the first National Union of Teachers strike for 30 years—where he will find that the Secretary of State has reduced the morale of teachers in London to historically low levels. In case he missed the beginning of my speech, may I point out that since state education was created in this country in 1870, never have our head teachers united to ballot on industrial action? This Government, who the hon. Gentleman says have made teachers happier than ever before, have reduced head teachers—of all groups in society—to considering industrial action. If he thinks that they are happier than ever before, he is deluding himself.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Government set themselves some ambitious targets. The former Education Secretary, now Home Secretary, said that if he did not achieve certain targets within five years, he would resign. The only Minister who has been in the Department for the whole period of the Labour Government is the Secretary of State. Is she not honour bound to follow what her predecessor said and resign if those targets are not met?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. I have pursued that point with the right hon. Lady in the past and I admire her prudence in refusing to follow her predecessor's policy of promising resignation if the targets are not met. We shall see in a few months whether her conscience has been pricked.
  Let me move from incompetence to policy failures. There are many, but by far the biggest is retaining teachers. I suspect that the right hon. Lady will boast about teacher recruitment. I point out gently that there is

  179
  no point in recruiting ever higher numbers of trainee teachers if most of them leave within a few years. Pouring ever larger amounts of water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom is not a rational policy. [Interruption.]
  Government Members do not want to take that from me, so perhaps they will take it from Ofsted, whose most recent report admitted that there was a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention. It says—and Government Members waiting with quotes from 1997 should take note of it:
  "these problems have got worse over the past two years."
  Ofsted states that the recruitment and retention of primary school staff is
  "no longer just an inner city issue, but is beginning to affect schools in all regions and all kinds of locations."
  The crisis that we once all knew was happening in our inner-city schools has, according to Ofsted, spread over the past two years under the present Government. The right hon. Lady will be concerned that more than 20 per cent. of teachers leave within three years of joining the profession.
  I further adduce the evidence of the National Union of Teachers, whose survey found that the annual resignation rate in 2001 was 4 per cent. higher than the previous figure provided by employers in 1999. Under this Government, things are getting worse. I have one more piece of evidence before I give way again. About 85 per cent. of teachers who leave the profession—and this figure should worry the whole House—say that they do so for negative reasons connected with the teaching profession rather than because of the attraction of doing something else. People who are keen to be teachers are leaving because they are put off by the education system that they are forced to work in.
  Mr. Phil Willis: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have heard exactly the same speech from the Tory Front Bench for the past five years. What plans does he have to resolve the problems to which he referred?
  Mr. Green: The simplest way for the Government to do so is by doing less. Instead of producing 1,000 years' worth of bureaucracy every 11 months, doing less would reduce the work load on teachers who would then have less unnecessary paperwork from the Government. [Interruption.] I know that Ministers believe that everything that comes out of the Department is a pearl of wisdom, but it does not work with teachers.
  As ever, faced with the problems to which I have alerted the House, the Department tries to disguise them. As ever, the Government's first reaction to bad news is not to deal with the problem, but to bury the bad news. When, in February, they published "Statistics in Education: Teachers in England 2001", some statistics mysteriously did not even appear on the departmental website. It is rather a good website, often containing loads of information. Funnily enough, however, some figures did not appear. For example, nearly 300,000 qualified teachers under 60 are no longer in the education system; 83,400 people hold teaching certificates that they have never used, in an era of acute teacher shortages; and the number of teacher vacancies in England and Wales rose
  180
  to 5,000 in 2001—an increase of nearly 60 per cent. from 2000. All the figures are pointing the wrong way. All the surveys show that the main reason teachers are being driven out of the profession is work load. Teachers think their work load excessive—that is even more important to them than pay.
  The Government have made a response, however. I must be fair to them. The Government have noticed that the work load is a problem and their response is—a poster. At first glance, I was relieved that they had produced a poster rather than a 50-page document, but when I actually read the section "Advice and guidance on what schools can do", I found that the first piece of advice was to read circular 2/98. So the Government have produced a circular telling teachers how to reduce their work load.
  The poster has three other sections: one is pure party political propaganda—paid for by the taxpayer. A second section consists of a pie chart telling teachers what they already know—that they are wasting their time reading Government information when they could be teaching or planning lessons. The final section states that:
  "The following common tasks need not routinely be carried out by teachers".
  Sadly they did not include the instruction, "Do not waste your time putting up useless posters on the staffroom wall".
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the Government commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers which highlighted the embarrassing fact that head teachers were working up to 60 hours a week. The Government's response was to bury the report so deep in the departmental website that the search engine could not even find it.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has great technological skills and he is right. Departments are consistent throughout Government: if there is bad news they will try to bury it.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): That is a serious accusation. I should not normally intervene during the opening speech of an Opposition spokesperson, but if someone was trying to bury that bad news, why is that very report currently before the School Teachers Review Body? The STRB is receiving evidence not only from the Government but from every teacher union and association. It will report in public in due course and we shall respond in public. That is the worst way of burying bad news I have ever heard of.
  Mr. Green: Even the right hon. Lady could not keep a report commissioned by the STRB from the STRB. What she did not want was that it should be found by journalists, Opposition politicians or people who might be interested in studying it.
  The right hon. Lady can argue until she is blue in the face but the plain fact is facing her: she, as Secretary of State, is presiding over the current rash of strikes. Like her, I do not approve of industrial action that damages the education of children. I am happy to admit that she is right about that.
  Helen Jones: I am unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman's comments: I, too, taught under the previous Tory Government and I remember what teacher morale was like then.

  181
  If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on cutting teachers' work load, will he explain whether he supports the policy of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who wants to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product? How will those cuts do anything other than increase the work load in the education system and destroy the morale of teachers?
  Mr. Green: The hon. Lady should pay greater attention to the extremely good speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor. He has made it clear that the first priority of the Conservative party is to match public spending on our essential public services. Those services are our main priority. I know that the Government find that difficult because, to refer to a topical subject, their fox has been shot.
  To return to the current rash of strikes, which the Government are understandably not keen to talk about, many parents feel a degree of sympathy with teachers who have been driven to the brink by the type of Government interference and micromanagement that I have been outlining. The latest edition of the NUT magazine, The Teacher, states:
  "Such is the sense of grievance and frustration felt by these teachers, not just because of the difficulties they face in finding affordable accommodation, but because of the disturbance and disruption of children's education caused by the staff turnover and the acute teacher shortage."
  All those Members who say that they know teachers better than the NUT does should pay attention to the NUT.
  I particularly recommend this month's edition of The Teacher; it has a good centre-page spread detailing my trip to Germany with a senior NUT official. It sets out the points on which we agreed and disagreed. The House may be relieved to know that at least one of the major parties can still have friendly relations with trade unions even when we disagree on several points. I commend that lesson to the Government, which is run by a party that used to aspire to that as well.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: I think that I have given way enough, to be fair.
  I am delighted to be assured by both head teachers' unions that, if they end up taking industrial action, it will not affect teaching in schools. I hope that the Secretary of State would agree that, if they do take industrial action, it is much better that it should not affect teaching and learning. However, I hope that the Government are taking on board the historic nature of the possibility of industrial action by the two head teachers' unions. I am afraid that the aggressive rhetoric that Ministers are using about head teachers is making the situation worse, not better.
  David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has rightly said:
  "The last persons in the education world who need a lesson from the Secretary of State on public service reform are head teachers".
  Head teachers have put through a lot of reforms in the past 15 years, under Governments of both parties. Head teachers are naturally most concerned with the performance of their schools, and they are happy to
  182
  preside over proper change and reform, not to try to implement half-baked, ill thought-out Government policies that reduce morale even further in the staff room.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman recall speaking to the north of England education conference in January of this year, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills? Does he specifically recall being forced to admit in his opening remarks that he could not say very much because his party did not have a policy on education? Have things changed since January? If there has been a change, given that he has been speaking for more than 20 minutes, will he tell us what it is?
  Mr. Green: I very much enjoyed the Huddersfield conference—I was applauded and given a friendly reception. Everyone there—except possibly the hon. Gentleman—thought that what 1 told them in my opening remarks was entirely sensible. I said that, at the beginning of a Parliament, it is entirely sensible for Opposition parties to think through their policies, so that what they produce is not half-baked. If Labour Members are saying that we should have a fully fledged policy in six months, it is not unreasonable to ask why the Government have miserably failed to produce a coherent education policy after five years in power, following 18 years in opposition.
  The Government have to take decisions day after day on the basis of no coherent policy. We shall work out a coherent and robust education policy that will improve standards in our schools, rather than relying on the hand-to-mouth, initiative-driven system that the Government have been forced to introduce, precisely because they have no coherent thinking on education.
  Ministers frequently say that head teachers are paid to make tough choices, but that just gives rise to hollow laughs in staff rooms around the country. With every month that passes, head teachers' ability to take decisions is restricted by the Government's constant interference. But suddenly, when the decision is tough, there is no Government guidance at all—just a cry of "yours" as the hospital pass is delivered.
  The third group of problems stems from the Government's weakness in tackling issues that they find inconvenient. The best example of that is their many and varied policies on excluding disruptive pupils. For a long time, the Government simply set a target for permanent exclusions to be cut by a third. Understandably, the result has been a decline in the number of exclusions. Those targets prevented head teachers from expelling violent or disruptive pupils, damaging the education of thousands of pupils throughout the country.
  The Secretary of State should know that the NUT has found that 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cited pupil behaviour as the reason for doing so. She should also know that that is a direct consequence of a policy introduced by her predecessor. Ofsted cited
  "the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils"
  as the major reason why teachers leave the profession; it is more important than pay or even work load. The Government's policies on discipline and their weakness on enforcing good discipline in schools are a principal

  183
  reason why teachers have been driven out of the profession. So much damage has been done that some of it is permanent.
  Let me quote an example sent in response to a survey on our own education website—www.conservatives.com/education, which I commend to all who are interested in education. I believe that there is no provision in "Erskine May" to prevent me from reading out a website address, and I hope that it will be helpful to the House to do so.
  Some serious problems are revealed. I shall quote one pupil who responded to the website. There were three questions:
  "Have you or a friend ever suffered from bullying?"
  The answer was as follows:
  "Yes I ended up suicidal and had a nervous breakdown and a lot of my friends have been bullied too."
  The second question was:
  "What is the worst disciplinary problem at your school?"
  The answer:
  "There is no discipline. At the worst they get suspended for a few days, which isn't a punishment in anyone's eyes. It's just a good excuse to have a few days off."
  Thirdly:
  "Do you think bullying and discipline in your school have been getting worse or better?"
  The answer:
  "Worse, definitely. That's why I am home educated."
  That was the response that we received from a pupil. [Interruption.] Labour Members find this a laughing matter. That shows how distant they are from the real problems. The Government have undermined discipline in schools. They are damaging standards in schools. That is making many school children's lives a misery. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that a laughing matter too.
  The fourth area where the Government have contributed to the crisis is their broken promises. The worst of these is on truancy. In 1998, the Government announced that they planned to cut unauthorised absences from school. They promised a reduction of one third in school truancies by 2002. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half days missed a year through unauthorised absence. It remains at 0.7 per cent. Indeed, the percentage has risen since 1996–97 in maintained secondary schools, from 1 per cent. to 1.1 per cent. Perhaps that is not one of the figures handed out by the Government Whips to Labour Members who wanted to quote figures from 1997 onwards.
  A helpful written answer from one of the Department's Ministers told us that if we add together the authorised and unauthorised absences in every category, including primary schools and secondary schools, the number of half days missed increased significantly between 1999–00 and 2000–01. It has risen from 5.7 per cent. in primary schools to 6.1 per cent. In secondary schools, it has increased from 8.6 per cent. to 9 per cent.
  Given these alarming figures, the social exclusion unit—the Government's central unit dealing with these matters—says that the national truancy rate has remained static. That requires a flexible use of language—the rate seems to be increasing rather than remaining static.
  184
  Another broken promise is on higher education. The Government promised us their review of student support early in the new year. It is 19 March, and quite late in the new year. There is still no sign of the review. I recall a Minister talking about June. It is one of the Government's announcements that is always three months away. We think that the Government should publish their findings as soon as possible and end the uncertainty in which they have left both students and universities.
  Mr. David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: No. I have given way enough.
  There are four reasons behind the crisis in education, and we know that the Government are in denial of them. Instead of dealing with the problems, the Secretary of State is doing her best to distract attention. On Thursday last week, I was delighted to be informed by Demos that she is launching a new pamphlet on secondary education. We are told that it will contain her vision. We are told that we need to combine this with "ongoing transformative change." Any improvement in the quality of English does not seem to have spread as far as Demos.
  The serious point is that the right hon. Lady prefers publishing pamphlets to dealing with the mess in our schools, colleges and universities that her policies are creating. There is another vision of education, which I commend to the Government. We, the Opposition, believe, as we argued consistently throughout consideration of the Education Bill, that central Government need not and should not take every important decision on education. We support the activities of Ofsted—regular testing and the publication of test results and league tables. Most importantly, we believe that with all that outside inspection the Government do not need to tell schools how to run every minute of the school day.
  The same thinking applies to the organisation of schools. We are relaxed about different types of schools emerging. We have no hang-ups about grammar schools or specialist schools. If a faith school is doing a good job, it should be supported, not have its ethos destroyed, as the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members want. We are deeply sceptical about the Government's concept of earned autonomy; autonomy earned from a centralising Secretary of State is unlikely to be much autonomy at all. We want real autonomy for schools and an objective, independent, outside inspection system to ensure that they are doing their job for the community.
  The Opposition therefore urge the Government to stop telling teachers how to do every aspect of their job; they are demoralised by constant nagging interference and far too many of them are leaving. The Government must stop introducing new gimmicks and instead sort out the problems in existing policies—a press release is no substitute for competent policy. The Government must stop producing education Bills that centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State under the cloak of rhetoric about diversity. Schools and local government deserve more trust than the Government are prepared to give them. The Government must stop blaming everyone else for the difficulties caused by their mismanagement.
  Teachers are not wreckers; they are hard-working professionals who are doing their best under increasingly difficult circumstances. The Opposition want an education

  185
  system that transmits values as well as skills, promotes genuine diversity in schools and allows good teachers to teach without the constant irritation of a Government directive telling them how to do their job. We want a university system that promotes excellence in learning, and vocational education that provides genuine skills for life for all.
  After five years of this Government, it is increasingly clear that an education policy run by centralised diktat will not, and does not, work. Our schools, colleges and universities deserve better; if the Government cannot provide that, they will rightly stand condemned for failing to deliver on a vital commitment for the future of everyone in this country.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises an education system which is benefiting from an unprecedented period of sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, in parallel with the Government's strategy to raise standards through an ambitious series ot reforms of the curriculum, the teaching profession and the organisation of schools; welcomes Ofsted's latest annual report showing the highest ever proportion of good and excellent lessons in schools, and the OECD's PISA Report that the UK performance was above the OECD average across all three domains of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy; notes the other tangible signs of increased investment and reform such as higher academic standards at primary and secondary level, the dramatic reduction in the numbers of infants in large classes, more teachers in schools than at any time in the last decade, extra resources and more people than ever going into Higher Education, with 45,000 new places since 1997; notes further the huge increase in the number of adults who are now acquiring basic skills and learning for their futures; recognises the clear commitment of the Government to address teacher workload in partnership with the unions and other agencies; welcomes the positive proposals the Government has given to headteachers on school exclusions, reinforcing their right to manage their schools and enforce discipline as they see fit; recognises that working closely with parents, police and health professionals is key to tackling unacceptable levels of absence and supports the Government's work in this area; and supports the measures being taken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that examination results are delivered successfully."
  The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) thinks that it is acceptable to wipe the slate clean on policy, and seems to have done the same to his memory. While I accept entirely that after five years in government we are accountable for what we have done during that period, it is appropriate to remind people of our starting point. In 1997, it was true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington ( Mr. Plaskitt) said, that nearly one third of our infants were in classes of more than 30; there were 11,000 fewer teachers; there were 44,000 fewer education support staff; and four out of 10 of our 11-year-olds were starting secondary education without the literacy and numeracy skills that they needed to access the secondary curriculum. Schoolteachers witnessed year on year cuts in expenditure and year on year increases in class sizes; it took 25 months to turn round a school that had been put in special measures; and there was a £2,800 cut over a number of years in the amount of money given to higher education students.
  I am immensely proud of what we have achieved in five years, but I am not complacent. In one of the most important of all public services, we still have a long way
  186
  to go. As we defend our record today against the attack, if one can call it that, from the hon. Member for Ashford, I feel more complacent than I should, if that is the worst that the Opposition can pin on us after five years.
  I want to refer to three or four key issues in the motion and in the hon. Gentleman's speech. First, the process of teacher recruitment and retention is far more complicated than he would have us believe. As I have said time after time in the House, I accept that schools, particularly in London and the south-east, but also in Swindon, Reading and Oxford, find it extremely tough to recruit and retain sufficient teachers. I know that head teachers are taking on teachers whom, if they had had more of a choice, they may not have appointed. To pretend otherwise would not be facing up to reality.
  However, another set of statistics shows another aspect of reality that must be considered if we are to make any progress. It was right to ask the hon. Gentleman the question, "What would the Tories do?" because they have come up with only one solution—cut paperwork. However, the problem is more complicated than that. Those of us who believe that recruiting and retaining the best people in the teaching profession is a key challenge must look at the statistics and confront reality.
  The reality is this: there are 11,000 more teachers now than there were in 1997. There are 7,000 more teaching posts this year than there were last year. We are recruiting 8 per cent. more into training to be teachers this year, and that is on top of 5 per cent. more last year.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: More are leaving.
  Estelle Morris: No. Think about the maths. The hon. Gentleman should have had the numeracy hour. If there are more teachers now than there were in 1997, more must be joining than are leaving. That is what produces the net increase.
  Applications this year are up on last year—20 per cent. up in maths, 10 per cent. up in English, 8 per cent. up in science, 4 per cent. up in modern foreign languages, 15 per cent. up in technology, and 3,200 have been recruited on the graduate teacher programme, yet there are still vacancies.
  The challenge is to reconcile those two sets of information. There are more teachers, there are more posts, and there are more vacancies in some areas. Not to accept that reality, and to think that sending out fewer bits of paper would solve the problem shows that six or seven months after the general election, the Opposition have still thought of nothing beyond that.
  David Taylor: One piece of paper that my right hon. Friend sent to schools last week—I have visited several schools in the intervening period—was especially welcome. I do not support every jot and aspect of Government policy, but the tone and content of my right hon. Friend's call to teachers to focus on contact time and productive areas of activity and to withdraw from marginal areas 'was most welcome. It was a motivating influence in the staff rooms of the schools that I visited. I congratulate her on it.
  Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the poster to which the hon. Member for Ashford

  187
  referred. I had not intended to mention the poster, but as we have had the NUT magazine brandished about because it has a picture of the hon. Gentleman on the centre pages—I must remember not to open my copy—[Interruption.] He has not made page 3 yet; he is on the centre pages. The interesting thing about the poster is that it was not sent just from me. It was sent with the support of every teacher union and both head teacher unions. It was an honest attempt by Government and teacher representatives together to find the real answer to teacher work load, recruitment and retention.
  There is a challenge facing us. Teachers are working harder than they have ever worked before. More is being asked of them than ever before. More is being demanded, more is expected, and more is being achieved. When people choose to work in a job as important as teaching, that is what they sign up to. What they do day in, day out makes a difference. We have a choice. We can take away some of the aspects that have caused a burden and led to increased standards, such as the literacy hour, the numeracy hour, the excellence in cities programmes and key stage 3—all of which featured in those pieces of paper that we sent out in the past year—or we can look at the tasks that teachers have historically done and should not be doing.
  The PWC report is absolutely in the public domain, and I would be surprised if anyone participating in the debate has not read it. It found—this is the key point in the poster—that 20 per cent. of the tasks that teachers are doing could be done by somebody else. That includes everything from filling in forms that they do not have to fill in, to dinner duty, bus duty, collecting dinner money, washing the paint pots and beyond.
  I shall be dead straight about the issue. We must take some decisions about teacher work load, but I will not take away the literacy hour, the numeracy hour, key stage 3, performance management or the excellence in cities programmes, because it is those that have made the difference. I applaud the teacher representatives for coming together with the Government, acknowledging the issues, and working with us to try to take away the tasks that could be better done by other people. That resulted in a poster. Okay, I made myself the subject of a cheap joke by the Opposition spokesman. So be it. But we are engaged in a broader and more serious debate about modernising and reforming the profession so that it can hang on to what it should be doing and free up teacher time to do that better. I am delighted that the poster was well received in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Willis: In her spirit of honesty, will the Secretary of State accept that in the region of 289,000 teachers are qualified but not in our classrooms, 70,000 of whom have been in our classrooms during the past five years who are aged under 50 and who would be a ready source of recruitment for our schools, yet she does not know where they are and is making no attempt to attract them back? What will she do to ensure that that huge multi-million pound resource is not simply lost to the teaching profession but recruited directly to our schools?
  Estelle Morris: Some of them are in the Chamber at this moment. However, I want standards to continue to rise, so I shall keep the two of us out of the classroom.
  188
  The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and I am happy to consider it. We have spent a lot of money and expended much effort on teacher recruitment and retention and I would not wilfully turn my back on anything that could help us. One of his better jokes in the Chamber was to brandish a letter that he had received from the Department inviting him to go back into teaching because he was down as someone who had recently left. That was a better joke than that of the hon. Member for Ashford. I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) would generously admit that that showed that we were doing what we could where we had the data to write to former teachers. However, if he knows of ways in which we could do more, I should be happy to consider them.
  I want to concentrate on the matter for a few minutes because the statistics are important. Every time I open the paper—sometimes I do not have to open it because it is on the front page—there is another figure that almost bemuses one about teachers, whether in or out of the profession. There is an issue about retention, and I am not avoiding that. I want to come on to why teachers leave. Some leave because the profession is tougher than when they joined a number of years ago, and we must acknowledge that. But consider what happens at the moment.
  Of those who start teacher training, 17 per cent. do not finish, and the drop-out rate for graduates as a whole is about the same. Teacher training is tougher because it is tied to a professional qualification; the training is more demanding. If someone does not want to teach, it is almost no good finishing the course because a teaching certificate is not a generic qualification. Therefore, 17 per cent. of those who are recruited never finish, and some of those do not want to and are not good enough. That is fine because I do not want them. If they are not good enough and they fail, keep them out. The job would he too tough if they did not want to do it. I do not say this lightly, but I do not overworry if they or the universities make such a decision.
  Of those who qualify, 80 per cent. are still there four years later, and 95 per cent. of those who gain qualified teacher status will, at some point in their working life, teach. They might not have done so in the first four years. They might have gone abroad. Strangely enough, they might have taught in the independent sector and so not appear in our statistics.
  I say no more than this. For a profession still to have 80 per cent. of those who qualify in the profession four years later, for 95 per cent. to use that teaching qualification at some point during their working life, and for 13,000 of those who leave each year to come back is not a bad record and probably stands well against any other profession, but there is more to be done.
  There is a real issue about retention and recruitment, but although it might serve Opposition policies, it serves not one child, parent, head teacher, teacher or governor for the issue to be blown up beyond the challenge that we already face. I am not, for a minute, saying that the hon. Member for Ashford did that, but the only statistic that we heard from the Opposition was the old one—I do not know whether it was 60 per cent. or 80 per cent., as it changes from time to time—relating to not teaching. The only solution that we heard was, "Don't send out as much

  189
  paperwork." The solutions cost more than that. Better policies and better worked-out ways of moving forward are needed. When we considered the matter, we came up with bursaries, golden hellos, training salaries, wiping off student loans, and keeping people in teaching by offering them professional support. Those policies have resulted in more people coming into teaching than at any time this decade.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Estelle Morris: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and then to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs).
  Tony Cunningham: Many quotes from head teachers have been bandied around this afternoon. Let me tell the House about a head teacher in a school in my constituency, who said to me that the quality of year 7 pupils coming from primary school to secondary school is higher now than he has ever known it to be. Is that not a direct result of this Government's policies in recent years, and particularly of the introduction of literacy and numeracy hours?
  Estelle Morris: The story that my hon. Friend tells is exactly the one that I hear from head teachers and parents almost everywhere I go. He will know that that was not the story one year into the strategy. When I visited primary schools then, things were fairly tough. The schools did not want us to be so prescriptive, and they wanted to continue to do what they had done year after year, which had led to four out of five children not reaching the required standard. I applaud the profession for having accepted the strategy and for having been courageous enough, when it saw that it worked, to admit that it was wrong and that the strategy has done well. There are hardly any head teachers in this country who are not pleased that this strategy was introduced. We must remember that, had the Tories been in power during those years, there would have been no literacy strategy and no numeracy strategy. That is the central prescription that I defend. Those initiatives were introduced to ensure that those who might not otherwise have considered best practice had to do so, and they learned in due course from evidence that it works.
  Mr. Damian Green rose—
  Estelle Morris: As I promised, I shall give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim, and then I shall make progress.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: As a former teacher, vice-principal, and currently chairman of a board of governors, it is my experience that young teachers coming through now are better qualified and even more committed than in the past. Does the Secretary of State feel that policies pursued by governing bodies could further assist in the retention of young women teachers who want to maintain teaching experience in the classroom and have an opportunity to spend more time raising young families?
  Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I feel that, across the whole labour
  190
  market, women and men ought to have that opportunity. That is more of a challenge in teaching than in other areas because parents tend to want continuity, especially at primary level. If one were to stop 10 parents in the street and ask them whether, in order to give women the choice of part-time work, they would agree to their child having two teachers during the week rather than one, there would be a real debate. That is one of the extra demands that we must face when considering flexible working. Some 80 per cent. of the teaching work force are women, and it is the responsibility of the teaching profession—and my responsibility—to do what we can to offer that flexibility, but, at the same time, to try to make sure that we offer continuity, especially for little ones who are at school.
  Mr. Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Like her, I do not like intervening on Front-Bench speeches, but I am trying to prevent her from inadvertently misleading the House. She will be aware that literacy and numeracy hours were being piloted before 1997. Had they proved a success, a Conservative Government would no doubt have carried on with them. Therefore, the sharp line that she seeks to draw is simply not there.
  Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman must face up to two facts. I do not believe that any Tory Government would have implemented a national strategy for literacy and numeracy; they would not have found the resources. He must also accept that, even if they had implemented the literacy and numeracy strategy nationally—that was not in the Conservative manifesto in 1997—it would have been centralist and prescriptive. They would also have had to send out reams of paper to schools. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just told us that he would not do, so it is not unreasonable for me to assume that his only policy to aid the recruitment and retention of teachers is not to send out all the bits of paper that he referred to earlier. Let me tell him what those bits of paper are. They are the key stage 3 strategy, the literacy and numeracy strategies and the papers on performance management. He cannot have it both ways.
  At first, developing the literacy and numeracy strategy meant being centralist and rather prescriptive and sending out paper, much of which was about extra funding. The strategy then became embedded and, having learned best practice, teachers were allowed to get on with it.
  Mr. Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Estelle Morris: No. The House will agree that I am taking far too much time.
  I want to touch on two further issues. The first is teachers' pay, which is the source of the present dispute in London. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashford say that he does not agree with teachers taking industrial action—or industrial action that damages children. However, if teachers do not do their job, that damages children. It seems from what he said last Thursday that he was bordering on supporting the NUT strike in London—so be it.
  Let us consider what has happened to teachers' pay in London. In general, pay for good, experienced teachers has risen by 30 per cent. since 1997. However, a teacher in London in the second year of the profession will get a

  191
  13.2 per cent pay increase in September this year, because we have shortened the spine. Every teacher in London in the second year of the profession will get that rise, and it will not be spread over two years. Every teacher in London in the sixth year of the profession will get a 15 per cent. pay increase. By September, teachers who started teaching in London when we were elected in 1997 will earn 63 per cent. more than they did then.
  Many teachers are worth their weight in gold, but in terms of delivering on public sector pay, we have rewarded them financially more than the Tories ever did. We have not staged pay increases; we have accepted every single recommendation of the STRB; we have introduced a threshold and we have seen a 30 per cent. pay increase over seven years. However, unlike any other serious pay increase in my memory of working in education, it has been accompanied by steady, sustained investment and a strong economy. Steady, sustained pay and investment in education have brought about current standards. That is what matters.
  Mr. Chaytor: Are we not now discussing the bottom line to the debate about teaching recruitment and standards? Is it not a fact that, as the title of a Conservative website suggests, under the last Conservative Government, education spending was slashed year on year and as a proportion of GDP? Under this Government, has not spending increased in each of the past three years? However, does my right hon. Friend accept that some OECD countries, such as Finland and Canada, which perform better than we do have much higher education spending'? Can she give a commitment that she will continue to push for higher levels in the United Kingdom as well?
  Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Yes, other countries—strangely enough, some of them do not perform as well as we do—spend a higher percentage of their GDP on education. He will be aware of our manifesto commitment to increase investment in education year on year. He referred to the Tory years. The only time that the Tories increased education spending as a proportion of GDP was when GDP fell. The increase tended to be the result of poor outturns and poor productivity and not because the then Government decided to invest more out of generosity or a commitment to education.
  I also wish to refer to pupil behaviour, which represents a real challenge not just to teachers, but to the whole of society. I tend to think that teachers reap the ill wind of the breakdown of discipline in many areas of our community and society. Some people do not give the issue much thought. We bemoan youth crime and the problem of drugs and their availability to young people, but those children end up in someone's classroom on Monday morning. That is the nature of the challenge facing schools, and we have to do all that we can to support teachers.
  Although we have done a great deal, by no stretch of the imagination have we conquered the problem. In some schools, where the children suffer multiple forms of deprivation, are often subject to community and family breakdown and face the temptations of drugs being available on the streets in a way that they were not when
  192
  we were young, and where there is huge family and pupil mobility, the challenge of getting behaviour right is more difficult than ever before. Our approach to the problem is to invest £600 million over three years on improving behaviour. That is why we have 1,000 learning support units and 1,500 learning mentors. That is why we have worked to ensure that excluded children no longer receive only two hours of education every week.
  I will not accept from any Tory Member an assertion that before 1997 the Tory Government spent a penny farthing or expended an ounce of energy to support teachers in coping with problems of pupil behaviour. They did not. We have invested, and much of our investment has brought about good results, but we are not there yet—nowhere near. Ofsted has reminded us that although behaviour did not deteriorate this year, neither did it improve, and two years ago it declined. There is a real problem with no easy solutions. The Government have a responsibility, but so do mothers, fathers, families and community leaders.
  Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve pupil behaviour is to use more classroom assistants to support and assist teachers? Some of the work I saw last week in Dallam community primary school, which is in a deprived area of my constituency, shows what can be achieved when classroom assistants are involved in helping pupils to modify their behaviour and they take some of the burden off teachers.
  Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is, as ever, right. Adults with a range of skills are needed in schools, and that is precisely what the poster was about. Schools in our communities need good teachers and good leaders most of all, but if we can supplement them with learning mentors and other adults with a range of skills, we have a chance of conquering what is often a vast cycle of deprivation in some of our most disadvantaged communities.
  The Government seek to be judged. We will be judged on whether our investment and policies lead to children in our schools achieving better exam results and emerging as more rounded citizens, ready to take their place in the world. I am immensely proud of our teachers and all those who work in our schools. Between 1998 and 2001, key stage 2 English results rose by 10 percentage points, maths by 12 percentage points, GCSE results by more than 2 percentage points, and A-levels by 16 percentage points, and the number of students leaving school with no GCSEs fell by half a percentage point. That achievement is in large part due to the hard, solid work of everyone who works in our schools, but the Government have played a key role in leadership, innovation, investment and support.
  The Opposition may not want to believe me. Let them look at the reports by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—and Ofsted. We have better teachers, more satisfactory lessons taught and higher standards than ever before. Not only do we have the finest ever generation of teachers, but we now have an education system that is raising its sights and increasing its expectations. My vision is to have an education system that starts in the early years and runs

  193
  throughout schooling so that children leave school committed to lifelong learning; a system that gives young people opportunities for further and higher education; a system in which everyone understands that it is both their right and their obligation to be committed to learning.
  We have played a part. There is much of which are proud and much for which we are immensely thankful to those who work in our schools and education institutions. We know that we have not got there yet, but we have made progress from a very low starting point in 1997.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I was pleased to hear—and to some extent impressed by—the Secretary of State's support for teachers, but I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did not offer such support in his opening speech. I was also disappointed by his hardly mentioning higher or further education. He merely offered criticism, and seemed to think that by far the most important aspect of the higher education crisis is that the Government's review will be published rather later than was expected. I, too, am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to push forward their review, and that so many people remain uncertain about their financial position on going to university, but there is much more to the higher education crisis than the slowness of publication of the Government's review.
  I want to pick up on some of the Secretary of State's comments on teachers. Teachers, lecturers and others involved in education should be congratulated. They work very hard in often difficult and trying circumstances, and usually to the highest standards. I am disappointed that the Conservatives have chosen to talk about a crisis in education. The Government might not be delivering on their side of the bargain, but teachers certainly are—despite the fact that there are too few of them, despite their being the most audited, inspected and regulated teachers in Europe, and despite the Government's failure to invest adequate resources.
  Too often, our teachers are undervalued and talked down to by politicians. The Conservatives were as guilty of that as new Labour is. The approach has been to name and shame, rather than to value and encourage. Is it any wonder that teachers resort to industrial action when the Government deny them the professional status that they deserve?
  Mr. McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the job of teachers will be made easier by the policy of legalising cannabis use, which, I believe, he intends to follow?
  Mr. Rendel: As a matter of fact, a lot of things would probably be made easier. Certainly, the legalisation of cannabis—if it takes place—is one way in which some of the problems associated with our young people could be reduced.
  During my party's recent serious and mature debate in Manchester, the point was repeatedly made that a lot of the problems associated with drugs stem from the fact that we treat alcohol and tobacco—comparatively dangerous drugs—in an entirely different way from cannabis, which is less dangerous. If the Conservatives are not prepared to address the problem seriously and maturely, so much the worse for them.
  Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman said that there are too few teachers, and that more are needed in the
  194
  classroom. How many additional teachers—over and above the 10,000 promised in the Labour manifesto—would a Liberal Democrat Government provide? How much would that cost, and has the cost been budgeted for?
  Mr. Rendel: The answer is 5,000, and the cost was budgeted for.
  Mr. Chaytor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats would provide 15,000 additional teachers in total, and if so what would be the cost?
  Mr. Rendel: We would provide 5,000 over and above the Labour party's proposal. I do not know the precise cost off the top of my head, but it was included in our manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman is determined to have the exact figure, he can look it up or I can write to him.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Sheffield, the Liberal-Democrat controlled council has taken on 800 extra teachers whom the local newspaper said that it would not touch with a bargepole? Does not that strategy smack of desperation on the part of the council, and show that the Liberal Democrats do not know which way they are going?
  Mr. Rendel: I am afraid that I did not understand that question, and we have taken long enough over interventions as it is.
  Is it any wonder that we are witnessing a terrific recruitment and retention problem, given that the Government are denying up to 90 per cent. of schools the freedom to innovate? The other 10 per cent. will get the freedom to innovate only on the say-so of the Secretary of State.
  Our education system is failing. The Government are letting it down because the concept of employability lies at the heart of their education and skills policy. Even if one accepts that narrow definition of what education is about, it is clear that the Government have failed. Last year, half our 16-year-olds failed to achieve the Government's benchmark of five good GCSEs, and 30,000 pupils left school without a qualification between them. There are 160,000 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in work, training or education. What is the Government's answer to that problem? It is the new deal.
  I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which considered the National Audit Office report only the other day. That report found that 30 per cent. of people leaving the new deal programme have no recorded or known destination. The report also found:
  "many of those who participated in the programme and found employment would have found a job anyway because of natural labour market turnover, the help available through other employment programmes, and the general expansion of employment in the economy."
  There are two specific problems, and the first is the failure to invest enough. In their first term, the Labour Government spent even less on education, as a proportion of national wealth, than the Conservatives managed under John Major—4.6 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. I shall give some examples of the results.
  Official figures show that £754 million needs to be spent on priority 1 school repairs, which are defined as urgent work that will prevent the immediate closure of

  195
  premises, and/or address an immediate high risk to the health and safety of occupants, and/or remedy a serious breach of legislation. I accept the Secretary of State's contention that the problem has existed for some years. We have had under-investment for many years, and not only for the past five. However, this Government have failed to pick up on the problem sufficiently quickly.
  Moreover, figures from the House of Commons Library show that public funding per student in higher education fell year on year during this Government's first term. By 2003–04, real-terms public-sector funding per student will be 7 per cent. lower than when the Conservatives were in power.
  The second problem is the dead hand of central control. The Government want to run education from Whitehall—or, rather, from Downing street. The Education Bill now before the House of Lords is based on the novel proposition that more regulation equals more freedom to innovate. Clause 1 defines the Bill's purpose, stating that it is to
  "facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may in the opinion of the Secretary of State contribute to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in England."
  That is, freedom will be benevolently bestowed on the say-so of the Secretary of State—but only for a few, as only 10 per cent. of schools will win earned autonomy. The Government insist that it is all for our own good, as happens in all cases of benevolent authority, and that we need not worry about the Government misusing the powers, because they would not do that. Of course, it is not in our hands to determine who might use such powers in future. Liberal Democrats believe that all schools other than those under special measures should be given the freedom to innovate.
  The two fundamental flaws in Government policy—the failure to invest and the dead hand of central control—have led to several other problems.
  Tony Cunningham: It is interesting that, in outlining their education policy, Liberal Democrat Members criticise the Conservatives' policy, or lack of policy. In Cumbria, the county council is run by a Conservative-Liberal alliance. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which of the policies he agrees with?
  Mr. Rendel: I am not sure which policies the hon. Gentleman means. If he is asking whether I agree with Liberal Democrat policies or Conservative policies, I usually tend to agree with Liberal Democrat policies.
  I return to the problems created by the two fundamental flaws in Government policy. First, there is the crisis in the teaching profession. The 2000–01 Ofsted report reveals that problems in recruiting and retaining teachers have worsened during the past two years. Provisional figures show that the vacancy rate in English secondary schools has doubled in the past year, and in recent years the maintained system has lost around 10 per cent. of its teachers each year. More than one in five newly qualified teachers leave the profession during their first three years in teaching. Those problems are particularly acute in London and the south-east, owing to high housing costs, and in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage.
  196
  Rising pupil numbers and increased resource availability will create a demand for an extra 70,000 teachers by 2004, dwarfing the 10,000 promised by new Labour in its manifesto. Meanwhile, teachers are leaving in droves. Why? In response to a National Union of Teachers survey, 82 per cent. of teachers who had left the profession said that an important factor in their decision was the pressure of the work load. Fifty-six per cent. felt undervalued and undermined by negative publicity and constant criticism, which is stoked by the Government and the press. Sadly, teaching is now seen as a low-status profession. It never was in the past.
  The Government's response is fast track, which last year cost the Department for Education and Skills £4,630,058 but recruited only 111 teachers into training. Ten of those have already left, several will not enter teaching and some have already accepted posts in the private sector. The cost per entrant is a staggering £46,000. The cost of placing a student on a postgraduate certificate of education course through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service is £15.57. This year, the Government have allocated a further £8.53 million to the scheme.
  Another problem, which Conservative Members did not mention, relates to the teaching of mathematics, science and technology. Three years ago, about one in 10 secondary school maths teachers had no subject qualification beyond A-level. Now as many as 45 per cent. of staff teaching the subject to 11 to 14-year-olds have limited knowledge of maths and little or no training in the subject. Ofsted found that only 77 per cent. of teachers who teach some mathematics in secondary school have a post-A-level qualification in the subject. UCAS figures show a steady decline since 1997 in the number of applicants for courses in biological sciences, physical sciences and engineering and technology. We are getting into a vicious cycle, which is a real worry for the future. The figures amount to a 17 per cent. drop between 1997 and 2001, or 12,000 fewer applicants.
  That is ironic, given that creationism has been allowed to make a comeback in our school system. Will the situation at Emmanuel college in Gateshead be repeated as more schools come to rely on private funding? Is that the science teaching of the future? It is worrying that Sir Peter Vardy, the evangelical Christian entrepreneur who funds Emmanuel college, is investing £12 million in six other city academies. Science teaching is suffering enough without his intervention.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats would ban that viewpoint being taught in schools alongside Darwinism?
  Mr. Rendel: Personally, I do not regard creationism as scientific in any sense, and I certainly would not want it taught as a scientific explanation of how the world was created.
  Perhaps the worst problems are in higher education, although it was the matter least mentioned by the Conservatives. Since the 1998 reforms, average student debt has doubled from about £3,000 to £6,000, according to the Barclays student debt survey. Students now expect to graduate with a five-figure debt of as much as £20,000 according to the National Union of Students. The situation is particularly bad for students on longer courses.

  197
  The British Medical Association's annual survey of medical students' finances found that their average final-year debt had increased by 23.6 per cent. on the previous year, up to £13,350, and that more than 40 per cent. of final-year students had debts of more than £15,000. There is a further problem for students living in high-cost areas such as London.
  The National Audit Office report on student participation confirms that young people from poorer backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in higher education. That is precisely the problem that the Government think that they need to address, but are failing to address. The NAO report states:
  "Since 1998–99 … final removal of the means tested grant is likely to have widened the gap between social classes."
  What did the Labour party come to power for in 1997? Was it to widen the gap between social classes? That seems absurd, but, sadly, it has happened.
  Forty-seven per cent. of full-time students now have to work in term time. According to the NUS, the average number of hours worked per week is 11. Research carried out by Newcastle university suggests that 35 per cent. of its students who have jobs could have achieved a higher grade for the year if they had not been in employment.
  Two consequences follow. First, debt and the fear of debt are a big disincentive to young people who want to enter higher education. They also have an impact on the quality of students' university education once they get there. There are solutions, however. In Scotland, tuition fees have been abolished and means-tested grants restored. In Wales, means-tested grants have been reintroduced for further and higher education students. That makes a difference, and we can see the results. According to the most recent UCAS figures, the number of Scottish students applying to Scottish universities is up by 8.8 per cent., while the number applying to English universities is down by 4.5 per cent. Scottish students are voting with their feet. The contribution of Scottish students to the overall increase in applications is disproportionately high, with an increase of 8.8 per cent. overall, compared with just 2.7 per cent. in England.
  Mr. Levitt: Under Liberal Democrat policy in Scotland, do not all students have to pay an exit fee on leaving university, whereas in England and Wales, half of all students do not pay such fees at all?
  Mr. Rendel: That is not true. The exit fee will be paid by approximately the same proportion of people, because it will be paid on the same means-tested basis.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: No, I have given way enough. I need to make progress.
  The Government have announced a review of higher education. Indeed, the Prime Minister said recently in this Chamber:
  "I am very happy to congratulate the Welsh Assembly on its decision … We are looking at how we can achieve a fairer balance between the contribution the state makes and the contribution students make … We are looking particularly at how we can help poorer students"—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 200–201.]
  198
  That is good news. Let us hope that the review does just that.
  What about the famous 50 per cent. target? How is participation to be measured? Interestingly, we recently discovered exactly what the Government are going to do when they announced to the Public Accounts Committee something called the initial entry rate. Instead of looking at the proportion of 18 to 30-year-olds who are actually in higher education in 2010, when they come to measure the figure against their target, the Government are simply going to guess how many of that group will go into higher education at any time over the next 12 years. All that they will have to do is work out what increase they need to guess to meet their target, and, lo and behold, they will meet it. It could not be easier. That is not a calculation but simply guesswork.
  Where are we starting from? What is the figure now? The Public Accounts Committee revealed that the Government seriously overestimated the existing participation rate. In her evidence to the then Education and Employment Committee a year ago, the Minister then responsible for higher education put the figure at 44 per cent., which was 6 per cent. off the Government's target. In evidence to the PAC, however, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills has admitted that the real figure is 41 per cent., 9 per cent. off their target.
  Not surprisingly, the Government are gradually including more and more groups to meet their target. Government statements have variously defined the target as "50 per cent. going to university", "50 per cent. entering higher education", "50 per cent. having the opportunity to enter higher education" and "50 per cent. having higher-education experiences", whatever that may mean. Perhaps it refers to an open day to help people decide whether they want to enter higher education.
  There are real problems in our education system, but there are things that we can do about them. We must remove the dead hand of central interference, and end the destructive notion that Downing street always knows best what is right for our children. We must value the professionalism of teachers and academic staff, and trust them to make their own judgments. We must provide genuine freedom, removing the constraints that hold back innovation and creativity throughout the system. Above all, if the original policy was "education, education, education", surely what the Government must now do is invest, invest, invest.
  5.1 1 pm
  Mr. David Miliband: I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. I hope to describe some of the changes being made in education in South Shields, but also to illuminate some of the problems that I think should be the subject of national debate. This is an opportunity for some honest talking. I welcomed the tone of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has had to leave. When I last appeared on a television programme with him, his first answer was so long that I had no chance to make my own contribution at the end. Having also spent some 50-odd hours in a Standing Committee with him, I must say that my sorrow at the fact that he could not open the debate

  199
  for his party today was tempered by the thought that, as a result of his modesty in not speaking, I might have a chance to speak myself.
  I deplore the unremitting negativism of the Opposition motion and also the tone of the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). According to my calculations, he spent about 30 minutes denouncing everything about the education system, 12 seconds saying that his policies were under review and could not be revealed, and about a minute producing warm waffle about his long-term aspirations. I wonder what message that sends to the 430,000 teachers in the education system. I wonder what prospect they see of politicians having much to add to their daily work—sometimes a daily grind—given the negativism of the hon. Gentleman's approach.
  The hon. Gentleman gloried in the fact that he is now best friends with the National Union of Teachers. In fact, his observations reminded me more of the NUT as it was when I was at school in 1981 or 1982 than of the more balanced statements that have emerged from some NUT leaders recently. I also think it unworthy of him to denounce achievements in maths in the motion and then to praise the national numeracy strategy, even claiming at one point that he had in vented it. I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies: unlike some of his colleagues, he did not call for the Secretary of State's resignation. None the less, the word "crisis" was bandied about several times, not just in the motion but in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Such hyperbole does no one any good.
  Those of us who are interested in education have a common interest in ensuring that the fact that it is not currently appearing on the front pages of the newspapers does not mean that its importance is lost. I find it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition has only once, to my recollection, chosen to raise education at Prime Minister's Question Time; those of us who care about it should make sure that it remains a top legislative and budgetary priority as we approach the Budget statement and the spending review.
  My perspective is framed by experience in South Shields and the borough of South Tyneside. The area has a strong sense of community pride. It would not deny the existence of its problems, not least the second highest unemployment in Britain, but it has enormous potential. That is brought home to me every time I visit one of the 30-odd schools in South Shields; I have visited more than half of them so far.
  The daily experience of education in South Tyneside simply does not tally with the picture presented by the hon. Member for Ashford. It tells a very different story—a different story about some of the things that are wrong, as well as about what is going well. The changes taking place in my constituency are significant and, in some cases, staggering. The delegated schools budget, which in 1996–97 was some £42 million, will next year rise to £64 million—a cash increase of more than 50 per cent. In concrete terms, that means more than £1,000 extra per pupil for books, computers and extra teachers, which are important for any thriving education system.
  Next year, primary schools will receive around £2,700 per pupil. Secondary schools will receive £3,200 per pupil—as I say, that is up by about £1,000. For the
  200
  under-fives, the increase has gone from £1,800 per pupil in 1996–97 to some £2,500 per pupil next year. For secondary education for those over the age of 16, the increase is from £2,400 to over £3,500 next year. The hon. Member for Ashford, the shadow Secretary of State, called the funding figures a myth. They are certainly not a myth to the teachers and pupils in my constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that public service budgets should be protected. He should listen more carefully to his own leader who, in an interview in the Financial Times in December, slapped down the shadow Chancellor and made it clear that tax cuts came before public service investment. Someone else said, rightly, that the Conservatives' website—Conservatives slash education—is a better indicator of Conservative education policy than the warm words of the shadow Secretary of State.
  Another important aspect of educational improvement concerns the under-fives, where South Tyneside has traditionally had a strong record. One hundred per cent. of parents are offered a nursery place for their child. Some 88 per cent. take it up in a mix of public, private and voluntary provision. That has been supplemented for 2,000 families through the introduction of the sure start programme.
  On primary schools, which were an important part of the contribution by the shadow Secretary of State, 30-plus primary schools in South Shields have embraced the national literacy and numeracy strategy. Significantly for a constituency of socio-economic disadvantage, the primary schools perform better than the national average in the key stage 2 tests. In the past six months, there have been positive Ofsted reports on Marine Park and Harton junior schools. That is an indication of the trend.
  On teacher numbers, the situation outside London and the south-east is very different from that within it. There is a stable and committed teaching force in the north-east. Its work is complemented by 50 learning mentors and more than 190 classroom assistants, who take care of precisely the sort of bureaucracy and tasks that teachers do not want to do and in fact should not be doing, but who none the less make a vital contribution to dealing with some of the discipline problems that were mentioned in passing by the shadow Secretary of State. The learning mentors in Mortimore comprehensive school, which I visited last week, make a significant contribution to tackling some of the problems of poor discipline that are a serious issue for many children.
  There is no point in denying the significant strains connected with recruitment in some subjects, but that should not be used as a basis for denouncing the whole approach to teacher education. I thought that the facts presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were compelling in that regard.
  In relation to adult skills, which the shadow Secretary of State did not mention at all, South Tyneside further education college has just been made one of the pathfinder centres of vocational excellence in Britain. About 16,000 students pass through its doors in any one year. Its specialism is marine studies; my constituency occupies the corner of the Tyne and the North sea.

  201
  The college is doing important outreach work into the community. Some 1,500 adults now have access to community places for learning through learndirect, which has not been mentioned today and which was helped by the individual learning accounts, whose demise I regret.
  Those achievements are a tribute not only to the Government but to the thousands of people who work day in, day out—not just the teachers but the support staff—in schools in my constituency. They present a far more accurate picture of education in Britain than the overblown rhetoric of the Opposition, but it would be remiss of me to pretend that everything in the garden was rosy and that all the problems had been solved. That would be absurd. I would like to pick out four issues where local experience in South Tyneside can illuminate some national questions that need to be dealt with.
  The first relates to the need to raise expectations in secondary schools. As I mentioned earlier, primary school performance in South Tyneside now outstrips the national average, but in secondary schools there is a significant dip in performance. Sometimes there is a dip straight after the holidays for 11-year-olds. By the time they enter the first year of secondary school, we can see that they are being turned off education. Despite a recent positive Ofsted report on Harton comprehensive school in my constituency, there remains a huge issue about how we tackle a low expectation/low performance equilibrium in too many of our secondary schools.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Could I bring to my hon. Friend's attention a recent example from a visit to a low-expectation primary school in my constituency, which is providing a refuge for many children who live in problem homes where the parents are on drugs or are unemployed and on benefit? The children are sneaking out of the house to go to the school, which has become a refuge. However, when they go to Ribbleton Hall high secondary school, they find attendance difficult because they are locked into a culture of low expectation. Could my hon. Friend comment on his experiences of that nature in his constituency?
  Mr. Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that interesting point. One of the significant things about English education that may be different from Scottish education is that the two transitions—first at 11 and then at 15 or 16—are points at which we lose far too many students from the education system. We lose their commitment and their interest. The example that my hon. Friend gives of pupils being given extra help up to the age of 11 who then slip back once they enter secondary school is a genuine problem in many constituencies. That lies behind some of the debate about the restructuring of the school year that has been started by hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning. Perhaps that will be one way of tackling the secondary dip, which is a significant problem.
  The Government took some important steps in the last Parliament to tackle the serious problem of low expectation: first, in relation to target setting, where the determination to set ambitious targets for schools and pupils has been important in raising expectations; and secondly, in their determination to tackle the problems at key stage 3. It is too simplistic to talk about extending the literacy and numeracy strategies from key stage 2 into key stage 3. However, some of the principles that underlie the
  202
  key stage 2 strategy—above all, the determination to learn from best practice as it is implemented by teachers around the country and then to spread that best practice—give an important example of how central Government can play a useful role in our education system.
  At Mortimore comprehensive school, the maths teachers were clear that far from being over-regulation, the new key stage 3 strategy exposed them to best practice and helped them to improve their own provision.
  Having said that, I do not believe that we can be in the least complacent about expectations, especially in areas of socio-economic need. The culture of high expectations needs to be reinforced, not simply in schools but in homes and in the community. I am delighted that South Tyneside local education authority, which last year failed its Ofsted report and is now under new leadership, has put at the centre of its new vision statement a determination to have high expectations of itself, as well as of pupils and teachers. If we are to have a culture of high expectations, it must apply to every institution in the education system.
  It is also important to think long term. I wish to put on record some ideas that I think will be important in raising expectations, especially in areas where children do not have the exposure to university life that is perhaps the common experience elsewhere. First, in South Tyneside, two comprehensive schools are being closed to make way for a new school that is going to be opened in co-operation with the local further education college, creating a genuine l4-to-19 institution in the borough for the first time. That will break the divide at 16 which I believe does so much damage in the education system. That will contribute to a culture of staying on rather than dropping out.
  The second idea concerns the role of universities. Many of our inner-city areas that have the poorest achievement levels are side by side with pioneering universities that are at the cutting edge of science and social studies. The role of universities in areas of poor achievement needs to be looked at more closely. I understand that the university of Teesside now requires that every undergraduate mentor a young person in the Middlesbrough area. That sort of interaction between university and school students is to be applauded.
  I am pleased that the South Tyneside transformation commission, which was set up to consider the social and economic future of South Tyneside, is thinking about how to attract a university campus to the town. That would do a lot to raise expectations.
  The second issue concerns the balance of targeted and general spending. There have been undoubted gains from the Government's determination to focus on literacy and numeracy in curricular as well as budgetary terms. Ring-fenced budgets have helped to deliver the improvements in primary schools. However, the undoubted benefits of ring-fenced budgets should not blind us to the problems that that can cause for head teachers. Their enthusiasm for the Chancellor's largesse every year in sending money direct to schools, creating free money for them to use as they will, seems significant as we think about the spending decisions ahead. The flexibility exists for head teachers to deploy resources as they want rather than according to Government diktat. The reduction of the standards fund from 42 separate categories to only six is an important step in that regard.

  203
  In the context of the teachers' pay discussions, it is important not to pretend that delegated budgets end the need for tough choices about where money should be spent. However, this is the right context in which to think about the arguments on performance-related pay and funding above the threshold. It is important to recognise and remember that the threshold payments are fully funded by central Government—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The issue at stake is what happens above the threshold.
  Legitimate points are being made on both sides of the argument by good, committed head teachers and the Government that there must be a balance between ring-fenced funds and general expenditure. It is vital to have a dialogue between head teachers, who are committed and are proud of the way in which they implemented the Government's performance-related pay programme, and the Government, whose point is that, however much money there is, it will ultimately have to be deployed in different ways. There is enough common interest, given the extra money going into the system, to sort out the problem.
  The third issue concerns how we compensate for social disadvantage in the funding system. I welcome the expansion of the excellence in cities programme; the quibbling about whether education action zones fall within the programme or are separate is not to the point. The important point is that we are expanding targeted provision on areas of socio-economic disadvantage. It is significant that relative social mobility in this country has not changed in 100 years. That is the central challenge for education as we think forward to the spending review, because children from lower socio-economic classes are disadvantaged.
  In the context of higher education, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that the main reason why children from lower socio-economic classes do not go into education is not student finance but performance in secondary schools. The best predictor of entry into university is GCSE performance rather than anything else. Our first priority is to improve performance in secondary schools.
  The shadow Secretary of State did not mention training. I am disappointed that individual learning accounts were not sufficiently successful and did not overcome the problems that ultimately forced them to be closed down. The principle of ILAs, to empower adult learners, is absolutely right. Skills, however, need to be linked to work. The work of the north-east maritime and offshore cluster is determined to build a centre of excellence in offshore and estuarial industry in the north-east. There is a unique opportunity to create a regional and sectoral approach to the revival of individual learning accounts, and I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), will look favourably on this in future.
  On recent visits to France and Germany, I was struck by the huge national debate about the failings of the education system. The shadow Secretary of State told us about his visit to Germany; when he flashed open the
  204
  issue of The Teacher, I saw the headline "Deutschland Ober Alles" as a description of Germany's education system.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Unter.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Unter.
  Mr. Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for their correction. In this context, it is not "Deutschland über Alles". The evidence is that the UK is doing better for 15-year-olds, which is a significant compliment to our teaching force.
  It really takes gall for the party that cut education spending to below 5 per cent. of gross domestic product to complain about the money available for teacher retention. It is the ultimate hypocrisy for a party that completely ignored the needs of inner-city education now to quibble about how education action zones are organised. It is record-breaking amnesia for the party that took us to 42nd in the world education league now to lecture us about standards. It is also bad politics for the party that was 40 per cent. behind the Government in its education performance in the last MORI opinion poll to be all bluster and no humility. It is time for that party to listen a little more, and lecture a little less.
  In the end, there is no value in an Opposition who cannot see improved performance in front of their own eyes. The Government can set a better example—listening, learning and adapting their policies on the basis of what is happening on the ground. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to some of my ideas.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Having listened to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), I wonder whether there is an urban-rural divide on education and skills. When individual learning accounts crashed and disappeared, many people were disfranchised. My constituency covers much of rural Somerset. My constituents could not get to Taunton, where the providers were located. ILAs had provided money for transport, but when it was no longer provided many of my constituents lost their places and, through no fault of their own, could not continue their further education. That problem has not been rectified. People have to travel 40 miles to a place of further education, without proper rural infrastructure.
  Mr. Levitt: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman praise a Labour initiative and that he wants ILAs to return in improved form. What provision did the Conservative Government make for his constituents before ILAs were in place?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: ILAs were a complete disaster—and they were got rid of because they were a disaster. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully, he would have realised that his party disfranchised a major part of my constituency. I can

  205
  assure you that people working in further education, especially FE colleges, are extremely cross about that. It is your fault.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The word "you" can be used only in respect of the Chair.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise, too, to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). I meant that the failure was due to his Government's inactivity.
  People from rural areas being excluded from further education is not the only problem. In one part of my patch, there is only one college. A child who is excluded from that college has nowhere else to go. Children cannot get to another school, because there is no other school in the area. Somerset county council has tried to provide for excluded children, but because resources are tight—the position in rural areas has worsened over the past few years—no provision has been made for children who cannot be taught in mainstream schools.
  One might say that few children from rural areas are affected, but 124 of the 1,200 pupils at West Somerset college have special needs, which gives us some idea of the scale of the problem. There is no easy way of excluding children. We are told that they can go to their nearest further education college, but in my constituency Bridgwater college is nearly 40 miles away, and the lack of funding means that it cannot attract teachers. For years, every school in my area has applied for teachers, but simply cannot get them. Rural people may have quality of life but they lack the ability to further a career if they are ambitious. Such people understandably go to urban areas, but that does not help the rural areas that I represent.
  All the colleges in my area are applying for special status. Resources are so depleted that they feel that they must raise the £50,000 required to apply for that status. One has acquired it, two more are in the process of doing so, and the other three are starting to raise the money. Local businesses in west Somerset raised £65,000 in three weeks. People's concern about the quality of their children's education was such that they felt that they had no choice but to put their hand in their own pocket as the Government will not provide the money.
  What will happen to the colleges in my area? There are three: Somerset college of arts and technology, Bridgwater college and Richard Huish college. They are now in competition owing to the lack of resources. SCAT in Taunton has decided that it cannot compete with Bridgwater college and has cut courses and numbers. Bridgwater college is doing well as it has a tie-up scheme with the University of Plymouth—complicated or what?
  Surely we must keep education simple so that children know where they will be from start to finish. If they do not go on to university, they should be able to follow their chosen course of further education in their local area. However, they cannot do that in our area because of uncertainty about courses.
  The lack of rural transport affects the competition between colleges. It is difficult for students to attend one of the best colleges because the bus service is so limited. Unless the service is subsidised by the college or the county council—neither can do so—pupils cannot attend all their courses, which is a major concern.
  206
  I have a few other concerns to raise, although I realise that many Members want to speak. I have received many representations from teachers in my constituency about the gathering of postcodes and children's names for the school census. Until 1999, the census was based on unique pupil numbers. I do not disagree with the collection of information—it is right to find out where pupils are and to assess whether high mobility has an effect on their achievement—but why do the Government need to collect the names, addresses and postcodes of individual children? When I questioned that, I was told that the data would be widely used by DFES policy divisions, other Departments, local education authorities, external agencies and education researchers.
  Teachers have rightly pointed out that if a child's name is retained on a database, his or her chance of getting a job or of securing further education may be prejudiced by problems that are not relevant to their situation. Teachers question whether they should provide such information. One of them pointed out that to do so might breach the European convention on human rights; that is a great concern to teachers in my area.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that an even more insidious aspect of the annual school census is the collection of ethnicity data on every pupil at a maintained school? The Government have made no commitment to wipe such information at the end of pupils' school careers.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I agree with my hon. Friend, although ethnicity information is not as important in my constituency as it is in some areas.
  What safeguards are there for our children? How can we ensure that children's careers are not blighted, through no fault of their own, by leaked databases? If the secret service cannot prevent that in Northern Ireland, what hope is there for the DFES?
  There has been much discussion of who is providing what. I discovered the learning and skills framework for action in the minutes of the meeting of the south west regional assembly held in Exeter on 1 March. Are regional development agencies and the regional assemblies involved in education? It seems that they are. The South West Regional Development Agency has a skills and learning select committee on advanced engineering, which has met eight times. Its aim is
  "to ensure the highest quality"
  in sectors such as nuclear power generation, automotive, marine, aerospace and petrochemicals, but we do not train children in those sectors in our area, so why are we spending money on such matters? I also wonder why Government money that should go to teachers is being spent on the learning skills intelligence module of the regional observatory—I did not know that we had one in the south-west.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: On nuclear power, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Berkeley research centre, which is just up the road from his constituency and which does excellent work and needs trained staff.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that centre, but why do the regional

  207
  assembly and the RDA have to do such things? Why cannot such things be done through further education and organisations dedicated to teaching, as opposed to unelected quangos?
  I wonder about adult skills in the workplace. The RDA has now had vital discussions with 137 participants, and with 70 participants across the region. That is education by committee. We are all concerned about education, and if the Government want education to be taken seriously, they should not educate by committee but involve the people who understand—the teachers—not the leaders of various district and county councils.
  Finally, I was amazed to notice that £3.7 million is being spent on considering where money should be spent on education in our region. Why is the Department for Education and Skills or the Government office for the south-west not doing so?
  There is an education gap between urban and rural areas and resources are not reaching the children in the way that they should. In my experience, teachers are incredibly worried that there are not enough of them to provide the service in the areas that need it most, because people in those areas have the least choice in this country and are least able to get where they need to go.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) criticised the Government for referring in their amendment to investment, but the debate is about investment—investment in the next generation. If we fail to make that investment, we will fail the next generation. In parlance that you and I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not expect you to arbitrate on it from your position—the hon. Gentleman's problem was that he opened the batting, but fell on his wicket at an early stage. He missed a series of things that are happening, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) and other hon. Members helpfully informed told the House of the positive things that are happening in their constituencies.
  I have been desperately concerned about the problems of a series of schools in my constituency—some of which date back to the beginning of the 20th century, and some even before that—whose facilities were no longer adequate to provide a modern education service. The imaginative public-private partnership that has been put together represents an exceptionally good investment, and I look forward to seeing the project develop.
  There is an area of real deprivation in the town centre. Hon. Members who understand the chemical industry will understand that, close to chemical plants, there is now always a belt of housing where people live in relative deprivation. Years ago, those people commuted to the plants, but now, because of technology, the industry pays much higher wages to fewer people, and the people in that little belt of housing often find themselves socially excluded in various ways, not least in education. The education action zone in that community is having a profound effect on the quality of education.
  A head teacher, who had complained to me about previous problems, told me how grateful he was that, as a result of the EAZ, he had six classroom assistants.
  208
  He needs six classroom assistants. Many schools in better-off areas do not need such support, but he is dealing with a number of children who come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds, so additional investment is desperately needed. The sure start programme is having similar effects in that community, as a result of real investment in the next generation.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been in correspondence about provision for a further education college that is in recovery. The business process that was being applied to the management of resources was not adequate. The Government, through the Further Eduction Funding Council, had to intervene and take remedial action. That action is leading to positive responses, including plans being drawn up for new college buildings.
  Some Labour Members feel nostalgic about the Grange centre in my constituency. Before becoming an FE college, it was a secondary modern school that was attended by none other than my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to my right hon. Friend in the kindest way that I look forward to his classroom being demolished and replaced by a modern institute appropriate to the needs of students. The college has recently been inspected. It is now achieving standards that were not reached under the previous regime.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will visit my constituency in the near future. He will see two examples of the effects of investment. First, he will see an almost brand new primary school, Brookside, which has been open for only a few months. It has brought together—[Interruption.] Not that Brookside. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) clearly spends his early evenings watching soaps. Brookside primary school brought together two schools that were in a poor physical state. As a result of a rebuild programme, some imaginative architecture and some brilliantly imaginative teachers, education is being delivered in a brand new school that is a credit to everyone involved.
  I am extremely proud that it is a Labour Government who have at last put resources into the Hammond school for dance, which is on the outskirts of Chester. For the first time, moneys will go to support state pupils at the Hammond school. With the greatest respect to my colleagues who represent constituencies in the south-east, it is about time that we saw such investment in the north of the country. It is the first time such investment has been made outside the south-east.
  Last Friday, I gave a public lecture at Chester college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell). The college is participating in the training of 1,500 nurses. That is an exceptionally good use of the expansion of resources that has resulted from investment in higher and further education in my area.
  I agreed with a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). We must raise the profile of the teaching of science, mathematics and technology. We must enthuse school children about the exciting possibilities that those technologies will bring to them. I daily see a lack of understanding of science in the community, which impacts on people's judgments about things that surround them.
  On the positive side, work is being done by the Hadley centre on oceanographic research, about which children enthuse. The same is true of the work of the European

  209
  Space Agency, NASA and Bob Ballard's research project in submarine activities in the United States. Such work is at the cutting edge of science and has a tangible dimension; we need to give our children access to such things to ensure that they understand where the cutting-edge technologies are taking us and why their involvement in practical science will be of benefit in future. Otherwise, a generation will grow up getting their science from pressure groups and so on; that generation's science will be based on a bigoted view, such as the creationism to which the hon. Member for Newbury referred, rather than proper research undertaken in the laboratory and the world around us.
  I would not stop the observations of people who regard themselves as creationists being explained to children, but I would use properly taught science to put those observations in context. For example, the next step above the one bearing the plaque about Charles I's trial in Westminster Hall contains a wonderful coral fossil; science can be used to explain cogently that that fossil is more than 200 million years old, not 4,000 years and a few days. Such science, taught properly in schools, can help to excite the next generation.
  The Government have done a huge amount to apply technology in schools. At Brookside school, which I mentioned earlier, the internet, including internet whiteboards, is an immensely powerful tool. We must make sure not only that our pupils are ready to grasp that tool but that our teachers are properly equipped to deal with those technologies and can pass on their benefits to their students.
  In conclusion, I am sure that the Under-Secretaries of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and for Wentworth (John Healey), are pressing their case firmly in the comprehensive spending review. I am sure that most Members would back them solidly to maintain the pressure for continued investment. The Government have made such investment in the past four and a half years, but if that does not continue, standards will decline. That point impacts on some of those made by the hon. Member for Newbury, who was right that people's perceptions of education are based on a system in which there has been poor investment for a couple of generations. The advances that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields sought to promote cannot take place unless we have a Government who continue to make a positive investment in the next generation.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. No Opposition Member wants to denigrate the teaching profession. I was briefly a teacher in Australia, and know how hard teaching is; I had a tough time of it. I shall shortly concentrate on an issue pertaining to my own constituency, but I cannot resist holding the Government to account for the manifest failings of their teaching policies.
  The Government promise, to which the Liberal Democrat spokesman alluded, has a hollow ring for those of us who have children in state education in inner London. The Government promised "Education, education, education," but last week, my children were not in education at all; they were knocking around at home. I have no hesitation in using my children as a
  210
  political football, because they always use me as a football. The Government should apologise to those of us with children in state education in inner London; despite their promise of "Education, education, education", they have devolved it to us. What greater failure of government could there be than to precipitate the first strike of the National Union of Teachers in 30 years, resulting in my family having educate our children at home last Thursday?
  Anybody who listens to teachers, as I do in my constituency, and hears their horrendous tales of top-down control and having to fill in forms, knows that, contrary to the Government's assertions, the Opposition have good ideas for alleviating those problems.
  Mr. Michael Foster: Name one.
  Mr. Johnson: Here is an idea for the man who wants to ban fox hunting, which I offer in all humility. It may not be as good as some of the brainy ideas of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who went on about benchmarking, best practice and socio-economic indicators—there was some good and interesting stuff about low expectation thresholds and so on—but I am genuinely interested in the Government's response to it. When I visit schools in my constituency, I am struck by the lack of something that teachers had when I was at school: respect, in the words of Ali G—[Interruption.] The groans of Government Members are interesting; I suspect that, sadly, they are congenitally opposed to the solution that I am about to give.
  Head teachers in my constituency tell me that they cannot oblige children to spend half an hour picking up crisp packets as punishment for a misdemeanour, because their parents will come to the school and get stroppy. They have no authority any more. It may be pompous of me to talk about respect in the classroom, but I think that, having taken the trouble of being elected to Parliament, I am allowed to be pompous. It is important to restore respect. I am earnest in wishing to know whether or not the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), agrees that that is a fundamental problem in our schools.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the kids at school today are the children of people of my generation? Twenty years ago, when my generation was looking for work, there were 4 million unemployed people; our generation did not get much respect from the previous Government. Kids today are the children of those parents.
  Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reiterating the old cry that it is all society's and, presumably, Mrs. Thatcher's, fault. Personally, however, I do not think that she is to blame. There has been a calamitous falling-off in the respect in which teachers are held. Teachers used to be people who did not just impart instruction, but were treated with dignity, honour and respect by their charges. It would be a good thing if that respect were restored. We should give back autonomy to teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, as well as the ability to discipline children; we should restore the old assumption that teachers, not children or parents, tend to be in the right.
  David Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Pomposity on Thames for giving way. How did the previous

  211
  Government, whom he supported, show respect for teachers, when they allowed class sizes to become unacceptably large and teachers to teach in schools, laboratories and classrooms that were 30, 40 or 50 years out of date? Only recently has that problem begun to be addressed.
  Mr. Johnson: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to return again, as his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) did, to the so-called derelictions of the Conservative Government, when it is the present Government who have produced the first NUT strike in 30 years and who are depriving my children of the education that they promised. [Interruption.] I will not take sedentary interventions from a chap of whose identity I have no knowledge.
  I promised to speak about a problem pertaining specifically to my constituency, Henley, and to south Oxfordshire, so I shall pass over my other objections to the Government's generally lax policy on education, particularly their divisiveness and chippiness in respect of Oxbridge admissions. The Government allegedly intend to introduce a 67 per cent. quota for admissions from the maintained sector. I should be interested to hear the comments of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wentworth, on that.
  I am delighted to see the Minister in his seat. We have become old friends in the course of the unfolding catastrophe of the individual learning accounts. Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the disaster of the ILA affair. This is how it went: from September 2000, anyone could avail him or herself of £200 to cover the cost of computer training, a very good thing which we all, in principle, support. People dialled up a website, entered their name and supplied the name of their learning provider. They then received an ILA account number and could claim their £200 from the state.
  It will not amaze the House if I say that the scheme was an invitation to fraud. In order to find a learning provider, people merely had to look in the mirror. It later turned out that a CD-ROM was available with ILA numbers to help people rip off the Government. The scheme was expected to have 1.1 million subscribers; it eventually had 2.5 million. It went 30 per cent. over budget and those who have reason to know say that the total cost was in excess of £550 million, half of which was defrauded from the Government by Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Del Boy Trotter and assorted other alleged purveyors—
  David Taylor: And the Boris Johnson school of journalism?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that assertion. I came nowhere near to defrauding the individual learning account system. My entire purpose in the debate is to speak in favour of those who honestly entered into deals with the Government and found themselves ripped off by the Government's breach of promise.
  On 21 July 2001, the Government announced that the ILAs would continue "into the new era", but the gurgle of money down the drain turned into a roar and on
  212
  24 October, the ILAs were suspended, with a closure date of 7 December. By 23 November, the panic in Whitehall was so great and the sums lost were so huge that the scheme was brought to a sudden and juddering halt. It turned out that it was so riddled with fraud that it could not go on another day. I understand that the fraudsters had penetrated the central database of Capita, the firm contracted to run the scheme, and were simply looting it at will.
  The Minister has been generous with his time and has been helpful in my inquiries so far. Can he tell us what steps are being taken to penalise Capita, a firm with close links to the Government, and which paid £50 million to run the ILA scheme? It was a spectacular failure of administration. Why was Capita hired, when it had a history of epic bungling? For example, it was put in charge of administering Lambeth's housing benefit. Lambeth later cancelled the contract and pursued Capita for its fee after it emerged that there was a backlog of 30,000 claims and no fewer than 113,000 unopened letters. Many other councils had similar experiences with the company.
  What steps are the Government taking to penalise the bunglers that they hired, and what steps to compensate the many hundreds of honest learning providers who have been faced with financial ruin because of the Government's panic-stricken pulling of the plug? We still do not know why it was necessary to close down the ILA scheme in November, rather than to modify it, make it fraud-proof, and allow the bona fide firms to continue.
  People took out loans or remortgaged their houses and invested huge amounts of their own time and money, in the belief, backed up by constant Government assurances, that they were supplying a service that the Government not only desired but would help to pay for. They have been treated most shabbily. I speak not just for the Henley community online centre, which has been forced to close, but for about 1,000 other such companies across the country, which, as the Minister well knows, employed about 4,500 people. About £50 million of investment has been taken out of higher education. We still do not know how or when it will be put back. Though I have taxed the Minister before on the question, I should be grateful if he offered some clarification at the end of the debate.
  Where is the compensation for those whose legitimate expectations inspired by the Government were frustrated, and where is the replacement scheme? If the Government are really committed to higher education, we will have a son of ILA; if not, many hundreds of thousands of students and hundreds of firms will learn the same lesson about the Government as the disappointed parents of London did: that Labour promised far more than it could deliver, and when it found that it was falling down on its promises, it ratted on them without so much as turning a hair. If that is how the Government honour their undertakings this time, they cannot expect to be believed in the future.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: I am grateful to the Opposition for calling the debate today. It is not long since we had a debate on education in Opposition time, and on that occasion I took 24 minutes, as I recall, to describe some of the major improvements that have taken place in High Peak and Derbyshire since the Government

  213
  came to power. I got so excited in my enthusiasm that the only reason I sat down was sheer exhaustion. The opportunity to carry on where I left off is a temptation, indeed.
  I remember describing to the House the four new schools that we have had in my constituency in four years; the fact that more than half the schools have had extra classrooms, extensions or major capital investment; the fact that in Derbyshire we had the worst key stage 1 class sizes in the country, and we now have no child in an infant class of more than 30; the fact that we now have the highest standards of achievement ever in our schools in Derbyshire; the fact that we have had single regeneration budget cash to tackle the shortfall in adult literacy; and the fact that we have had better than inflation standard spending assessment increases in Derbyshire education spending every year. The House knows these things. They are established facts.
  David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Levitt: I know what my hon. Friend is about to say, but I shall allow him to intervene in any case.
  David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that his A-level in telepathy was worth while. Yes, I am about to point out that Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and other shire counties receive substantially smaller amounts expressed in terms of SSA per primary school pupil and per secondary school pupil. We are 6 or 7 per cent. adrift of the average county and 13 or 14 per cent. adrift of Hertfordshire. Does my hon. Friend, like me, look forward with some anticipation to the ability of the new formula to redress that injustice?
  Mr. Levitt: Indeed. Unfortunately, the matter is not within the remit of the Department for Education and Skills. There is no point in reforming the defunct Tory system of SSAs, unless it is done in a way that will benefit people in the consistently underfunded counties such as Derbyshire and Leicestershire, as my hon. Friend explained.
  Mr. Kerry Pollard rose—
  Mr. Levitt: In the spirit of democracy, I shall let a Member from Hertfordshire intervene.
  Mr. Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. In Hertfordshire, our costs are very much higher than in other counties. That has been recognised, and that is why we get the extra SSA. Does he accept that?
  Mr. Levitt: I accept that teachers are paid on a national pay scale, that Hertfordshire teachers and Derbyshire teachers are paid on the same rates, and that the vast majority of the education budget goes on teachers. My hon. Friend and I could continue the discussion in private, perhaps.
  I shall continue with the list of achievements. As a former teacher, I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have taken seriously teachers' arguments about work load. I accept the argument that there are teacher vacancies not because we have a historic shortage of teachers, but because we have created new teaching
  214
  opportunities faster than we have been able to fill them. I am delighted to say that in the primary schools of High Peak, we are seeing the benefit of classroom assistants. Teachers in those primary schools tell me that they did not think that classroom assistants could produce such a benefit, how grateful they are that they have them, and what a wonderful job they can do to add to the community life of the school.
  Earlier, hon. Members referred to the number of people who qualified as teachers but who are no longer teaching, and to the drop-out rates. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply. But there will be teachers who, like me, started to teach in the mid-1970s, who will recall that at that time there was a three-year watershed, and the number of teachers who qualified then and who were still in the job five years later was not that high. I suspect that it was not even as good as it is today.
  In the 1970s, teachers who did not feel satisfied had somewhere else to go. Throughout the recessions of the 80s and 90s, teachers who, after a few years, felt that teaching was not the job for them, did not have the same opportunity to get out. Given that we are now retaining teachers at an historically high level at a time of a thriving economy, when we all know that we are unlikely to end our career in the profession where we started it, our achievement is significant.
  No teachers have complained to me that they have received the £2,000 bonus unjustifiably, and the pay increases for the average classroom teacher during the past few years will ensure that, when we address the work load issue and other things that will benefit teachers, the retention level will be still higher; and we will have well motivated teachers with high morale contributing to the excellence of the service that is provided.
  I return to the point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in an intervention about teacher morale. When I was on Derbyshire county council from 1993 to 1997, there was only ever one item on the agenda, and that was cuts. Year after year, we were forced to cut our education budget as a result of the Government's use of the iniquitous SSA system, to allow class sizes to rise, and to decimate our youth service—a non-statutory provision within the education budget; in short, we let our education service go to seed. I am delighted that that situation has been reversed and I look forward to that progress continuing.
  I want to touch briefly on two areas that I was unable to cover in my previous contribution on this subject during an Opposition day debate; they are higher education and—the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) will be pleased to know—independent learning accounts and adult learning generally.
  On higher education, I want to tell the House of another success story. Shortly after I was elected to this place, I helped to negotiate the merger between the High Peak further education college and the university of Derby, one of the first mergers of its kind. It is already a success, not just because of the prestige of the degree courses provided but because the university has been enabled to develop in a new and comprehensive way to serve a rural community. The university has now pioneered distance learning. It has outposts in factories, community halls, libraries and even pubs throughout Derbyshire, where people can access courses online, particularly those that are vocationally oriented.

  215
  At the same time, the university has acquired our most famous and prestigious historical building, the Devonshire Royal hospital in Buxton, with a dome bigger than almost any other dome of its kind in the world. It is a beautiful building that the university is developing into a brand new campus, saving our heritage site, and delivering in the centre of Buxton, not just for High Peak but for the whole country, high level courses in subjects at the heart of the local economy, such as sustainable tourism and hospitality-related issues. The most important aspect of the university is that it is bringing real education opportunities to ordinary people, whether from a traditional university background or otherwise.
  It has been fascinating to hear Opposition Members' views on individual learning accounts. They are right; what has happened is an embarrassment, and there is no getting away from that. It should not have happened. But they were over-subscribed. They were brought in to provide a service that had not hitherto been provided. Independent learning accounts gave many ordinary people their first opportunity. It was the first time since they had left school that they had got the message that education was for them. With a £200 computer literacy and information technology course, people had the opportunity to further their professional development and vocational ambitions, in many cases finding that an extra dimension, an extra value, had been given to their lives. People on doorsteps have said, "Thank heavens for the ILA. Thank heavens I went back into education." Having done one course, they have gone on to do another.
  In my constituency, there has also been the excellent sure start initiative; this nursery scheme, which I commend to hon. Members, will shortly bring adult learning within its framework. Those parents who are benefiting from sure start will find opportunities for learning themselves in parallel with their children, and I commend that excellent initiative to others.
  Today, education is open to all. ILAs, the university of Derby and the learning and skills council are co-ordinating post-16 education generally. The Minister will know that Derbyshire has one or two problems with the funding of the learning and skills council and the post-16 budget, and I am sure that he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are about to sort those out—I look forward to that. I certainly look forward to the replacement of ILAs with something more sustainable that takes the values of ILAs and applies them more widely.
  I look forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, to the end of the SSA system, and to a fair, transparent and constructive system that will get rid of that nasty, divisive, politically corrupt system that we used to have under SSAs, when counties such as Derbyshire were singled out for bad treatment by the Tory Government year after year. Next April will see the end of the SSA system and I am confident that we will have a much fairer and more transparent system which will be another break with the past, another break with the Tory tradition of cuts, and another opportunity to invest, invest, invest in education for all.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested to hear of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) for changes to the SSA system. As a representative of a constituency that does not always see itself as part of the south-east, I echo the concerns of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard). Where will the money come from? Will it be drained from the education authorities in the south-east, and particularly in London? With the London elections coming up, it behoves the Government to answer that question. If more is going to Derbyshire and other areas, more will come from somewhere else, and I should like the Minister to answer that point.
  I want to devote most of my time to ILAs. I have a letter from Mrs. Barnes of Cowes who says:
  "Thirty-five years ago I left school"
  she then gives her age—
  "I hadn't taken full advantage of or appreciated my education but now I feel I had been given a second chance…Teachers at my Secondary school thought I would not amount to much. I can proudly say under the ILA scheme and dedicated team of tutors 1 am fully versed in Sage Accountancy for Beginners and Intermediate level, database and publishing, the prospects are good for me; I now manage a small roofing company".
  Another of my constituents says that she can now get a part-time job using what she learned in the ILA system. She says:
  "If I had not done this training I would still be looking for a job."
  Yet another of my constituents says:
  "I had been working in a shop for 10 years and had got very bored with it and I have always wanted to do office work. I attended the courses so I could get some experience behind me. I am thrilled to have passed six exams with distinction."
  In quoting those constituents, I am illustrating not only some of the successes of the ILA scheme—it is only fair to recognise them—but the aspirations of many people who have not had the benefit of the education that many hon. Members on both sides of the House share. Unfortunately, the Government have damaged those aspirations and have let down many other people who have taken advantage of the ILA system, and they have let down the providers as well.
  I shall quote some more of my constituents. A gentleman who had benefited from the ILA scheme but who is worried about what will happen in the future said:
  "There aren't many, if any, other courses that the average working person can get help with."
  A lady who was asked whether she was disappointed to see the scheme finish said:
  "Very disappointed. When I first saw the scheme advertised I thought it was too good to be true, a scheme that was actually helping employed people for a change at a price that was affordable."
  Another lady who was asked whether she was disappointed said:
  "Yes, very much so. There are very few, if any courses that can be taken if you are a working person. Cost is not a problem if you are highly paid or on benefit, but it is if you have an average job and only earning £5.72 per hour."
  A gentleman whom I shall not name described the situation most graphically. When asked whether he was disappointed to see the scheme finish, he said:
  "Yes! Low income people get kicked in the nuts again by central government."

  217
  That is because central Government have failed to introduce and maintain successfully what was a very good idea.
  I congratulate Government on having the idea, and on the idea of a voucher for further education and training. The voucher idea is brilliant, and I wish that it could be widened to other disciplines, too. However, it had two fatal flaws. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) described, the Government saw the scheme being abused, and they took precipitate action to close it, thereby losing the confidence of the users and the providers. Many of those people will not try again—having got halfway through a course, or having decided to embark on a course, they will have lost their confidence, and they did not have much confidence to start with. They will feel that the Government have let them down because of the panic with which they closed the scheme.
  Of course I understand that there was fraud and abuse, although the Government seem to have had difficulty in describing exactly what is abuse and what is an enterprising new approach to marketing a scheme and getting new people to take advantage of learning who would otherwise not have done so. However, I am concerned that the Government went from their announcement on 24 October last year of the date when the scheme would be closed to closing it precipitately. I can only conclude that they did so because insufficient safeguards were built into the scheme in the first place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Henley mentioned Capita. Perhaps 180,000 unopened letters in Lambeth under Capita's regime was an improvement on the previous regime in that borough, or perhaps not. However, Capita has let down the Government and the users. However, the providers have also been let down, for the reasons on which my hon. Friend expatiated. The providers invested their money, time and energy—in some cases, they mortgaged their homes—and some of them have gone bust because the Government do not accept responsibility for that participation.
  The Government were selling a "Government scheme" to a range of private sector providers, many of which are small businesses that can ill afford to offer the Government their trust and have it so badly abused. It is no good for the Government to say, "Don't worry, we had no contract with the small providers." If the Government let them down this time, as they have done, and if they see nothing wrong in letting them down—they do not—the small providers will not be available when the Government relaunch the ILA scheme, as I hope that they will do soon. The small providers will say, "Once bitten, twice shy." They will not get involved in a Government scheme of this kind unless there is a clear and unambiguous contract. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is muttering from a sedentary position. I shall give way to her if she has something useful to say.
  Ms Candy Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly trying to suggest that providers will not see opportunities to make money in a future scheme?
  Mr. Turner: If they have gone bust—as many of them have done—they will find it difficult. If the hon. Lady is
  218
  saying that they should have the same trust in the Government as they had under the previous scheme, I am sure that they will look into the history books and find that the Government pulled the plug on the providers and the users precipitately, and they will not get involved in a future scheme. Of course the big boys will get involved. It is good for big business, but it is no good at all for small businesses. It is good for the public sector, but no good for those in the private sector who risk their money, their livelihoods and their bank loans. That is one of the problems faced by the Minister in launching a new ILA scheme.
  The second problem—that of the single target—is one on which I sympathise with the Minister, as he inherited it from his predecessor. The Government set one target only for the ILA scheme—1 million participants by 2002. Close questioning of Ministers, civil servants and Capita by the Select Committee on Education and Skills has revealed only one target for the scheme—membership. There was nothing about quality, need or targeting those most in need. That is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to use so much public money without any guarantee of quality. I genuinely sympathise with the Minister on that.
  I also sympathise with the Minister—again, this was revealed in the evidence that Capita provided to the Education and Skills Committee—because the Government changed the basis of the scheme after Capita had been named as the preferred provider and had started to develop the computer scheme. The Government withdrew the connection with the learndirect list of registered providers, which was one of the quality mechanisms in place before the scheme was advertised. So, one month before the scheme was launched, the then Department for Education and Employment admitted that that connection could not be provided. Capita was let down, and the users and other providers of the scheme, as it turned out, were let down, too.
  I find the Minister not guilty on the last two counts, but the Government are certainly guilty. However, I fear that I find both the Government and the Minister guilty on the first count of closing the scheme precipitately and in a panic, and of damaging the interests of users and providers.
  6.28 pm
  Tony Cunningham: Quite a lot of former teachers have contributed to this debate. As someone who taught in comprehensive schools for about 15 years, who has been a governor of several schools for about 20 years, and whose nine-year-old daughter is studying in a primary school at the moment, I honestly do not recognise the education system described by the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). I shall not quote from briefings but talk about what is happening in my constituency.
  I wish to refer to a secondary modern school that was built roughly about the time that I was growing up. It did not have a particularly good reputation, but it is now a specialist technology college. Just a few weeks ago, I was approached by a teacher at the Southfield technology college, who had tremendous pride in the college. As I said, the school did not have a particularly good reputation, but the teacher told me that the specialist technology college had just had its Ofsted report and the

  219
  Ofsted inspector had said that it was the best school that she had visited in 18 years. The teacher, with a smile on his face and pride in his voice, told me that the college was now going forward as a result of Labour policy.
  We had two further education colleges—one in Workington and one in Whitehaven—and the fabric of the buildings at both was deteriorating. However, the new Lakes college—it used to be called the West Cumbria college—was funded with £12 million of investment. It is superb. It is the first brand-new college for further education in the area and provides first-class education for the people of west Cumbria. Furthermore, £500,000 of investment went into a new all-weather facility at Cockermouth school, and I have seen new language labs, teaching facilities, science labs and drama facilities. I could go on and on. There has been tremendous investment in the schools in my constituency.
  I taught for 11 years at Netherhall school, and returned there recently. I finished teaching there in 1994, but many of the teachers with whom I taught are still at the school. I accept that there are recruitment and retention problems, but they do not exist across the country. They are found in specific areas.
  No one would dispute that there are challenges ahead. Teachers in my constituency say that they face distinct challenges, but they also point to the huge improvements in education. The Government and their policies are going in the right direction. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier, the secondary head teacher of the school where I am a governor told me that he had never known a time when the quality of his pupils was so good. He said that the school could do so much more in years 7 and 8 because of the primary education that his pupils had received. Part of that involved the numeracy and the literacy hours.
  Dr. John Pugh: If satisfaction is so prevalent in the teaching profession, will the hon. Gentleman explain why teachers are currently balloting on strike action?
  Tony Cunningham: I have been talking about my experience in my constituency, and teachers are not balloting for strike action there. However, I remember that, when I was a teacher in Maryport in the 1980s, the NUT balloted its members on strike action. When I discuss education with my former colleagues, I recognise the problems and challenges. However, I also ask them to think back to the 1980s and when we taught together. I can think of temporary classrooms that should have been bulldozed 20 years earlier, but which were still in place. I remember holding fund-raising events not to raise money for a new sports centre, but to raise money to paint classrooms and for exercise books and text books. When I ask them to think back to the 1980s, they cringe because they remember that time so distinctly.
  I also want to refer to resources. A head teacher recently told me that he had never known a time in which so much investment was going into schools and in which schools had so many resources at their disposal. Although Opposition Members would deny this, they have criticised the teaching profession. Some of the best primary and secondary schools in the country are in my constituency
  220
  and the league tables demonstrate that. When we try to attract inward investment to my constituency, one of our selling points is the quality of education provided. We say to people who want to invest, "Come to this constituency because of the quality of life and because of the quality of the primary and secondary education that your children will receive."
  Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the teaching profession. It might be argued that, as a former teacher, I am bound to do that, but teachers do an incredibly difficult job incredibly well. The same applies to the support staff, the governors and everyone associated with education.
  On recruitment and retention, I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). One way of ensuring that we do not retain or recruit is to act like the Opposition and run down education, criticise teachers and say nasty things about them. If the Opposition want to recruit teachers and provide them with respect and status, I hope that they will join me in saying that teachers do an incredible job.
  Challenges lie ahead and, of course, everything is not right in the education system. However, the Government have put the building blocks in place and genuine improvements have occurred in primary and secondary schools. Let us give credit to the Government and pay tribute to the enormously hard-working teaching profession.
  6.36 pm
  Alistair Burt: This has been a wide-ranging debate characterised by passion for the subject, which is not unusual. It is no surprise that we have ranged widely, because wherever one considers education and those who are working hard—both students and staff—we find that the Government have put obstacles in their way.
  I wish to make two points at the outset. First, no Conservative Member has criticised teachers. However, under a democracy, it is still possible to criticise the Government, and that is what we have done. Our support for teachers, particularly bearing in mind the burdens on them, is fulsome and genuine. Secondly, there are examples of good and bad practice at any time in the education system, under previous Governments or this one. That should not surprise anyone. However, the Secretary of State's repeated claim that 1997 was some sort of year zero is becoming increasingly wearing. The public find it incredible that nothing good happened before 1997, and the educational establishment is not fooled. The narrow-minded amnesia that she displays is wearing thin.
  The issue before the House is whether the charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has been proved. He alleged that our motion was justified because of Government failure, incompetence, broken promises and weakness. To what extent have those charges been proved in the debate?
  First came a memorable speech from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). We found out that, should he become Secretary of State for Education and Skills, he will be considerably more relaxed than the present Secretary of State. He was smoked out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), because the hon. Gentleman said that the smoking of

  221
  cannabis would make teaching easier. I have no doubt that he will reflect on the wisdom of his remarks, which caused surprise here and will, I suspect, cause considerable concern elsewhere.
  Mr. Bendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he misquoted me completely. I never said that the smoking of cannabis by teachers would make them more relaxed or that the smoking of cannabis was a good idea in itself. I said that a change in the law so that cannabis was no longer illegal in the way that it is now would be a good idea and make the whole of society work a lot better.
  Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman may prefer to consult Hansard, and then have another crack at it. I suggested that it was put to him that the smoking of cannabis would make teaching easier, with which he agreed.
  We will draw a happy veil over the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, other than to pick out his admission that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have not abolished tuition fees in higher education, but merely put them at the other end of the process.
  Mr. Bendel: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
  Alistair Burt: No. The hon. Gentleman can consult Hansard again.
  Mr. Bendel: That is a misquote.
  Alistair Burt: I did not misquote you last time, and I am not misquoting you this time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.
  Alistair Burt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not misquote the hon. Member for Newbury, who may refer to Hansard again in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford focused on schools issues. He was supported by strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). The latter's speech was especially strong on bullying in schools, an issue of which, disappointingly, Labour Members made light.
  Passionate speeches were made by Labour Members, including the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who did his promotion prospects no harm, for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who made his usual sound and fair contribution, for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who made interesting comments on mergers between higher education and further education colleges, and for Workington (Tony Cunningham), whose praise for the Government was so fulsome that even Ministers might have been embarrassed by it. The House will forgive me if I concentrate on three other issues.
  Higher education is apprehensive. Ministers say little about the problems of recruiting and retaining academic staff and funding research, or about a funding gap that Universities UK suggests is now £9 billion, but they do respond to other stimuli. They are turning the unwarranted attack into an art form—indeed, it is almost a policy in
  222
  itself. Universities are not encouraged in their efforts to increase access to and participation in higher education but regularly hectored and condemned for not doing enough. Ministers conveniently forget that the pool of well-qualified post-16 pupils from non-traditional university backgrounds is simply not large enough. Their cries of "elitism" uttered at every turn to deflect criticism are becoming wearing.
  Students with debt problems, inspiring headlines such as "Debt grows ever bigger and even more painful", are met by the Minister for Lifelong Learning with a discussion of their drinking habits. That does not accord students, many from non-traditional backgrounds who work long hours outside their studies to fund their time at university, the support and respect that they deserve.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend regret the emergence of a practice that affects one of my constituents: the selling on of student debt, in my constituent's case from Nationwide to Deutsche Bank? The student in question cannot ascertain from anyone what he owes and to whom he owes it. By the admission of his university office, the whole system is in "complete chaos".
  Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If the Government concentrated on students real difficulties and concerns instead of making hectoring remarks about them, people would be much better informed.
  Further education is a fantastic sector. Close to the need of students and local employers, FE colleges now teach a wider range of ability than ever before, and to an increasing extent, the pathway to higher education is through further education. Yet the Minister for Lifelong Learning decided not to encourage further education in recent remarks and speeches. Instead, she launched another unwarranted and silly attack that prompted an extraordinary response. Let me quote an open letter to her, dated 7 March, in which the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, David Gibson, writes:
  "Dear Margaret,
  I write to express the deep concerns and, in very many quarters, the absolute anger of those professionals committed to the teaching and learning of four million students in our Further Education sector at the ill-conceived and dangerously misleading information you provided to the media in pre-briefings, in your Department's press release and to the conference on Raising Standards in Post 16 Learning this morning."
  He goes on to quote examples of good practice in further education that the hon. Lady had either wilfully or neglectfully failed to mention. A Minister in that sector cannot expect to be taken seriously if she is at war with everyone in it, from universities to students and those in further education. She should reflect carefully on the image and reputation she is gaining.
  The bulk of my remarks will deal with the individual learning accounts scandal, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) addressed the substance of their remarks. It has been the most remarkable problem, caused substantially by Government incompetence. No one doubts that the idea was good—the hon. Member for High Peak mentioned people's enthusiasm for it—but that leads precisely to the point: those who needed ILAs most have been let down by the Government. That is becoming the Government's hallmark. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne

  223
  (Ms Atherton) spoke about trust and whether anyone would trust the Government again. Those who have been let down will not trust them again.
  To replace a voluntary training relief scheme that had been part of the Conservatives' overall education package for some years, the Government deliberately introduced a system of ILAs. The concept was perfectly right, but the mechanisms were fundamentally flawed, as the Government were told from the start. Let me read a few extracts from accounts of events in the Select Committee on Education and Skills. Under the heading, "Learning accounts not robust enough'", one article states:
  "The government training grant scheme was not robust enough to stop fraudsters taking advantage, Department for Education officials have admitted."
  The second account states:
  "Training providers say security on the government's training accounts scheme was so poor that crooks could have accessed people's account numbers by guesswork."
  The third states:
  "Further education officials say they warned in advance that ILA training grants would be exploited by quick-footed 'Ferrari Nick' characters.
  They say there is a need to protect training funding from scam merchants who exploit loopholes in the system to make a lot of money very quickly."
  Setting Ferrari Nick against the Trabant that is the Department for Education and Skills was no contest.
  A scheme full of flaws, set up by the Government even though they had been warned about them, produced a wholly distorted market. Those already involved in training had to participate in ILAs, otherwise they would have had no business. Despite the warnings about the scheme, which gradually began to collapse, the Government had no systems in place to isolate and deal with small problems without destroying the whole scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, the Government changed the parameters at a late stage and Capita could not deliver, so the whole scheme was lost. People who had students waiting to go on courses could not fulfil their obligations to them and had to meet the debts themselves.
  Businesses have been lost, students have lost the chance of education, and jobs have been lost. Above all, the confidence of those needed to make the ILA system work has been lost. I cannot think of a more woeful disaster brought on by a combination of incompetence and a desperate desire to achieve a manifesto target at all costs, which was all that mattered to Ministers. The Government's hallmark is becoming the production of a target out of thin air—devil may care if it is not achieved and anyone is damaged in the attempt to achieve it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford set out to prove that the Government's education policy is in crisis because of weakness, incompetence, failed policies and inability to deliver to those who need it most. From what we have heard, that case is proved. Labour Members now have the opportunity to make a name for themselves. It is not true that the Whips respect the good boys: they respect those who are prepared to stand out and cause trouble. To Labour Members who know that the Government have let down their constituents, I say—paraphrasing Martine McCutcheon—"This is your moment. This is your perfect
  224
  moment to say your piece." Too many people have been let down for too long and the Government's answers have been too poor. I invite the whole House to vote with the Opposition.
  6.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): It is clear from today's debate and others that all hon. Members take an active interest in the schools in their constituencies. Fewer take such a close interest in their further education colleges, and not enough are aware of the skills needs of employers in their areas—a sad oversight, especially in view of the motion. Many hon. Members have spoken from personal experience and local knowledge. Some of the strongest contributions came from that perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) made a typically reflective and wide-ranging speech, displaying a strong concern for his constituency. He pointed out that the delegated schools budget has risen by 50 per cent. since the 1997 general election—the equivalent of £1,000 a pupil. Importantly, he stressed the need for a culture of high expectations, particularly in constituencies such as ours, and the importance of focusing our resources and efforts on those who are most disadvantaged.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) referred to concerns in his area about the school census. The purpose of the census is to give a clearer picture of the impact and operation of policies in one go, so that data collection is managed more easily and is less burdensome for schools to provide. He also expressed concern about security. Names will be held securely within the Department and accessed only by technical staff who have agreed to, and have been trained to, the required security levels. Outside organisations will be given access only if a clear need exists. In most cases, the data in question will be anonymised.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—I am glad that he has returned to his place—detailed his constituency dealings, as well as some general points about individual learning accounts, to which I shall return later. His comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who has made a significant contribution to the Select Committee's inquiries. He gave a balanced account of his concerns, and his contribution was more measured than the florid phrases of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) spoke with authority about the chemicals industry in his constituency. I should tell him that I launched a new sector skills council in Aberdeen this morning, which will enable us to reinforce the influence of employers in the chemicals, petroleum and extraction industry over future skills and learning provision.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) took us to task over what he described as our failure to deal with school repairs sufficiently quickly. I should remind him that, since 1997, significant repairs have been made to 17,000 schools, and we have trebled capital investment in schools. In 1996–97, £683 million was invested; last year, more than £2 billion was invested; and by 2003–04, the figure will rise to £3.5 billion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) spoke with the authority of a former teacher. He said that half the schools in his constituency have new classrooms

  225
  or have undergone major repairs. He also talked about the four new schools there, and pointed out that the highest standards ever have been achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham)—another former teacher—said that he did not recognise the Opposition's description of the education system. His view is shared by my hon. Friends and by many outside the House.
  The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who wound up for the Opposition, touched on higher education, further education and individual learning accounts. I welcome his assertion that the concept of ILAs was perfectly right, and I shall return to the problems associated with them in a moment.
  Those contributions were in contrast to that of the hon. Member for Ashford, who got the debate off to a dismal start. He accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of myth making and public relations polish, but there can hardly have been a Secretary of State for Education who was more blunt-speaking, knowledgable, experienced and ready to recognise the reality of the challenges that we in the education system face. It is simply not credible to talk of crisis. As every hon. Member knows, on visiting schools in our constituencies we see more books, more computers, more classrooms and more staff than we did in 1997.
  I was also disappointed with other aspects of Opposition Front-Bench contributions. The Department that I am proud to serve is called the Department for Education and Skills, and although the title of the Opposition's motion indeed refers to education and skills, the hon. Member for Ashford made no mention of skills. It was left to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to mention further education.
  The UK work force are becoming better educated, but the demand for skills is growing and will continue to grow. Between now and 2010, eight out of 10 new jobs will demand level 3 skills or above. The employment rate for people with no qualifications is 60 per cent., and for those with level 2 qualifications or above, it is 80 per cent. However, 30 per cent. of our current work force do not have level 2 skills. A yet greater scandal is that 7 million adults—half those in work today—do not have the reading, writing and mathematics skills that we now expect of our 11-year-olds. That scandal has been left untackled for too long, and I am proud to say that—at last—we have a Government who are meeting that challenge. We are putting in place the necessary resources and a national programme, and tackling those basic literacy and numeracy problems by setting arguably the toughest targets anywhere in the education field.
  As the Minister responsible for individual learning accounts, I shall now deal with them. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight made clear through the testimonies of his constituents, ILAs were innovative and important and brought learning to many who had not been taught since they left school. Some 91 per cent. of ILA learning met or exceeded the expectations of those who took it up, and 85 per cent. said that it increased the training and learning options available to them. However, it was misused and abused by a minority of learning providers, who spoiled the process for their colleagues and for the learners whom they were supposed to serve.
  Problems began to emerge in earnest over the summer, and we took steps to try to tackle them. We introduced a new learning provider agreement, removed 700 learning
  226
  providers from the register, introduced new information for learners, ended the use of blanket application forms, and suspended learning providers who were misusing or abusing the system. Moreover, Capita and the Department introduced a joint compliance unit to try to deal with the problems. However, the design of the system did not allow us to stamp out abuse, so in the end we had no option other than to close the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regret that. We are very conscious of the impact on learners and learning providers.
  We are trying to do three things. First, we are trying to ensure that legitimate payments are made to legitimate providers for legitimate learning. We have paid £7 million of the £21 million that was claimed in respect of learning that took place, or was booked, before 23 November, when the scheme was closed. Double that sum—£14 million—has been claimed by 193 providers, but we are withholding it because we have serious concerns about them and are investigating them.
  Secondly, we are investigating complaints against 672 learning providers. Our own special investigations unit is investigating 105 complaints, and the police are investigating a further 66. Some 45 arrests have already been made; 13 people have been charged, one of whom has been convicted.
  I turn now to compensation for learning providers. From the outset, the decisions that learning providers made to take advantage of the scheme were business decisions, which they took for themselves. The Government were not, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asserted, selling the scheme to learning providers. There was no contract between the Department and learning providers, and therefore we are not considering claims for compensation for those providers.
  I have been struck by the disappointment that has greeted the closure of individual learning accounts, but I have also been struck, very strongly, by the strength of the support and encouragement given to the Government to reintroduce a successor scheme, as we will do.
  I return to the question of schools. I could recite the headline figures but, like every hon. Member, I know from what is happening in my constituency what a difference the Government's policies are making in schools.
  I leave this thought with Opposition Front-Bench Members. As long as they overstate the case with talk of crisis, no one will take their criticisms seriously. They have no answer to problems such as the pressures of teacher work load. They have no answer to the problem of teacher retention and recruitment, other than to cut the number of circulars. They have no policies to reinforce standards in our schools. They have no contribution to make to the debate about employers' need for skills or reform in the further education sector. As long as all that remains, the Government will not take their criticisms seriously, and no one else will either.
  Above all, the Leader of the Opposition is on record as approving cutting public service spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. As a result, the hon. Member for Ashford cannot say that he would match our investment. As long as that remains the case, the Opposition will remain out of touch and irrelevant, with no one taking their points seriously.

  227
  I urge my hon. Friends to reject this incoherent, irrelevant and incredible motion, and th arguments that we have heard this afternoon from the Opposition.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 322.

  Division No. 200]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Francois, Mark

  Allan, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gibb, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bacon, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Grayling, Chris

  Baron, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Barrett, John

  Greenway, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Brake, Tom

  Hermon, Lady

  Brazier, Julian

  Hoban, Mark

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cash, William

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Lansley, Andrew

  (Rushcliffe)

  Laws, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Luff, Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Button Coldfield)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Flook, Adrian

  Oaten, Mark

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  228

  Paice, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paterson, Owen

  Swire, Hugo

  Pickles, Eric

  Syms, Robert

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Prisk, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Turner' Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andre

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Selous, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willis, Phil

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

  Winterton. Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Streeter, Gary

  Dr. Julian Lewis

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Casale, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (Copeland)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  (Dunfermline E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Browne, Desmond

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burden, Richard

  David, Wayne

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Burnham, Andy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Cairns, David

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  229

  Dismore, Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lyons, John

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDougall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Goggins, Paul

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Heading E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marris, Rob

  Healey, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heyes, David

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Miliband, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Mole, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmrth, Dr Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pike, Peter

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  230

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purnell, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  Rapson, Syd

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tumer' Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner' Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross,Emie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Salmond,Alex

  Wareing Robert N

  Salter, Martin

  Watson Tom

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Watts, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  White, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheridan, Jim

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wills, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wishart, Pete

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  Wray, James

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 178.

  Division No. 201]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blackman, Liz

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Baird, Vera

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Battle, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  231

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bumham, Andy

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Havard, Dai

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covtry S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Joyce, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (Bham Hodge H)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lammy, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Edwards, Huw

  Lepper, David

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lloyd, Tony

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Lucas, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Lyons, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mclsaac, Shona

  232

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  MacShane, Denis

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marris, Rob

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Helen

  Merron, Gillian

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Squire, Rachel

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miliband, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moran, Margaret

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Julie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Stringer, Graham

  Mudie, George

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tami, Mark

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Hara, Edward

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Owen, Albert

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Perham, Linda

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Picking, Anne

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter

  Watson, Tom

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  Purchase, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Pumell, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Wood, Mike

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rammell, Bill

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruane, Chris

  Salter, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Barker, Gregory

  Allan, Richard

  Baron, John

  Amess, David

  Barrett, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beggs, Roy

  Atkinson, David (Bourmth E)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bacon, Richard

  Bercow, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  233

  Blunt, Crispin

  Laws, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lidington, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brady, Graham

  Liwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Loughton, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Burt Alistair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cameron, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  May, Mrs Theresa

  (NE Fife)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cash, William

  Moore, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Moss, Malcolm

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Oaten, Mark

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cotter, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cran, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Pickles, Eric

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Doughty, Sue

  Price, Adam

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Prisk, Mark

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Foster. Don (Bath)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Salmond, Alex

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodman, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grayling, Chris

  Shepherd, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Greenway, John

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

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Spring, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Swire, Hugo

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Syms, Robert

  Hendry, Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hermon, Lady

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Viggers, Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Walter, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  234

  Webb, Steve

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Wishart, Pete

  Wiggin, Bill

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises an education system which is benefiting from an unprecedented period of sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, in parallel with the Government's strategy to raise standards through an ambitious series of reforms of the curriculum, the teaching profession and the organisation of schools; welcomes Ofsted's latest annual report showing the highest ever proportion of good and excellent lessons in schools, and the OECD's PISA Report that the UK performance was above the OECD average across all three domains of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy; notes the other tangible signs of increased investment and reform such as higher academic standards at primary and secondary level, the dramatic reduction in the numbers of infants in large classes, more teachers in schools than at any time in the last decade, extra resources and more people than ever going into Higher Education, with 45.000 new places since 1997; notes further the huge increase in the number of adults who are now acquiring basic skills and learning for their futures; recognises the clear commitment of the Government to address teacher workload in partnership with the unions and other agencies; welcomes the positive proposals the Government has given to headteachers on school exclusions, reinforcing their right to manage their schools and enforce discipline as they see fit; recognises that working closely with parents, police and health professionals is key to tackling unacceptable levels of absence and supports the Government's work in this area; and supports the measures being taken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that examination results are delivered successfully.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the most welcome and significant news this evening of Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth, which we have long advocated in view of the violence and intimidation surrounding the presidential election there, have you had word from the Foreign Secretary that he will come to the House at 10 o'clock to make an urgent statement about the situation, the future of the Commonwealth and our relationship with Zimbabwe?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I know that there is great concern in the House about these matters. I have not had any indication that such a statement is to be made, but the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be so kind as to advise the House whether it is possible at this hour to put down an application under Standing Order No. 24, requiring the Foreign Secretary to come to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should probably inquire at the Table Office about matters of that sort.

Chinook Crash
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.27 pm
David Davis: I beg to move,
That this House notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576, which concludes that 'the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash' in the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; and calls on the Government to exonerate the deceased pilots, flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.
This is an unusual motion for an Opposition day debate because it is sponsored on a cross-party—indeed, almost an all-party—basis. That is because it is virtually an apolitical subject: there is no ideology involved, and no party difference. Furthermore, the original decisions that we are seeking to put right were taken under a Conservative Administration. We are not, therefore, seeking to score political points. We are seeking simply to correct a miscarriage of justice that has gone on for too long. In the light of this cross-party approach—subject, of course, to getting a reasonable response from the Minister—I am not minded to press the matter to a vote tonight, but we shall wait and see.
At about 1759 hours on 2 June 1994, a Royal Air Force Chinook mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, on a flight from Aldergrove to Inverness crashed into a cloud-covered hill on the west side of the Mull of Kintyre. The pilots, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, the other two crewmen, and the 25 passengers—all senior members of the Northern Ireland security services—were killed. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire, and many of its component parts, including much instrumentation and the digital engine control unit, also suffered total destruction. Neither a cockpit voice recorder nor an accident data recorder was fitted. There were no eye witnesses to the crash, nor any radar trace.
Because of the absence of hard evidence of what happened on that fateful day, the investigating board made no finding of negligence on the part of the pilots. Nor did the two station commanders who reviewed those findings. Nevertheless, the two air marshals to whom the investigating board's report was submitted concluded that the pilots were negligent and that they failed to take appropriate action when approaching deteriorating weather near the mull. Furthermore, the air marshals maintained that the pilots voluntarily did not take the necessary action safely to avoid the land mass ahead of them. Both pilots were therefore found guilty of gross negligence. Not only did they lose their lives, but their reputations—and the peace of mind of their families—were destroyed. They were allowed no defence or appeal, and were denied the benefit of the doubt of the RAF board of inquiry. They were effectively convicted of causing the deaths of 27 other people.
RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased air crew could be found negligent only when there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is a higher standard of proof than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required in criminal trials, and it is very much higher than
236
the "balance of probabilities" laid down for civil law. In practice, the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" standard means that every other possible explanation of the crash must be positively disproved. The House of Lords Select Committee demonstrated that the air marshals had come nowhere near that level of proof.
Early in 1996, a fatal accident inquiry was held in Paisley sheriff court. The sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, conducted an inquiry involving evidence and submissions taken over some 16 days. The sheriff concluded:
"It has not been established to my satisfaction, and on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of the accident was the decision by the crew of ZD 576 to overfly the Mull of Kintyre at cruising speed and their selection for that purpose of an inappropriate rate of climb. It may then be asked what was the cause of the accident. For my part I can only say that I do not know."
The sheriff was applying the lower standard of proof appropriate in civil law, namely the balance of probabilities. In other words, the air marshals had not even shown that their conclusion was probable, let alone certain. The Ministry of Defence refused to accept the judgment, on grounds subsequently shown to be flawed.
In November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee, under my chairmanship, reported on the MOD's acceptance of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter. The Committee considered that an engine-control software fault or other technical malfunction on the ZD 576 was a real possibility, and that there was not enough evidence to rule it out as at least a potential cause of the crash. In its view, it was
"impossible to prove gross negligence in the case of ZD 576".
Again, the MOD refused to accept the judgment—a judgment that the Committee had reached unanimously, after extensive investigation by the National Audit Office.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In the Treasury minute that constituted a reply to the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's Committee, the Government claimed that there was no proof that the FADEC software system was at fault. I can buy that; but having made their assertion, the Government went on to say that because there was no explanation of why the helicopter had hit the Mull of Kintyre, the pilots must have been guilty of gross negligence. That is in paragraph 8 of the minute. It is surely a jump in the logic of the Government's argument, which I do not find very convincing.
David Davis: My hon. Friend—the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—is entirely right. He has highlighted the point that the Government have always walked around the issue of requirement of absolute proof. The onus is on them to demonstrate that the FADEC was, in effect, perfect, which we know it was not. There are plenty of examples of its causing serious problems, cited in the report.
In July 2001, the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee to consider whether the finding of negligence was justified. Six weeks ago the Committee, consisting of five peers including four very distinguished lawyers and a very distinguished engineer, reported on the accident after hearing evidence for six months. Its members concluded unanimously that
"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."

237
The Government have said that they need time to consider the Select Committee's report, but Ministers' immediate response was that it covered
"the same ground with the same information".
They said that there was
"no new evidence and no new facts".
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Is the case being made by the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition that the House, and indeed the Government, should simply accept the report of a Select Committee in the other place without further consideration?
David Davis: That was a timely intervention. I shall come on to exactly why we have concerns about the Government's response.
The ministerial response that there was
no new evidence and no new facts"
misses the point. The required evidence never existed in the first place. The House of Lords report shows unequivocally that the so-called facts underpinning the air marshals' judgment were at best educated guesswork, and at worst demonstrably wrong.
Nevertheless, it was reassuring that the Government did not reject the report out of hand in the first instance. The same does not apply to other reports. That gave hope to the families of the pilots and to those who had campaigned for many years to see their names cleared—volunteer supporters, Channel 4 and Computer Weekly, for instance.
We now understand, however, that the Government plan to order a new simulation from Boeing. That points to the likelihood that they intend to find a reason for sticking to their finding of gross negligence. Such a course is wrong, in my view. The House of Lords Select Committee has demonstrated numerous flaws in the original Boeing simulation used to investigate the accident, and criticised the air marshals' treatment of the output of that simulation as fact.
The original simulation assumed a combined speed and rate of climb that have since been found to be unattainable—impossible in practice. It produced the wrong rotor speed, and it produced a ground speed during the final manoeuvre that was 11 knots higher than that measured by the ground-speed indicator. Perhaps most significant of all, it presupposed that before the crash the aircraft had been under control on a steady course and at a steady speed.
As well as depending on a mixture of dubious data and guesses about the Chinook's position, height and speed, a further simulation would not—indeed could not—deal with the possibilities of technical failure. Put simply, it would be another "garbage in, garbage out" exercise.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but he has not answered my earlier question. He seems to be suggesting that the Government should simply accept the report of the House of Lords Committee without further investigation. Is that what he is saying?
David Davis: I did answer the Secretary of State's question once, but he will have to wait until the end of
238
my speech to hear what I have to say about the simulator. I have some questions for him, which I hope that he will answer in his own speech.
I fear that the Government will maintain their pattern of behaviour in ignoring the findings of independent, expert and reputable bodies that have examined the accident in detail. They say that there is "no new evidence". That fails to take on board the fact that the House of Lords has shown that the original verdict was based on fallacious or non-existent evidence.
Mr. David Rendel: It has already become clear that the original decision of the air board was changed by the air marshals when they made their final decision, without their having any different evidence to consider. If it is possible for a decision to be changed on the basis of judgment as to where the blame lay, with no new evidence, why is it not possible for the Government to change a decision on the basis of "no new evidence"? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is probably plenty of new evidence, but even if there were not there would be no reason for the Government to stick to their decision.
David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right. He was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee at the time of the discussion, so he is familiar with the Government's problem of "no new evidence". I shall say more about that later.
Let us consider the course of events during those fateful days in 1994. On the day of the last flight of Chinook ZD 576, after obtaining weather reports Flight Lieutenant Tapper decided that the flight to Inverness would be a low-level sortie flying under visual flight rules, or VFR, and intimated that he was not intending to fly under instrument flight rules—IFR. Indeed, flying under 1FR in the vicinity of the mountains to the east of Ballachulish and Fort William would not have been permitted because of icing restrictions. Flight Lieutenant Tapper therefore selected a route that included flying towards the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse, which was programmed into the Chinook's computerised navigation system as way point A, and from there to Corran on Loch Linnhe, programmed as way point B. According to the SuperTANS computer, the Chinook was a mile from the lighthouse when the crew selected the next way point.
The original air marshals' criticism of the two pilots was based on the assertion that they had voluntarily flown over the Mull of Kintyre at too low a rate of climb in instrument conditions. But why would an experienced helicopter crew, immediately after selecting a pre-programmed visual way point, suddenly agree not to turn on to it, switch to instrument flight rules, which they had ruled out at the pre-flight briefing, and fly straight on to cloud-covered high ground which it knew to be there? Special forces helicopter crews exercised regularly in that area and were extremely familiar with the landscape and the weather conditions associated with it.
When the matter was debated in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said:
"they flew on, contrary to instrument and visual flight rules. The evidence is that they were already too close to the cloud-covered mass of the mull and were travelling too low and too fast"— [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 174WH.]

239
That is the basis of part of the accusation for gross negligence, but it does not add up. On what evidence was the ZD 576 "too low" at way point change? The only concrete data were an eyewitness account from a yachtsman, Mr. Mark Holbrook, who saw the helicopter at the height of between 200 and 400 ft about two miles from the mull. The helicopter was clear of cloud and in sunlight. That is consistent with the crew's visual flight rules flight plan, which was seen and described as being "thorough and professional" by the board of inquiry. There is no case for the aircraft being too low.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the logbook entry of the Sea King crew members who went to the scene of the accident? They made it absolutely clear that the weather around the lighthouse was nowhere near visual flight rules. In fact, they had to grope their way in at 100 ft with radar assistance, and they spoke of sucker holes, which is just the sort of thing to which the yachtsman referred. The cloud conditions change very rapidly in that kind of terrain. One may get a fleeting glimpse of an aeroplane; it does not mean that it is in visual flight rules.
David Davis: I recognise my hon. and gallant Friend's experience in this area. The Sea King went after the accident. It is well known that the weather changes in that area, a point well understood by the special forces crew that flew there, but I will come back to that point.
On what evidence was ZD 576 "too fast" at the way point change?
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to leave consideration of Mr. Holbrook's evidence, but if he has carefully examined the report, as I am sure he has, he will know that at page 19, paragraph 67, the conclusion of the Select Committee of the House of Lords was to say:
"We had no hesitation in accepting him as a reliable and convincing witness."
David Davis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right. One of the problems was that the Royal Air Force appeared to write off Mr. Holbrook's evidence early on and to view him as a fallible witness, for reasons perhaps touched on by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
The air marshals tried to tell the House of Lords Committee that the Chinook ZD 576 was going so fast that it would not have been able to turn in time to avoid the cliffs, but that was based on false assumptions. First, it assumed that the aircraft was travelling at the ground speed of 174 knots used by the Boeing simulation. There is no basis for that assumption.
Nobody knows the speed at the way point change. The tail wind was about 20 knots, and the Chinook normally cruises at 130 knots. According to the inquiry, ZD 576 crashed at 150 knots ground speed but that does not tell us the speed at the way point. Mr. Holbrook, the yachtsman, estimated the speed of the Chinook when he saw it at about "60–80 knots".
240
The Lords Committee also concluded, based both on Mr. Holbrook's statement and expert witnesses,
"that the crew had probably seen the land mass at or before the time the way point was changed."
So the witnesses' evidence points to the Chinook flying in visual flight conditions, at the right height, at a lowish speed. The Lords Committee criticised the board of inquiry for not paying more attention to the yachtsman's evidence.
Mr. Hoon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the way point change the aircraft was functioning perfectly properly?
David Davis: It is probable but the problem is that we are dealing here with requirements of absolute proof. However, even if the aircraft behaved perfectly properly at the way point change, it is entirely possible that., immediately after the way point change, that ceased to be the case. Flight jams are well known to occur. Evidence given by the squadron test pilot of the Chinook suggests that flight jams occur very often on change of direction. That would have occurred immediately after, or within seconds of, a way point change.
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend will recall that the heading change was something in the order of 13 deg, a minuscule injection of bank and heading change. If there had been something wrong with the aeroplane as it went across the Irish sea, the crew would have aborted the sortie, changed the flight profile or issued a pan call—an emergency call. It would have been perfectly plain. They did nothing of the kind, so the assumption must be that they pressed on in the knowledge that all systems were working perfectly. They had good time to put a call into military air traffic Scottish region.
David Davis: I am afraid that the use by my hon. and gallant Friend of the word "assumption" rather blows the case. We cannot make assumptions on this. The level of proof required is no assumptions. Two witnesses who spoke to the House of Lords Committee—witness A., a special forces pilot who could not be identified, one of the most decorated pilots around today and certainly very high on experience of Chinooks, and Squadron Leader Burke, who was the squadron test pilot on the aircraft— both recognised intermittent faults that were brought on in erratic, unpredictable ways, and a small change of direction could well make that change. I will come back to the point later, but the simple fact is that they both thought that the most likely outcome was a control jam after the way point.
The Lords Committee found that there was no evidence to back up the data used to estimate the Chinook's height, speed, position and course at
"any time prior to impact",
so the whole approach of the air marshals was based on a lot of assumptions.
The MOD's assumption that the way point change was made when the aircraft was some 600 m from the cliff is based on information retrieved from the Chinook's computerised tactical area navigation system, also known as TANS or SuperTANS. That system was heavily damaged in the crash.

241
The RAF used TANS as the basis for its reconstruction of the final seconds of the flight claiming that the data used were
"facts based on clear evidence".
One of the air marshals, Sir John Day, used this information to
"build up a rudimentary accident data type recorder picture of the last 20 seconds of flight".
The Lords Committee dismissed these claims as "hypotheses and assumptions". Further, according to the manufacturer, the computer was never designed to give historical data. In addition to that, it had hit a mountain at 147 knots, or 170 mph, and then burned. Who would believe any information garnered from that computer to be 100 per cent. accurate? Even given that, that computer system was well known to he subject to errors.
There is an ironic example. On 13 July 1995, a Chinook mark 2, the same sort of Chinook, was tasked to perform an overflight of Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper's memorial. Crew members were in visual contact with the ground and they knew when they were precisely over the memorial. The TANS on that aircraft indicated that the aircraft was 2 nautical miles away from the memorial—the system "believed" it was some 2 nautical miles away from the aircraft's actual position, so the system is certainly fallible. Again, I remind colleagues of the level of proof required.
The House of Lords Committee therefore threw out the "wrong place, wrong speed, wrong height" argument of the air marshals. That leaves the problem of how the Chinook came to crash into the mull. Was there a technical fault that made the aircraft difficult or impossible to control, which was implicit in the Secretary of State's questions to me earlier?
Under the rules of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", the MOD is required to eliminate any such possibility. Sir William Wratten, the senior air marshal, has stated that the RAF board of inquiry found a "total absence" of any technical problem that could have caused the crash. In a crash of this destructiveness, it is entirely possible that all evidence of a control problem could be destroyed. Actually, there is evidence pointing to at least three possibilities: an engine control problem, a control jam and a hydraulic system problem. Furthermore, the investigating board did not rule out a distracting technical fault.
In particular, the board noted that the Chinook had been experiencing engine control system—known as FADEC—malfunctions, including "undemanded run-ups". That technical phrase basically means sudden surges of power that could destabilise the helicopter. The board noted also that an
"unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced on the Chinook … remained a possibility that could not be discounted."
Again we must remember the requirement for the level of evidence.
It has also emerged that, at the time of the crash, the MOD was suing both Boeing and Textron Lycomingthe manufacturers of the Chinook and its engines, respectively—because of faulty test procedures and a design fault in the aircraft's FADEC software. Malcolm Rifkind has said that if he had known this and the other technical problems at the time of the investigation, he would not have supported the verdict of the air marshals. He was the Secretary of State at the time.
242
The RAF's board of inquiry did not properly consider either of these facts. Indeed, it neglected to take evidence from Squadron Leader Bob Burke, the vastly experienced Chinook test pilot, and Malcolm Perks, the technical expert who had spent many years working in the field of FADEC, often for the MOD. Both men gave evidence to the Lords inquiry about the FADEC system and the possible flight control problems that it could cause.
After the accident, the investigators found that a number of components in the Chinook's hydraulic flight control systems had become detached. The air accidents investigation branch stated that the possibility that these components
"had detached prior to the accident could not be dismissed."
In fact, three weeks before the accident, this same Chinook suffered an undemanded flight control movement caused by detachment of one of the same set of components. This and its dire flight safety implications were noted in an engineering report made by the helicopter's ground crew.
Mr. Frank Cook: Is it not true that the flight crew on that day had sought an alternative aircraft to make the journey?
David Davis: That is right. There is a trail of concerns about the aircraft, expressed particularly by Flight Lieutenant Tapper.
On the question of control jams, two expert witnesses—whom I described earlier—expressed the view that the most likely cause of the accident was a jam of some kind affecting the control of the aircraft, perhaps arising from detached hydraulic system components and arising immediately after an attempt to change direction in the aircraft.
Finally in terms of possible causes, in June 1997 a US Army report into Chinook safety considered an incident when a Chinook had barrel-rolled at about 1,100 ft and righted itself at about 250 ft. Following the incident, the helicopter was completely stripped down. No cause for the incident could be established. Let me emphasise this: a Chinook helicopter went out of control and barrel-rolled to within a second or so of total destruction, and not one single solid piece of evidence was found about the cause. Hydraulic contamination was thought to be most likely. The AAIB also discovered metal contamination in the same part of the Chinook ZD 576's hydraulic system.
Following the accident, the rudder pedals were found at 77 per cent. of full travel. This is an extreme position—almost full left rudder. Expert witnesses told the Lords Committee that such "an enormous rudder input" was unthinkable at high speed. This, combined with other control inputs found, suggested an
"erratic flight path typical of a partial control loss."
Both Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten accepted that the possibility of a control jam or engine malfunction could not be disproved. Again, I remind the House of the required level of proof.
In conclusion, there is a lack of evidence pointing to reasons why the pilots should have decided to change course and switch to instrument rules. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that they had no reason to do so. So why did the helicopter fly on into the mull? Well-known

243
technical problems and episodes suffered by this very helicopter must surely point to at least the possibility that technical problems caused or contributed to the crash.
However, the MOD has given no benefit of doubt in either of these key aspects, even though many problems and doubts have been raised. In short, it has not been established to the required level of proof that it was the voluntary action of the pilots which caused the aircraft to fly into the hill. This is precisely why the Government should set aside the verdict of gross negligence.
If the Secretary of State is not willing to do that today—it would appear that he is not—I would like him to answer three questions about his proposed new simulation that will help his thinking in making his final decision. First, where will he get the new input data for his new simulation, since the old simulation failed partly because of a lack of inputting? Secondly, how will the simulation take account of any possible control system malfunction? The other one did not. Finally, will he see that any simulation is carried out by an independent body, and not by Boeing, which has a clear commercial interest in the outcome of this case? Will he also ensure that an independently monitored flight test of a representative RAF Chinook is carried out to verify that the simulated flight manoeuvres can be achieved and are not impossible, as was the case in his previous so-called evidence?
I hope the Secretary of State will take seriously the House of Lords refutation of the air marshals' judgment and the standards of proof required. He must accept that this is a matter of natural justice and see fit to clear the pilots' names. This is now a matter of honour, not just for the pilots but for the MOD itself.
7.56 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576; further notes that the Government is currently studying the report; and looks forward to the Government's promised full and detailed response to the House of Lords."
With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to this evening's debate on the tragic RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. I must say that it is perhaps slightly surprising, in the light of events elsewhere, that the Opposition chose to debate this subject today. They are well aware that the Government are still carefully considering the House of Lords Select Committee report on the crash. It is therefore difficult at this stage to add to what has been said previously. The Government have up to six months to respond to the report, and we certainly aim to do so before that deadline is reached.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) set out the facts and I do not intend to repeat them. He did skate over one point, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The board of inquiry was entirely properly constituted and reached its conclusions as a properly constituted board of inquiry would be expected to. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that there is no suggestion of division in the way in which it went about reaching its conclusions.
244
Everyone recognises that what happened that evening has cast a very long shadow. It has had a devastating impact on the lives of the 29 families of those who lost loved ones in the crash. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am completely sympathetic to the concerns of the families of the dead pilots; I also speak for the MOD when I say that. I entirely understand their wish to clear their relatives' names, but I must emphasise that we must also remember with sympathy and understanding the relatives of the others who so tragically lost their lives in this accident. This issue has touched all of those who have had to deal with it over the past seven years, including a series of chiefs of staff and Defence Ministers representing both sides of the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Has MOD policy changed in either of two respects? First, in future, would the MOD ever approve the concentration of such a large number of key intelligence personnel in a single aircraft? If not, that suggests a vested interest in blaming the pilots. Secondly, is it true that a decision has been made that, in future, in circumstances even of this sort, there would be no question of the MOD blaming deceased pilots? If the rules have been changed because of the case of these two pilots, is it not monstrously unjust that the two pilots themselves, who have led to the change in the rules, should nevertheless continue to carry the blame in perpetuity?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly it was not sensible for so many highly specialised people to be carried on a single aircraft, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that there is a deliberate conspiracy to cover up the details simply to protect those who were responsible for the decision in the first place. I am sure that if he thinks about that for a second, he will realise that that is not a proper imputation to make at this stage.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the present rules, which certainly have changed. They have not necessarily changed as a result of this specific unfortunate incident, but they have changed. However, that creates a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman and those who support this campaign. Not only do they need to look at the evidence in the light of the information that they have today but, in my view, they have to put themselves in the position of members of the board of inquiry at the time, applying the standards and rules that they had to apply. It is all very well rewriting history and saying that it is possible to look at historic events in a different way in the light of our experience and current practice, but the only fair way of dealing with this is to put oneself in the position of the air marshals and the board of inquiry, who were subject to the relevant rules of the Royal Air Force at the time.
Mr. Dalyell: Before leaving the problems of previous Secretaries of State for Defence, would not my right hon. Friend have been understandably annoyed if he had not been told that legal proceedings involving the manufacturers were taking place? What does he say to

245
Malcolm Rifkind, who has expressed public annoyance that he was not told? It is not exactly the best way for the Ministry of Defence to treat its then Secretary of State.
Mr. Hoon: Malcolm Rifkind is not here and it would perhaps be unfair to respond fully to that point. However, I agreed to see him when he wished to make representations about this matter. I hope that I am fair to him when I say that the conclusion of our conversation was to the effect that were he to be in the same position again he would not have reached the same conclusion that he reached originally. That is a perfectly proper judgment for him to reach, and I think that it is a fair account of the way in which he now puts the case. Nevertheless, when he considered the matter in the light of whatever evidence was before him at the time, he reached a different conclusion. As I said, I have discussed the matter with him and nothing that he said to me at the time persuaded me that there was at that stage any need to reopen the matter.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I was Malcolm Rifkind's special adviser at the time, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would not have been the desire of the then Secretary of State in those circumstances to revisit the judgment of two air marshals sitting on the board of inquiry unless there was evidence for doing so. He quite properly supported the opinion of the air marshals. Since there has been new evidence, he has revised his opinion. The Secretary of State is in precisely that position.
Mr. Hoon: I have always made it clear on behalf of the Government that were there to be new evidence I would consider reopening the matter. That is why I believe it necessary to look very carefully at the report published by the Select Committee in the other place so that we can reach a proper result on the basis of its analysis of the facts and the interesting technical views that it expressed at the time. Again, that is why I find it slightly surprising that the Opposition appear to believe that the position of the Government and the House ought to be to accept the views of a Select Committee in the other place without any further consideration. I made that point to the right hon. Member for Halternprice and Howden, and notwithstanding the suggestion that he had answered me, I am afraid that he did not.
Mr. John Redwood: The Secretary of State implied that the interests of the relatives of the deceased passengers were somehow different from those of the relatives of the deceased pilots. Surely they are entirely the same. All relatives of the deceased have suffered greatly and want to make sure that the Secretary of State gets to the bottom of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is simply saying that there are reasons for doubt. Could not the Secretary of State give us a little hope by saying that he accepts that there are unanswered questions that he must take seriously when responding to the House of Lords inquiry?
Mr. Hoon: That is precisely why it is necessary to conduct a further examination of the report, of the basis of the report and of the evidence on which the board of inquiry relied. That is what the Government are doing. The difficulty I have this evening in responding to the
246
points made by Opposition Members—certainly from the Opposition Front Bench—is that they do not appear interested in that further analysis or consideration. They appear to want simply to accept the recommendations of a Select Committee in the other place without further consideration. Unless I have misread the motion, that seems to be what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has been saying this evening.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will my right hon. Friend share with us some of the ways in which his Department will look afresh at the issue in the light of the Jauncey report? The report placed a great deal of emphasis on the evidence question and what the weight of evidence should be. I know that my right hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer; is he likely to seek advice from the Attorney-General or the Advocate General? Many of us are worried about this being an in-house MOD response, and believe that the whole Government machine should be involved.
Mr. Hoon: I will deal with both those points in due course. Before that, I should like to say something about the critical comments made by the Select Committee in the other place about Air Marshals Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten. Whatever views exist as to their conclusions, I hope that the House will accept that the air marshals' decision was taken neither lightly nor easily. The judgment was taken with the utmost care, the fullest consideration of all the available evidence and the application of the highest standards of professionalism and airmanship.
The air marshals are experienced and highly professional senior officers, both experts in their field. Sir John Day, in his evidence to the Committee, described it as the most difficult decision that he has ever had to make in his career. He has also said that it is the decision that he thought most hard about, being only too well aware of the immense consequences of what he believed his professional judgment required him to say. Nobody would wish to find someone negligent, especially someone who has died, unless they were convinced beyond any doubt.
In that regard, it was extraordinarily disappointing to hear Lord Chalfont on the radio this morning suggesting that the problem was that senior members of the Royal Air Force were "reluctant to change their minds and to appear to lose face." In my view, that is unfair, unnecessary and thoroughly disrespectful to those who have risked their life on behalf of this country.
I cannot this evening—nor should anyone reasonably expect me to do so on behalf of the Ministry of Defence—give a thorough examination of the various facts raised by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice t.nd Howden. To do so, inevitably, as his three questions indicate, would go so far as to reveal a conclusion that I am simply not in a position to give. It would not be right and proper, on behalf of a Government who are studying this Select Committee report thoroughly, to respond in anything like the detail that he has requested. He has set out his views clearly on more than one occasion, and he is unlikely to change them. However, it is right for the Government to consider carefully what has been said.
On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), I have sought further advice from counsel, to which I shall pay careful regard. We have also

247
asked Boeing to undertake a review of its original analysis of the last seconds of the Chinook's flight, including a full simulation of FADEC—the full authority digital engine control system. This morning, the campaign, in the person of Lord Chalfont, suggested that that was a totally irrelevant and pointless exercise. I would be interested to know whether the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden believes that to be the case.
David Davis: My earlier point was that the flaw in the air marshals' argument in the first instance was the heavy reliance on that simulation. All it amounts to is an electronic guess; it is a postulation of what might have happened. Even if we accept that the Secretary of State cannot comment on the underpinning of the re-analysis— I do not accept that, but let us take it as read for the moment—surely he can tell us that independent oversight of the re-run of the simulation is possible. We should not simply leave it to Boeing, which is, after all, parti pris in this exercise: it has an interest in the reputation of its helicopter. No one would accept a simulation or evidence that depends solely on those who have something to gain from the continuance of this miscarriage of justice.
Mr. Hoon: I am prepared to make the evidence produced in the light of the remodelling process available for independent analysis. I shall certainly make it available to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, and others in the campaign will be able to subject it to appropriate scrutiny.
I am interested in a fact that the right hon. Gentleman rather skated over. One purpose of the process is carefully to examine the speed of the aircraft at the relevant time. He suggested—I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong—that there was no evidence whatsoever of the aircraft's speed. However, if only on a basic mathematical assessment of the time taken in the journey's course, it is possible to estimate the likely speed simply by dividing the time taken by the distance travelled. That will provide an estimate of the average speed during the journey—that is not, I accept, conclusive evidence of the aircraft's speed at the point in question, but it is part of the purpose of the modelling analysis.
David Davis: That argument has been tried before, but the House of Lords rebutted it on the grounds that it was dependent on averages. The aircraft travelled at about 150 knots from Belfast, Aldergrove to the way point, but that is not to say thateit did not slow down when it was looking for the reference point of the lighthouse. We simply do not know: that is the point. The level of evidence that we need is absolute certainty—not hypothesis, averages or a convenient guess that fits the case.
Mr. Hoon: I am not sure that I was right to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I had just made precisely that point. Perhaps he feels the need to embellish it for me, but I pointed out that it was possible to provide some evidence of the aircraft's speed, but that it was not conclusive regarding the speed at the way point change. Nevertheless, it helps us to form a judgment about what
248
took place. I noticed that he did not correct my suggestion that he had earlier said that there was no evidence whatever.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend said that there was no evidence of the speed at the way point change.
On the simulation that the right hon. Gentleman is recommissioning, does he accept the point raised by Tony Collins, a journalist from Computer Weekly, that modern aircraft are so complicated technically that it is impossible for the purchaser, or anyone but the manufacturer, precisely to understand what the computer code has done. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the same would apply to simulations in circumstances as unbelievably complicated as those of this crash?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. My only reservation about agreeing completely is that I have seen so much nonsense written about the subject in Computer Weekly. Some evidence may be acceptable, but the way in which that journal hysterically pursues the subject does not give me cause to accept anything that it says at face value. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not accepting an assertion by a representative of Computer Weekly at this stage.
It is important for the Government to have the best possible evidence. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that. The modelling tool available at the time did not include FADEC. The engineers who conducted the original simulation factored in the known FADEC performance criteria. We have asked Boeing to undertake more advanced modelling by including the FADEC flight system. I want to be confident that we have the most accurate information about what happened in order to make the most informed judgment. It is difficult to understand how that approach can be criticised.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the Secretary of State leaves the findings of the air marshals, he has twice referred to findings of negligence but, as I understand it, the test applied and found was one of gross negligence. That means a voluntary course of action taken deliberately at the time. I ask my right hon. Friend to apply himself to this question. If I am right, that test is indistinguishable, in truth, from the test of recklessness applied in criminal law. If that is so and the burden of proof applies in that sense, how, in view of the expert evidence, could they possibly have arrived at that conclusion?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. and learned Friend makes a point that I have made myself about the legal test applicable to the case. It is interesting to read the House of Lords Select Committee report, in which, notwithstanding the legal distinction of some of the participants, there appears to be confusion between recklessness and negligence. Without giving the House a legal lecture, which it does not need at this stage of the evening, I believe that the expression "gross negligence" is not particularly helpful, which is why the rules that apply to boards of inquiry have been changed since this case. That still leaves us with my

249
earlier point: that in order to do justice to the case, it is necessary to apply the rules that faced the board of inquiry at the relevant time.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable man. Does he accept the comment made by the Public Accounts Committee, which develops the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—that
"the burden of proof of 'no doubt whatsoever' requires that gross negligence be positively identified as the cause of the crash, not simply that it be used as the default explanation when the Department cannot find an alternative"?
The Secretary of State nods. Does he agree?
Mr. Hoon: I certainly accept that it is necessary to examine carefully the legal basis on which the board of inquiry reached its conclusion. I have just criticised the concept of gross negligence as being difficult for most lawyers to understand and apply—a difficulty that the Select Committee encountered. I have asked for further legal opinion in order properly to satisfy myself that the right legal approach was adopted at the time. As I said, it is important that any analysis is consistent with the rules that the board of inquiry had to follow.
I have given way on every occasion that I can in this debate. The Government have every intention of producing a full response as soon as possible. We shall certainly do so within the six-month period allowed for replying to such reports, but that should not be understood as delay. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that this is an extraordinarily complex matter. It is right and proper that the report is fully and carefully assessed and that, where appropriate, further detailed technical work and investigations are undertaken. We naturally want to have the best possible advice, but that inevitably takes time. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for the fact that I cannot say more this evening. To that extent the debate is bound to disappoint those who initiated it.
Lady Hermonrose—Lady Hermon (North Down) rose—
Mr. Hoon: I had only one more sentence but I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
Lady Hermon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the conclusion of the report of the Select Committee on Defence in 1998? It noted that "great sensitivity" was required in investigating fatal accidents in the armed forces. Will he please explain how taking a further six months shows "great sensitivity" to those involved, especially the widows who are still left with doubt and with stigma attached to the reputation of the two flight lieutenants?
Mr. Hoon: In order to reach a properly considered result it is necessary to do the Select Committee, the House and all those who have an interest in that tragic incident the courtesy of carefully considering their arguments. That is what the Government intend to do; it is certainly what I have been trying to do ever since I assumed my current responsibilities. I am sorry if a wait of a few more months before the Government reach their conclusions appears insensitive in any way.
250
I do not accept that for a moment, however. We want to examine the report with appropriate care, to consider the factual evidence on which the Committee relied, to find new evidence if any can be found and to subject to proper analysis the Committee's technical conclusions and the legal basis for its report. I acknowledge the comment of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that this is not a party political issue, so I hope that the whole House agrees that it is only appropriate that the Government have the opportunity to reach those carefully considered conclusions.
8.22 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I begin by commending the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and his colleagues for allowing part of a day that was within their gift to be given over to discussion of this topic. I confess that I was not optimistic enough to believe that putting my name to the motion would mean that the Secretary of State would come to the Dispatch Box and concede that the motion should be passed unanimously. However, this opportunity affords us the chance to engage in the merits of an issue that causes great concern on both sides of this House and of the other place.
As has already been pointed out, this is not—nor should it be—a party political matter. The Select Committee, under the leadership of Lord Chalfont, was drawn from all parties on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State may have had some criticism of Lord Chalfont, but it is fair to say that the noble Lord has certainly, with a high degree of commitment, tried to ensure that these matters are properly considered in the House and in the other place.
I do not for a moment challenge the integrity of Ministers past or present or of the senior officers of the Royal Air Force who were engaged in the decision. I make no allegations whatever of bad faith. As it happens, I know Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day personally. However, I believe that an error of judgment has been made in this case, and I am left with the suspicion that, had proper legal advice been made available to the board of inquiry in the later stages of its consideration, it is highly unlikely that it would have reached the conclusion that now exercises so many of us. I hope that the reform of boards of inquiry to which the Secretary of State has referred will afford the opportunity for those charged with the difficult task of determining such matters to take legal advice of the highest quality.
As I believe that an error of judgment has been made, there has, in turn, occurred an injustice. That injustice should be put right. Parliament exists for the redress of grievances and the families of the two pilots certainly have a grievance. They are entitled to seek to persuade the House to put that right on their behalf. In saying that, I do not for an instant ignore the feelings and emotions of the relations of the other two deceased crewmen and of the 25 passengers. However, I venture to offer this thought: I doubt whether any of them would derive comfort from the notion that a miscarriage of justice had been committed and allowed to persist. On several occasions, I have received direct communication from the relations of passengers—although not in every case—saying that they supported, albeit not publicly, the efforts being made to try to deal with a matter that, in the minds of so many, has created an injustice.

251
The Government's position—frequently repeated and rehearsed by Ministers at the Dispatch Box and on television, radio and elsewhere—is that if there is new evidence they would be prepared to open the inquiry, but if there is no new evidence, there is no justification for reopening the inquiry, so the original finding stands. If that position is to be maintained, it can be maintained only in the teeth of the findings, first, of the fatal accident inquiry and, secondly, of the report of the Lords Select Committee.
That position assumes that the original finding is unchallengeable because it was infallible. We thus have to look at the standard of proof that was required—yes, with the benefit of hindsight; but also with a rigorous intellectual approach.
Mr. David Trimble: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds with that thought, may I take him back to the Government's view that the matter should be reopened only if there is new evidence? Is it appropriate to maintain that position, given the analogy with criminal convictions? The law has been changed to allow those cases to be reopened when there is no new evidence but when there are grounds for believing that a mistake has been made. Should not the Secretary of State's approach to boards of inquiry be analogous to that now adopted by the law with regard to criminal convictions?
Mr. Campbell: As well as being the leader of his party, the right hon. Gentleman is by profession a lecturer on law—
Mr. Trimble: Was.
Mr. Campbell: Once a lecturer on law, always a lecturer on law; I am happy to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition.
The original inquiry was—at least generically—a tribunal. It was necessary for it to gather and consider evidence, to reach conclusions on that evidence and then to exercise a judgment. As the Secretary of State rightly said, when we consider the quality of that decision we must do so on the basis on which it was taken and in the light of the rules applying at the time.
In parenthesis, I have always wondered whether, if an action of judicial review had been taken within the conventional time limit for bringing such actions, such an action would inevitably have succeeded. I have never received sufficient answer on that point.
Like those charged with the responsibility of the board of inquiry, however, we have to consider the matter against the background of the rules then applying. At the heart of that consideration were the rules of the Royal Air Force, which required absolutely no doubt. It is instructive to read paragraph 14 of the Select Committee's report—those words have already been echoed to some extent. The paragraph in the report stated that paragraph 9 of the rules
manded a particularly high standard of proof, higher than is required of the prosecution in a criminal case in the United Kingdom (`beyond reasonable doubt'), and much higher than is required in
252
civil litigation Con the balance of probabilities'). It was no doubt set so high because deceased aircrew are no longer available to offer their own account of events."
That is to say, it was provided as a protection for deceased aircrew. The report continues:
"We consider that it requires all other plausible explanations for the crash to have been positively excluded. If any such explanations remain possibilities, the standard of proof has not been met."
That effectively means that someone could be convicted of murder in England and Scotland on a standard of proof lower than that necessary to be achieved before any finding not of gross negligence, but of negligence, could be established.
Having considered that, let us remind ourselves of the fact not only that that standard was considered by the Select Committee, but that in determining what his conclusions should be in the fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff, Sir Stephen Young—to whom I shall return in a moment—was unwilling, on a balance of probabilities, to hold that the MOD explanation had been established.
These are human affairs, and it is inevitable that emotions will play a part. I believe that it is inevitable that those campaigning for the pilots will find 100 per cent. objectivity difficult to maintain; equally, those intent on sustaining the original decision may be similarly disadvantaged. That is why we must try to divorce ourselves from those emotional considerations and look outside and elsewhere.
I have already referred to Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, who considered 16 days of evidence, when all the relevant interests in the crash were represented by counsel or solicitors and there was the opportunity for cross-examination. Yet despite all that, on a balance of probabilities—the appropriate standard in a fatal accident inquiry, which in Scotland is roughly, but not entirely, equivalent to a coroner's inquest in England—the sheriff was unable to support the MOD conclusion. To those hon. Members who have not yet done so, I recommend reading that judgment, because it is as close an analysis of the issues involved as one could hope for, and it reflects extremely favourably on Sheriff Sir Stephen Young—a reflection that is also corroborated by references in the Select Committee report.
The second external point of reference is the House of Lords inquiry—chaired by Lord Jauncey, one of Scotland's most eminent judges of recent times—and composed of four, plus himself, independently minded peers. Against that background—first, of the fatal accident inquiry and, secondly, of that report—how on earth can anyone say that the standard of absolutely no doubt whatever can have been achieved?
I have heard it said, anecdotally, that the unwillingness of those with initial responsibility to accept a different conclusion may be based on a determination to maintain the integrity of the inquiry system or, indeed, the chain of command. As for the inquiry system, as the Secretary of State has already told us, the regulations have been changed, but as for the integrity of the chain of command, of course, that is important. Anyone with any knowledge or understanding of the anned services knows that the integrity of the chain of command is essential for good order and discipline and that it must be respected; but how much more is the chain of command likely to be respected if those involved are sufficiently confident to recognise when an error of judgment may have been made and should be corrected?

253
In the conduct of public affairs—perhaps no more frequently than for those Ministers who occupy the Treasury Bench this evening—the exercise of judgment is commonplace. I think no less of those who acknowledge that they have made an error of judgment and are anxious to put it right. In particular, I have in mind Sir Malcolm Rifkind, with whom I have talked about this matter and whose views are now well known as a result of the interviews that he has given on radio and television, and of at least one article that he has written in a national newspaper. I believe that—if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who was also a Minister at the MOD at the relevant time, may have something to say about what he now believes, compared with the part that he played in the original decision.
The last paragraph of the Select Committee report is as succinct a statement as one could possibly hope for:
"How could it be that a very experienced crew, having planned to fly VFR, having taken when probably visual with the Mull the appropriate steps to alter course, when there was nothing to prevent them flying northwards within sight of the coast, flew into the Mull? It is as Sir John and Sir William speculatively described `incomprehensible' … and `astonishing'."
The last sentence reads:
"We shall never know."
That paragraph and, indeed, the whole report make it clear that we are in a climate of uncertainty. In a climate of uncertainty, how can the original decision possibly stand?
8.35 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), as I agree with much of what he said and with the way he addressed the issue this evening. This is a difficult issue, and I am not altogether certain that the tactic of holding this debate tonight was the best one. There is a case for holding a debate, but it is certainly the case that the other place responds to Select Committee reports in a rather more leisurely way than we expect Ministers to do in the House. Having said that, a report of the complexity and rigour of that produced by Jauncey requires time.
I have considerable sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only in the length of time that he wants to take over this issue, but in ensuring that previous evidence that is now regarded as suspect is re-examined. I do not pour scorn on the desire to carry out other simulations, but I would include the qualification that, if they are carried out, they ought to involve a degree of independence. I accept that there is a devilishly difficult problem—such is the complexity of the equipment and the monitoring, that, outside the companies and the customers, not many people are capable of interpreting the data, but it is incumbent on the MOD to seek a means of doing that.
I should like to think that, equally, some of the legal advice that my right hon. Friend is seeking will be incorporated in the reply in a form that lay people such as ourselves can not only understand, but identify as legal advice. Many hon. Members have had misgivings about that because there has been a sense that the MOD has dealt with this issue as an in-house operation. There is often the rather depressing form of reaction to any evidence that emerges. There is more than a smack of
254
the Bourbons about the MOD: it repeatedly conveys the impression of having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. In part, that is attributable to the incrementalist way in which the evidence was gathered prior to Jauncey.
A number of the reports seized on technical data and other matters. Very often, the technical data were probably less than the sum of their parts, but we have now got a comprehensive collection of all the available evidence, which has been addressed with considerable style. I use the word "style" without in any way wishing to undermine the content on which the work is based. Indeed, many of us who have discussed this matter with Ministers—I have probably been at this game as long as most and longer than pretty well anyone else—have heard the mantra that pilots of Chinook ZD 576 flew at the wrong speed, on the wrong course, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in poor weather and visibility, and caused the helicopter to crash.
That was the standard response from Ministers at the Dispatch Box or in private conversation. It was put a little more eloquently by Sir William Wratten, when he said:
"Lamentably, all the evidence points towards them"—
that is, the pilots—
"having ignored one of the basic tenets of airmanship, which is never to attempt to fly visually below safety altitude unless weather conditions are unambiguously suitable for operating under visual flight rules."
Mr. Wilkinson: Is that not the case? To do anything other than what the hon. Gentleman has described is to imperil the aircraft and to fly it in a grossly negligent manner.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. For men of the distinction of the pilots who have been accused of gross negligence, nothing would be further from their training, their habits or their behaviour. We are dealing with an element of gross negligence—everyone is agreed that it is extremely difficult to prove—involving pilots of the highest calibre, men who expressed misgivings about the craft that they were flying prior to the incident, men who would not take risks, having been so open and frank with their superiors and with others. They said that they had worries about the aircraft that they were required to fly. It might be said that that story could be fabricated, but it comes over in the evidence time and time again.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is most generous. Will he take it from me that history is littered with the wreckage of the careers and lives of the most experienced and wonderful pilots, who for various reasons seem to have broken all the rules and killed themselves, and perhaps others? That is a sad fact of aviation history.
Mr. O'Neill: I have heard that argument advanced before. I accept the point. I return to the responsibility with which the men concerned were charged. They had to take the cargo or the assets, whichever word we want to use. They had to take some of the most important people who were engaged in a war. Two of them were in the one aircraft at the one time, behaving negligently. I find that hard to understand.
The air marshals have always fairly maintained that the pilots never saw Mull and that no technical failure or malfunction occurred that deprived the pilots of control

255
up to the point of impact. Lastly, the Boeing simulator provided a reasonably accurate demonstration of the aircraft's movements for a period prior to impact. These were the assertions made by Ministers and by the air marshals. In paragraph 148 of the Jauncey report, we find the greatest single charge against that view. The Select Committee states:
"We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter"—
that is, gross negligence
"must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions."
That is the most telling part of all the reports.
If we are to read the interrogation or cross-examination that results in that conclusion, we see that it is not coming from someone who wishes to dissemble, or someone who wishes to put out a picture that is not true. It seems that we have almost lost sight of the wood for the trees. There is a welter of data. It must be said—this is one of the shortcomings of the tribunal system—that those with the greatest expertise are not necessarily the best people to weigh evidence. That is what the sheriff was able to do. It was what Lord Jauncey and his colleagues, doubtless under his direction, were able to do. That is where we are moving into new territories.
In the past, I have questioned people's integrity. I worried about the fact that there was a war. I have been concerned about technical data. I do not think that we need concern ourselves with those issues now. We have the facts. The way in which the inquiry has conducted its affairs requires our response. I hope that tonight we do not have votes and a confrontation. I hope that we can give the Government more time to pause and reflect.
It could be said that for the Department to change its mind on this issue is akin to a large tanker turning round. I make no reference to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Much reassessment is required. It is correct that before such a process is undergone, every piece of evidence both for and against is submitted to the greatest scrutiny. That is why I do not disparage the attempt to re-engage with Boeing on this issue.
I would like to think that the young men concerned—the members of the crew who were with them and their passengers—and their families will know that justice has been done. At present, too many people believe that justice has yet to be done.,lb/>
8.46 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). Today, our thoughts are with the crews of the Chinook helicopters that are about to fly out from Odiham to Afghanistan. I live three miles from Odiham, and I have fought to keep the Chinook base there because the local community is so proud of what the Chinook fleet does for the country.
We know that the crews will acquit themselves well in Afghanistan. We know that they will acquit their country with great honour, because they always do. A year or so ago, they acquitted themselves utterly brilliantly in Sierra Leone, and we know that they will do no less in Afghanistan.
256
Our thoughts are also with the families of the crews. Being left behind is one of the hardest tasks of all. The families will be hoping, as will we all, that their loved ones will come back safely. Yesterday, the Secretary of State told us that there may be casualties in Afghanistan. The families will know that if, God forbid, something dreadful happens during the campaign, they will not have to go through the agonies that the families of Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook have been through. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has said, the Royal Air Force has rightly changed the rules. The attribution of blame for negligence is now left to the civil courts. However, it is not enough to change the rules when we see that the rules are not working. If the Royal Air Force imposes rules on itself it, like everybody else, it is obliged to follow them. The key rule in all of this is the rule,
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew he found negligent."
That is what the RAF manual says; that is the rule that the RAF imposed on itself for good reason; that is the rule that it is obliged to obey and that is the rule that it broke.
In the debate on defence policy on 14 February, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the best defence I have yet heard of the decision by the Ministry of Defence to stick to the verdict of the board of inquiry. He made a number of important points. First, he said that an aircraft that had not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down should never again
"be allowed to perform such an important mission".
I agree. Only the day before the crash, Boscombe Down had not only failed to clear the aircraft, it had refused even to allow the continuance of test-flying of the Chinook mark 2. Perhaps the most poignant thing is that days before the crash Rick Cook had asked his father to look after his family if things went wrong; it seemed that he knew that the aircraft was not yet ready.
That brings me to my first question to the Minister. In his winding-up speech on 14 February, the Minister of State for Defence asked
"all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred."
He continued:
"We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 382, 410.]
Of course, he was right. However, those who defend the decision of the hoard of inquiry now tend to say, "Well, something may have gone wrong with the aeroplane, but it should not have been there at that time, at that speed and in those conditions." Can the Under-Secretary of State for Defence say whether the MOD accepts that indeed there may have been a fault in FADEC? After all, the MOD was taking Textron Lycoming to arbitration, so something must have been wrong. Will the Minister say, preferably yes or no, whether the MOD accepts that there could at least be some doubt about the air-worthiness of the helicopter's control system? If the answer is no, what on earth was the arbitration about? More to the point, why on earth did the arbitration succeed?
Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not shocked' that apparently the then Secretary of State, Malcolm,

257
Rifkind, a personal friend of mine, was not told that arbitration was going on? Should not someone in the MOD have said, "Look, Secretary of State, we think you ought to know that all this arbitration is going on and may be relevant."
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, I am shocked that Malcolm Rifkind was not told. Someone in the MOD should have said, "Look, Secretary of State, something is going on." However, the present Secretary of State should recognise that that is a new fact and was not available to the board of inquiry when it reported. For Ministers to come to the House, or speak on television or radio programmes, and say that the various inquiries have produced nothing new is an utter travesty of the truth.
Ms Debra Shipley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, given the quality of this evening's contributions, that it would reflect well on the MOD and the armed forces to acknowledge that things were not as they should have been? There is a need for change—there has indeed been a culture of change—and we must progress more constructively.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree the hon. Lady makes a fair point. If the Secretary of State, Ministers and senior officers and officials in the MOD said, "Yes, we recognise that the verdict has to be reopened," there would be no criticism of the MOD at all; everybody would accept that it was doing the right thing for the right reasons. That would be an excellent step for it to take.
I shall now turn to the crux of the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood last month, which was broadly in support of the contention that the pilots should not have been there at all. As it turned out, of course, indeed they should not have been, but the question is, why were they? My hon. Friend said that their lordships, in their Select Committee finding, were "wise after the event". Of course they were, and so must we be. My hon. Friend said that their lordships had
"not flown helicopters at low level in difficult weather conditions."—(Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 383]
Of course they had not. Neither, as I understand it, has Air Marshal Sir William Wratten. I do not criticise him for that; he is a fast jet pilot, and of course fast jets operate in wholly different conditions from helicopters.
However, their lordships are in a position to judge whether the weather conditions were difficult or not. Having done an exhaustive analysis of all the evidence, their lordships came to the conclusion that it was impossible to know what weather conditions the pilots were experiencing as they approached the mull.
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is most generous. We do know what the weather was. There were 10 witnesses on the Mull of Kintyre and they all confirmed that the mull was in cloud and that the cloud obscured the lighthouse. There had been a forecast of a 30 per cent. probability of IMC—instrument meteorological conditions—with visibility of about 500 m and low cloud in the vicinity of the mull. The weather report of the naval pilot speaks of cloud stratus at 200 ft and visibility of a quarter of a mile at worst. There was exceptionally bad weather all around the mull.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, it seems odd, then, that Mr. Holbrook could have seen sun glinting on the
258
helicopter. My hon. Friend's point about there being a number of witnesses on the mull is true. There were a number of witnesses on the mull, but all the witnesses were either on the mull itself or at sea level, so they were not able to determine what the pilots were able to see at their height. They were in different conditions.
I have not understood, and I do not think that the Select Committee in another place understood, why Mr. Holbrook was sailing among a number of different fishing vessels, yet no evidence was taken from the skippers on those vessels—in fact, none of the skippers of those other fishing vessels were even sought, let alone found or evidence taken from them.
There is no understanding of what the pilots saw because there is no evidence of what the pilots could see. There was no cockpit voice recorder; we do not know what they were saying to each other. There was no black box. There is no other evidence of what the pilots themselves could or could not see. The Select Committee reports Mr. Holbrook as having said that he
"considered that the crew of the aircraft when he saw it could determine without ambiguity where the Mull was and could see the cliffs, beach and lower perimeter walls of the lighthouse complex."
The air marshals, though, did not know that Mr. Holbrook thought that. The reason that they did not know was that they did not ask him. Their lordships said that they asked Mr. Holbrook only three questions, only one of which
"was relevant to weather, namely whether he could see the physical features of the cliff on the Mull."
To that, he replied no.
In other words, when my hon. and gallant Friend says, as he did last month, that the crew were flying in very marginal weather, we do not know whether that is true. Anyway, I remind him that the board of inquiry was obliged to take that view only if there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". Mr. Holbrook, who was there, clearly goes further than to doubt it. He disagrees with the proposition.
I have two further points to make. First, the standard of proof required, of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", is extraordinarily high. It is intentionally high because in cases where pilots are unable to defend themselves, the RAF rightly tries to look after its own personnel, who are, after all, flying an aircraft provided by the RAF.
Last month I took the liberty of saying where I felt that the air marshals had failed to apply the right test. I said that Air Marshal Sir John Day got it wrong when he said:
"In my judgment, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight."
In using the word "likely" as he did, he was applying the wrong test. I believe that he genuinely did not understand that, and I believe that some of the Ministers who have since dealt with the matter have also genuinely not understood that.
For example, on 11 July 2000, the Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), then the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence, answered a written question from me about the health of the two pilots shortly before the crash. His answer was that
"The Board of Inquiry concluded that the mental and physical state of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook was most unlikely to have been a factor in the accident".—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 454W.]

259
But likelihood has got nothing to do with the issue. There has to be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So here we have another element of doubt—could the mental or physical state of one of the pilots, or possibly of both of them, have been a factor in the accident? We do not know, as with so much of the rest of the case.
And now I come on to my final point, which is this. On 1 June 1995 there was another crash. A Harrier GR7, flight number ZG 475, crashed into the sea and, sadly, the pilot was killed. In the RAF board of inquiry report that followed, there was no finding of negligence, and that was obviously the right conclusion. One important paragraph from that report reads as follows:
"The investigation was able to eliminate technical fault, structural failure and birdstrike as possible causes of the accident. The investigation focused, therefore, on the human factor aspects. Although there was no evidence to suggest that the pilot had been medically incapacitated, the Inquiry could not rule out the possibility that he may have been partially incapacitated for a period before the application of full back stick. It also considered feasible that the pilot may have been distracted by other in-cockpit tasks during the descent and did not notice the proximity of the sea."
If an RAF board of inquiry could make such a finding—a correct finding—in relation to a single pilot in an aeroplane which contained an accident data recorder or black box, how could a board of inquiry possibly make a different finding in relation to an aeroplane which had numerous technical problems, which did not have a black box and which could have been under the control of either one of the two pilots at the time? How can it possibly rule out all question of illness? How can it possibly rule out even questions of disagreement between the two pilots? Obviously it cannot.
This verdict flies in the face of all reason and it flies in the face of all justice. If these pilots can be cleared by a Select Committee in another place, we should do the same.
9.2 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I can be mercifully brief tonight. I wish to make only one point. That is not because I disagree with the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate; they have made their points in a most effective and superb style. I merely wish to take the House back to one comment that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made in his speech, and that was that this House should not question the integrity of the air chief marshals. It is proper that we should not question their integrity and that the House should be careful before commenting on people who are not Members of the House who cannot be here to defend themselves.
But given the way in which the debate continues to nimble on and for the evidence to be gathered as it is, I do believe that we have to put by the side of integrity, which none of us are doubting, an equally important quality, and that is judgment. It is not the judgment of anybody that we are talking about. When we are talking about Sir John Day, we are talking about somebody who is at the very centre of the defence of this country.
While, of course, I can understand the Government wanting to take time and to choose the moment when they will respond to a Select Committee report of the other
260
place, I believe that we have reached the point now where we are not questioning the effect of allowing this decision to stand on the morale of the services, but on the judgment of the electorate in the wider field. If people at the very centre of the defence of this country maintain a judgment in spite of all the evidence that is being put forward, that raises some terrifying question marks. I therefore hope that when the Government come to respond, it is not a question whether we should defend people who have been asked to make the decision and who still have a role in public life; it is a much bigger issue than that.
I bring us back to the central idea that has dominated this debate. We are not in a court, weighing up evidence or coming to a conclusion on that evidence. The tribunal, to use the phrase that others have used, had to have "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" about the evidence before it. When I hear the Government asking for even more simulations from the manufacturers, I worry that we might be in danger of not seeing the wood for the simulated models. There is now a body of evidence that does not prove that the pilots were innocent but that does suggest doubt. That is the issue on which the Government must concentrate their mind. It is not right to look for new evidence; the evidence must be weighed. After weighing it, on every point, the Government must be certain that they can dismiss it to maintain the judgment. The slightest glint of doubt in the Secretary of State's mind must bring him to a conclusion that the judgment is unsound and unsatisfactory and must be put aside.
Of course, in debates such as this, it is easy for us to forget the pilots, their memory and their families, and the numbers of people who were killed on that day and their families, who, clearly, will never get over this horrendous event. However, we are not debating our feelings towards them, as crucial as that is in another sphere. We are debating whether the Government, despite all the evidence that has been put forward, can maintain that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that the decision made by the tribunal is correct. I do not believe that anybody who is rational can maintain that.
Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the longer this goes on, the greater the worry not merely that the air chief marshals' judgment—not their integrity—might be wrong but that, perhaps for the wrong motives, the Ministry of Defence will come to a wrong judgment again. It is bad enough if one comes to a wrong judgment in taking away somebody's income support. One can often make good that mistake on a later occasion. However, we are talking about a small core of people on whose judgment the security of our country rests. We are in deeply worrying territory in which the Government still cannot make up their mind and come to a judgment, on the weight of the evidence, as to whether the tribunal inquiry verdict should be set aside.
Although the Government are of course right to take time, to work within the six months, and to choose the moment at which they wish to make their decision, the debate has rumbled on at length, here and elsewhere in the country. More and more people are not just talking about the integrity of the air chief marshals; they are beginning to talk about the judgment and the wisdom of the people who have the security of this realm as their first priority.

261
9.10 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I am most grateful for the measured and informed way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) initiated the debate. He was followed in similar terms by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). I wish to add to their remarks, not to repeat them. I agree with everything that they said.
For 18 years, I have had the honour to represent more than 11,000 employees of the Ministry of Defence, including those who work at Boscombe Down where the RAF has been present with scientific and industrial civil servants who are engaged on the business of evaluating the RAF's aircraft. I have therefore been prone to support the chain of command and Defence Ministers of whatever Government and to recognise that they need our support in peacetime as well as in time of conflict. However, just as I am about to conclude that they may have got it right after all in this case, something happens to make me realise that they have got it wrong.
For six years, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been engaged deeply in this case. Initially, I did not know the families of the two brave pilots who died. I am honoured to have made their acquaintance over the years. However, I know the people who work at Boscombe Down, so I was astonished at the tone that the Ministry of Defence used in dismissing their work.
I received a minute headed "Draft DO From AOCINC" to the assistant Chief of the Air Staff dated 6 June 1994—four days after the crash of ZD 576. The complaint was that
"for the second time this year, because of their concerns about the safety of the FADEC system, they had stopped trials flying on the Chinook Mk 2. I understand that, in practice, they are not flying the Chinook at all. Consequently, delivery of their aircraft to RAF Odiham on 21 July to enter minor servicing will be carried by a No. 7 Squadron crew who, because of test equipment fitted to the aircraft, will operate under a Service Deviation."
In other words, Boscombe Down was not prepared to fly the aircraft. Odiham had to send a special crew and ordered them to fly an aircraft that Boscombe Down said should not be flown.
Lady Hermon: Did the air marshals and the board of investigation have that information from Boscombe Down?
Mr. Key: I have no way of knowing. I am sure that someone in the Ministry of Defence had the information, but I do not know whether it made its way to the Scottish inquiry or to the RAF board of inquiry.
The minute again refers to Boscombe Down and states:
"their ongoing stance towards the Mk 2 contrasts sharply with the considerable efforts being made by the front line to bring the aircraft into service and maintain a capability. It also does nothing to engender aircrew confidence in the aircraft. In sum, I find A&AEE's attitude quite incredible."
That is an astonishing thing for any senior officer to say.
Under questioning by the Select Committee on Defence in its fourth report, "The Lessons of the Chinook Crash on
262
the Mull of Kintyre" published on 13 May 1998, Colonel Hodgkiss, who was at the time the assistant director of Helicopter Projects 1 at the Ministry of Defence referred to Boscombe Down and said:
"All that it has not satisfied is an internally-imposed test procedure which Boscombe Down believe they should apply because they consider that their role is to give unequivocal advice and recommendations to the operators of the aircraft."
Quite so—that is what Boscombe Down did. It said that the aircraft should not fly. The RAF continued to fly it and ZD 576 crashed.
I have engaged in extensive correspondence with Ministers over the years. Allow me to quote a letter to me from the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Robertson, dated 24 November 1997. He wrote:
"I would take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that we are satisfied, on the evidence available,"—
on the evidence available—
"that this accident was not the result of any technical malfunction."
Lord Robertson then set up a meeting, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire also attended.
The atmosphere at that meeting was not especially happy, because it was clear that the Ministry of Defence had been tasked to brief us. Its representatives did not like questions—they were not used to questions—and it was clear to me even at that stage, in November 1997, that the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force were not going to consider any judgments about the standards of proof. They would stick to their demand for new evidence and they, and they alone, would decide what constituted new evidence. They would deny all subsequent evidence, from 1997 onwards, presented by technical experts—even people they had employed as their own consultants. They would even seek to justify not disclosing litigation in the United States of America.
I was astonished to find in the report that I quoted previously that when the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), was questioned about whether the Scottish fatal accident inquiry knew of the United States case, he replied:
"Had the sheriff in any way indicated any interest in that, of course he would have been supplied with it as he was with everything else. There is an endless potential mine of information on tens of thousands of components in a Chinook. It is not possible to just load them on to a sheriff. We gave what we think was relevant to our Board of Inquiry and supplied anything the sheriff might want to ask for."
What an extraordinary way in which to carry out any inquiry.
About that time, I visited the Defence Procurement Agency down in Abbey Wood for a briefing on its new functions and systems. I met the team that was engaged full-time in defending the Ministry of Defence's position. In 1998, there was a dedicated team at Abbey Wood; it is probably still there, answering parliamentary questions.
Some very strange things were happening. In my years in Parliament, I have had all sorts of pressure put on me—as have we all—but never anything quite like what happened in December 1997. At that time, I attended a reception for defence contractors in a hotel in Park lane. I was approached by a highly distinguished Conservative peer who had served in the RAF during the second world war and had been a Minister in Conservative

263
Governments. He had been asked by senior RAF officers to put me off the trail: he said that it would serve no purpose if I continued.
None the less, I had questions for answer. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he would place in the Library copies of the minute relating to the Textron White Paper and the White paper itself. I asked him about the fully automated digital engine control system and whether he would put in the Library copies of the 70 incident signals relating to FADEC. I later asked if he would put in the Library
"reports he has received from the United States authorities relating to the US Army Chinook CH-47 barrel roll incident in 1998"—[Official Report, 6 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 347W.]
which has already been mentioned. In answer to my request for the Textron White Paper, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), told me:
"The subject document contains internal opinions and advice, disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 2b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 264W.]
The answers to my other questions cited exemptions 13, 2 and lc. The Ministry of Defence did not wish to share the information.
Then something extraordinary happened. On 5 December, I wrote a contemporaneous note which states that on Tuesday 2 December, I went to Carol Stone's Christmas party at the Institution of Civil Engineers. There I met a former Secretary of State for Defence who told me that, a couple of weeks previously, a senior official in the Ministry of Defence had telephoned his former special adviser to say would she please ask the former Secretary of State for Defence to persuade me to drop my pursuit of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash. That, in my judgment, was an extraordinary thing for a Ministry of Defence official to do.
So it went on. We were denied information, letters were exchanged and I took up the matter with the Cabinet Secretary, who referred me back to the Secretary of State for Defence, who said that he was very sorry that I was not satisfied with the answers and that I would therefore have another briefing with officials, which I had; it was acrimonious and I will not relate it here.
In spite of being denied evidence, and in spite of the failure to answer questions, Mr. Martin Bell, who was then a Member of Parliament, wrote to the Prime Minister. On 18 July 2000, the Prime Minister said in his reply:
"This Government has tried to be entirely straightforward and open about the circumstances of the crash and the conduct of the Inquiry. The proceedings of the Inquiry were released. Questions have been answered fully. Any material which might have amounted to new evidence, or which might have offered fresh perspectives on the accident, has been analysed … I repeat to you the long-standing pledge, that I also give to Mrs. Tapper, that any new evidence would be thoroughly considered. In the absence of such grounds, however, I can see no case for re-opening the inquiry."
This distinguished lawyer, our Prime Minister, added in his own hand:
"I am sorry if this is a disappointing reply but we do need fresh evidence to justify re-opening this issue."
264
It is not a question of new evidence but of judging existing evidence, what is meant by "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", and standards of proof. The RAF regulation required a much higher standard of proof than is required in criminal cases, including those involving murder. In criminal cases, the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt"; in civil cases, the standard is "the balance of probabilities". The latter standard was applied by the Scottish sheriff, who refused to attribute the incident to pilot error.
Ministers accept that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" as to why the two pilots were unable to avoid crashing into the Mull of Kintyre. The RAF does not know, and cannot say, why things went wrong and the aircraft was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whatever anyone may say, no one will know the answer. Ministers also accept that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that no mechanical or computer software fault occurred. To me, both propositions are incredible. I cannot believe them, and nor would any jury.
The issue is about honour, not money. As we have heard, the Ministry of Defence has changed the rules retrospectively—no one who dies will ever again be accused of gross negligence. The issue should be a matter of honour for this Government and this Prime Minister. He should do the decent thing and overturn that dishonourable verdict.
9.22 pm
Lady Hermon: It is a pleasure speak in the debate, having heard the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am greatly concerned by some of the evidence put before us this evening, and I hope that the Minister will address these issues.
I have listened intently to hon. Members' contributions, but we should reflect for a moment or two on the personal tragedy involved. On 2 June 1994—almost eight years ago—29 people were killed outright on the Mull of Kintyre in dreadful circumstances, which were made worse by the fact that the aircraft in question caught fire. It was a great tragedy, and the circumstances proved deeply upsetting to the widows. Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten described it as
"the largest peacetime tragedy that the Royal Air Force had suffered."
Although my husband, a former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, retired from the RUC some five years before that crash. I know that it was also the greatest tragedy in the RUC's history. Ten members of the police service, who were also members of special branch, died. Even today, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland rightly paid tribute, in a completely different context, to the work of special branch—not only in respect of the security of Northern Ireland, but in a wider sense.
This morning, I spoke to one of the six RUC widows who live in my constituency. She said:
"My husband is dead, but he still has his reputation. The MOD can do no more to him or for him, but the MOD can do more for Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook … they can clear their names and give them back their reputations."
The fact that 29 people died caused enormous heartache and pain, as it would to anyone who lost a loved one in such dreadful circumstances. The fact that the two pilots

265
were held to be grossly negligent was enormously painful, hurtful and offensive not only to the flight lieutenants but to the others widowed in that crash.
Earlier, hon. Members discussed the difference between negligence and gross negligence. I may be corrected by the Minister, but I had understood that the pilots being held to be grossly negligent had at an early stage affected the compensation payable to their widows. Gross negligence made a difference. If the circumstances have changed, I should be glad to hear the Minister explain to the House the compensation issues that arise.
The RAF's manual, which was available at the time to the air marshals and does not constitute fresh evidence, clearly states in black and white:
"only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent".
The manual contains guidelines on what amounts to negligence or human frailties, so it is not as though no guidance was available. Paragraph 1 of annexe G to chapter 8 of the manual states that, broadly speaking, causes of accidents fall into three categories: technical faults, natural operating or medical hazards, and human failings.
Paragraph 2 explains what human failings amount to and suggests that judgments be made by answering two questions. The first is:
"Was the person's act which is under consideration an essential link without which the final event would not have happened?"
The second is:
"Ought the person to have foreseen that their action or their failure to take action would in all probability occasion the final event."
The House of Lords Select Committee report concludes:
"the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event."
Referring to the air marshals' conclusion that
"the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made",
it found that
"regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt",
and that the air marshals had not properly answered the questions.
The Government must be fair. As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier, in considering fatal accident inquiries and investigations, great sensitivity should be used. In light of the extremely high standard required at the time, the MOD should not linger for six more months but quickly conclude that an error of judgment was made in finding that the two flight lieutenants were grossly negligent. Their names must be cleared. The MOD has an opportunity to do that, and I urge it to do so at the earliest opportunity.
9.29 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a deeply moving speech.
I declare an interest as an elected companion of the Royal Aeronautical Society by virtue of five years' service on the flight safety awards panel of the Civil Aviation Authority.
266
In my speech on 14 February I stated that in my judgment the air marshals were
"justified in their belief, with the wisdom of hindsight, that the crew, who were flying in very marginal weather with high ground ahead and with the aircraft slightly off track to the right, probably ought to have aborted, or at least got well clear of the high ground with all speed."
The point is this. On take-off, the weather forecast for the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre gave a 30 per cent. probability of weather that could by no possible stretch of the imagination be construed as suitable for flights under visual flight rules. The reports that we have make it clear that as the aircraft approached the mull the weather was indeed well below conditions for visual flight rules.
In justifying Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day, who reviewed the board of inquiry's conclusions, I added:
"The House would be wise not to follow the path taken in the other place, or to try to second guess the investigations of military accidents, however tragic the circumstances"—
few could have been more tragic than these—
"however much we sympathise with the grief'.—[Official Report, 14 February 2002: Vol. 380, c. 383-84.]
There could have been no better qualified air officers commanding to review a board of inquiry's findings than those two air marshals. Air Vice Marshal Day has a BSc in aeronautical engineering from Imperial college, served two tours as a flying instructor—one in command of a flying training squadron—was a support helicopter pilot and then commanded a support helicopter squadron. Indeed, less than 10 years before the accident he commanded the base at RAF Odiham where the Chinooks are located.
Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten is an aviator's air marshal if ever there was one—certainly, he is no Whitehall warrior. He commanded the Royal Air Force in the Gulf war and led the battle of Britain fly past a few months previously. One could not find a finer flyer and a prouder example of the best traditions of the service.
That is not to say that the professional distinction, the Air Force crosses, the legions of merit and the aeronautical degrees immunise the two air marshals from the possibility of error, any more than long experience on Chinooks, including much time in a special forces role, precludes the possibility that two much-respected deceased flight lieutenants could commit an error of basic airmanship that constituted gross negligence.
However, since my 14 February speech I have studied the sortie profile again and have looked in greater depth at the original conclusions of the board of inquiry, the air accidents investigation branch's findings and Sheriff Young's fatal accident inquiry, together with their recommendations and those of the House of Lords Select Committee. I did so in the knowledge that the air marshals were not callous or unfeeling or insensitive to the reputations of the pilots whom death had robbed of the right of reply. On the contrary, a lifetime of service flying, with the inevitable loss of many friends in all-too-frequent air accidents, will have taught the air marshals that military flying operations and their safe execution require standards of discipline and perfection that can never be compromised.
Flying regulations are quite simply life preservers. Failure to comply with them is often likely to be fatal and cannot be condoned in peacetime operations.

267
In circumstances where they are not followed, as in the case of Chinook ZD 576's attempts to maintain low-level flight according to visual flight rules, in instrument meteorological conditions, at about cruising speed, in the vicinity of high ground on the Mull of Kintyre, this cannot be exonerated by the experience of the crews. Indeed, far from being a mitigating factor, the very experience of the crew justifies the attribution of gross negligence. Sentiment cannot enter into air accident investigations; probity is what they are about.
There is no doubt that the aircraft was flying in instrument meteorological conditions. The witnesses on or about the mull confirm that. There were 10 of them, including a lighthouse keeper whose job is to take weather reports. The aircraft's speed is not in doubt, in that it can be verified by the spread and disintegration of the wreckage at the crash site, as well as by readings recovered from the instrumentation. There was no confirmation of any technical malfunction that would, of itself, have caused the accident, and this was verified by the board of inquiry and by the air accidents investigation branch's report. The point is that the crew should not have been flying in a way that could have led to the loss of the aircraft, had there been any malfunction.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend says that there was no confirmation of any technical malfunction. That is not the test. Is there a possibility that there was a technical malfunction? That is the test.
Mr. Wilkinson: The test is the one that we are looking at today—whether gross negligence was the right finding.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I cannot.
By changing the way point from the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse to Corran, the crew deprived themselves of the certainty of the reference to the lighthouse that was their turning point. The lighthouse was in cloud and, having removed position information with reference to the mull, this could have been the crew's fatal error. Indeed, I suspect that they were looking for the mull lighthouse. We know that they were south-east of track, and that there was error on the TANS, which had been faultily programmed before flight. The engines were running normally at the time of the crash, and there was no evidence of a flying control failure that would, of itself, have precipitated the accident.
Their lordships and their supporters have indulged in many speculations, relating to FADEC problems, control system jams, undemanded excessive left rudder input on the part of Flight Lieutenant Cook, who was flying the aircraft in the right-hand seat, and to much else besides. However, the accident parameters are entirely consistent with cruising flight into high ground, with a last-second attempt to flare the aircraft and to yaw away from the hill to port.
As in so many accidents, there are a number of events which, while not contributory, cannot pass unremarked. It is true that Flight Lieutenant Tapper could self-authorise without a briefing officer, and if the squadron leader on
268
duty had been available, he might perhaps have prevented the sortie by persuading the flight lieutenant not to choose the Mull of Kintyre routing in those weather conditions, or by persuading him to consider other possibilities.
The weather is paramount here. I have mentioned the forecast of a 30 per cent. probability of instrument meteorological conditions around the mull. The actual forecast made by a qualified observer closest to the time of the accident was that of the Sea King pilot, whose log stated that there was, at worst, seven eighths stratus at 200 ft and, at best, seven eighths strato cumulus at 900 ft. The log also states that the visibility was, at worst, a quarter of a mile. The height of the top cloud was 1,500 ft, which is more or less the height of the top of mull. The weather was, therefore, in no way suitable for flight in visual flight rules.
The crew ought to have aborted the sortie or climbed above safety altitude as soon as a deterioration occurred or as soon as there was a likelihood of deterioration. Coming in off the sea, with the fishbowl effect that occurs when flying low over water, makes these judgments particularly difficult, and makes it negligent to press on without firm visual pinpoints, which there is no evidence that the crew possessed.
In conclusion, I can only say that the air marshals fulfilled their duty as I believe they were required to. The criteria relating to negligence are
"Whether the person had the necessary degree of skill and/or knowledge, or should have had that skill and/or knowledge, to make the right decision and act upon it"
and
"Whether the person failed to exercise the degree of skill and/or knowledge required".
Given all the evidence of the weather conditions prevailing and the flight profile decided on, I believe that the air marshals were correct, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence upholds their judgment.
9.40 pm
Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Along with the Secretary of State and every other speaker, I share the sadness of the families of the two pilots and the two crew members, and those of the 25 passengers who were on board the Chinook.
In the run-up to the debate I was struck, as one of the newer Members, by the view—taken by many during the election campaign—that Parliament and politics are a cynical business in which there is no agreement between parties or between Members with differing opinions, on the left or on the right, on constitutional questions. I am therefore proud to take part in this debate, and to support the motion along with Members on both sides of the House. I am also humbled by the fact that others here have contributed so much in the past—for instance, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), a long-standing campaigner on this issue, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who made one of the most significant speeches I have heard during my short time in the House in a defence debate on 14 February, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We should also bear in mind the comments of the former Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands.
Like everyone else who supports the aims of the motion, I do not think that this is a party political issue. The debate can send a powerful message to the MOD and

269
to Ministers that elected representatives throughout the House are deeply unhappy about the findings of negligence. We are not interested in who is to blame. We would be delighted to know who will break the logjam, clear the names of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, and maintain the good standing of the MOD.
Mine is primarily a constituency interest. I represent two of the largest RAF bases in the United Kingdom. I speak to many people serving on those bases, and I know that a number of them share the disquiet expressed by nearly every speaker today. They are not interested in second-guessing the motives or questioning the professionalism of those who arrived at the negligence finding; what they want, what I want and what so many who have spoken today want is natural justice. They believe that the balance of proof has not been achieved, and that this is an issue of judgment.
This has been oft repeated, and I repeat it again: I cannot get my head around how a conclusion of negligence could have been reached in the first place, given that the test is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". I am a great supporter of the Scots legal system—of its rigour and its high standards—and I am sure that even a first-year Scots law student just starting a course would find it difficult to understand how, if negligence could not be proved with the standard "balance of probabilities" constraints of the fatal accident inquiry, it could be proved with the higher RAF standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
I am concerned about the prospect of a new simulator. I agree with other Members that if all that is available is an average speed, a hypothesis based on another hypothesis and inconclusive input data, a simulation will not produce a finding that will support the truth.
I welcome the comment by the Secretary of State that he would take new legal advice. That is perhaps a glimmer of hope that we can take from the debate.
It is not our job to prove hat the flight crew were not negligent. It is up to those who support that unproven finding to prove that they were. The Government should listen to the bipartisan views expressed in this debate. They should set aside the verdict. I hope that they do so at the earliest opportunity.
9.45 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall be very brief. I wanted to speak in the debate for several reasons. First, I represent a large number of RAF personnel based at Marham and Coltishall. Secondly, I represent the family of Jonathan Tapper, who live in Burnham Thorpe in my constituency. Thirdly, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Malcolm Rifkind when my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was special adviser. I have no doubt, having spoken to Sir Malcolm, that had he known at the time that the MOD had been in dispute with the manufacturers, he would not have accepted the advice of the two air marshals. I am absolutely clear on that fact.
We have had some excellent speeches, but I just wanted to say that the families of the two pilots have been through hell and back. Their sons were found guilty of gross negligence, a finding that was not upheld by the first two inquiries and by the third inquiry of the House of Lords Select Committee. One does not have to be a lawyer to
270
conclude that, had either of those pilots survived, they probably would have faced charges of manslaughter. We are seeing an appalling slur on their professional reputations, a slur on their families and an undermining of two young men who had an impeccable service record. Having looked at the House of Lords report very clearly, I feel that the Government have an opportunity to set aside the findings. If they do that, they will restore honour to the Department.
9.47 pm
Mr. James Gray: The House has heard some very moving, wonderful, well-balanced speeches from both sides of the argument. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in offering our renewed condolences to the families of all the 29 people who were killed in the tragic crash of Chinook ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994, but we pay particular tribute to the families of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who have fought a long and determined campaign to change the conclusion of the original RAF board of inquiry that they were guilty of gross negligence.
We have heard a number of outstanding speeches from hon. Members with a great deal of knowledge and interest in the tragic incident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has taken a long-standing interest in the case since he chaired the subsequent PAC inquiry into it. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who were the Ministers responsible for the original decision, have been very courageous in now admitting that their original judgment was incorrect. As the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) reminded the House, no one now believes that the pilots flew at the wrong speed, at the wrong height and in the wrong place, as was accepted wisdom at one time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire also has a strong constituency interest, with RAF Odiham in his area, from where it was announced yesterday that three Chinooks were to be deployed to Afghanistan with the 45 Commando battle group. All parts of the House will wish to join him in wishing those personnel well and in thinking of the families they leave behind. Incidentally, the Minister might like to tell us whether the three Chinooks will be fitted with black box flight recorders. I hope that they will.
Uniquely, hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke in support of the Conservative motion. I mention in particular the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been involved in this matter for so long, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The broad cross-party agreement on the issue may be something to which Ministers will wish to pay particular attention, and in recognition of it, we will not seek to divide the House this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who speaks with such authority on all aviation matters, spoke with great courage and was the only hon. Member to seek to persuade the House that the original conclusions of the air marshals were correct. I sympathise with his view that respect for the chain of

271
command must be paramount in the maintenance of proper military discipline, and it is extremely unusual, to say the least, for this place to seek to question a conclusion that has been reached.
In doing so—as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminded us—we are not seeking to challenge the honour or integrity of Ministers or senior RAF officers; we are seeking to question their judgment. The experience of the two air marshals concerned is beyond question. None the less, we would appeal to them to reconsider the conclusion that they came to four or five years ago.
Under normal circumstances, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition go to lengths to support ministerial operational and deployment decisions. Our support for the Government on everything that they have done in Afghanistan is testimony to that. However, we have come to the clear conclusion that it really is time to revisit the MOD's original decision on the Chinook crash.
Since the original RAF board of inquiry in 1995, there has been the fatal accident inquiry in 1996, which left wide open the question of what caused the accident. In 1998, the Select Committee on Defence stopped short of making any judgment on the cause of the crash. In 2000, the Public Accounts Committee—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—went further and disputed the original findings. Most recently, the Select Committee in the other place overturned the original inquiry's findings altogether.
The sheer weight of evidence that those various inquiries have produced, and the legal and military distinction of many of those who are calling for a rethink, must give all of us cause for concern about the original conclusions.
In particular, it would be difficult for any of us to do other than to listen carefully to the Select Committee's conclusion that
"we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence … against the applicable standard of proof, which required 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. In the light of all the evidence before us … we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash.
Now is not the time to revisit the evidence in detail. That has been done convincingly by a number of hon. Members tonight and satisfactorily by all four inquiries. Listening to them, it seems to me that the only conclusion that any dispassionate observer could possibly come to is that the sequence of events that led to the crash remain, and will always remain, to some degree unclear. We do not know what happened on the Mull of Kintyre on that fateful day, and we will never know.
Since that is the case, it is simply incorrect to conclude that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that gross pilot negligence was to blame. No court in the land—no court in the world—would come to the conclusion that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that gross pilot negligence was to blame. That point alone should be more than sufficient to lead Ministers to overturn the conclusion of the RAF inquiry.
272
The Secretary of State agreed in his introductory remarks that internal MOD procedures have now changed so that the sequence of events could not happen again, particularly with regard to the verdict of gross negligence, which would now have to be arrived at in a civil court. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that these circumstances could not arise today under current law, he could surely revisit the findings of the inquiry at the time?
The Government's amendment to the cross-party motion this evening asks the House to await their official response to the Select Committee report. Will the Under-Secretary tell the House when that will be? The Secretary of State talked generally about it being within six months. It has to be within six months, or the Government will be grossly neglecting this House. We want to know precisely when it will be. In particular, we do not want the Secretary of State to choose a particular moment to release the report; for example, as we come up to summer recess. We want him to release the Government's reply at a sensible time, and as soon as possible. In doing so, we must be certain that he will rely on more than Boeing's re-simulation, which of course would be unsatisfactory.
In simple terms, it seems to us that the principle of innocent until and unless proved guilty should, beyond any shadow of doubt, apply in this case. There is a long and honourable tradition of an assumption against deceased pilot error in the RAF.
Despite the Opposition's very real reluctance to do anything that might, or might be thought to, undermine the authority of the chain of command—and I reiterate our respect for the two air marshals concerned—it seems that on this occasion a very tragic miscarriage of justice has occurred. We appeal to Ministers and the RAF to take this opportunity to clear the names of these young pilots. Only then will their families be able to lay their memories to rest.
9.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that this tragic crash has generated strong feelings among all those who have been and continue to be involved in its consequences. The debate tonight has served clearly to emphasise this point, and I would like to take this opportunity, as others have, to express my sympathy to the families of the 25 passengers and four crew who were so tragically lost in that accident.
The House of Lords Select Committee report on this complex accident requires, and is receiving, full and detailed analysis. The points made by their lordships are being reviewed and, where appropriate, further detailed technical work will be undertaken.
One specific area that was widely reported this morning, particularly in the Scottish press, is that of the Boeing simulation. The Committee criticised the original Boeing simulation and, as part of the detailed assessment of the report that is being undertaken, it is right to seek Boeing's input. Indeed, I would expect hon. Members to criticise us if we did not do so. Boeing is the only company that makes the Chinook, and there is frankly no other way in which to carry out the simulation. We have asked that it review its original analysis of the final seconds of the Chinook's flight leading up to the crash.

273
The level of contractor involvement in investigating the Mull accident was consistent with normal practice in military and civil aircraft investigations. Such help from manufacturers is a necessary part of such investigations.
The board of inquiry was set up to determine the cause of the crash. It was conducted in a professional manner and the final decision was made on the available evidence. The findings were based fundamentally on airmanship and duty of care principles. The essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilots flew a serviceable aircraft at speed and at a low level into cloud-covered high ground.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: I will not have time to, I am sorry.
In reaching its conclusion, the board had a wealth of expertise and experience available to it from all the relevant professional disciplines, including helicopter and aircraft operations and technical matters.
Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I shall not.
Other authorities, such as the Defence Research Agency and the manufacturers of the aircraft, its equipment and avionics supported and made evidence available to the inquiry. A number of technical issues have been postulated over the years as possibly explaining the accident. Indeed, the Defence Committee investigated the lessons of the crash and published a most helpful report in 1998. It concluded that there was no compelling evidence to support claims of fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook or of its components. More recently, technical issues were also examined closely by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, whose report we are fully considering.
I should like to turn briefly to the points made during the debate and, in respect of her attempt to intervene, that of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Compensation is a very complex issue—I shall write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is a distinguished lawyer and QC. The many points that he made about the details of the legal position are for the legal profession and not for a lay person such as myself until I am in receipt of the appropriate advice on the subject. I therefore cannot make any comments of my own on that subject until the advice that my right hon. Friend has indicated is being sought by the Ministry of Defence is to hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) rightly pointed out the great complexity of the equipment involved. He criticised the Ministry of Defence for dealing with the matter internally. That is so, but such is the case in virtually every complex issue that I have had 10 deal with over the past two years in this job, and I have so far had no cause to doubt the professionalism and attention to detail that goes into the advice that we are given, be it by our civil servants or by officers—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

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

  AIRCRAFT NOISE
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15014/01, draft Directive on the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community Airports and No 5119/02, draft Directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges; and supports the Government position to ensure that the proposed Directives allow the development of a coherent and balanced approach to managing noise nuisances at UK airports consistent with existing ICAO rules and standards.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENLARGEMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 14117/01, the Commission Strategy paper and Report on the progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries with Addenda 1 to 13, the 2001 Regular Reports on progress by individual candidate countries, No. 5745/02, the Commission Communication on a Common Financial Framework 2004–2006 for the Accession Negotiations and No. 5638/02, the Commission Communication on Enlargement and Agriculture: successfully integrating the new Member States into the CAP; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to EU enlargement, and supports the Government's aim to complete negotiations with those candidates that are ready by the end of this year, so that they can participate in the European Parliament elections in 2004 as Member States.— [Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 95) (HC 670), on 2001–02 Special Grant for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMPANIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Companies (Competent Authority) (Fees) Regulations 2002 (SI, 2002, No. 502), dated 7th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Companies (Particulars of Usual Residential Address) (Confidentiality Orders) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  PARTNERSHIP
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Limited Liability Partnership (Competent Authority) (Fees) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 503), dated 7th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (No. 2) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Particulars of Usual Residential Address) (Confidentiality Orders) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, on Tuesday 26th March—
(1) the provisions of the Orders of 20th November 2000 relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of Standing Committees shall apply as if that day were a Thursday; and
(2) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Mr. Stringer.]

PETITION

  Asylum Seekers
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is my privilege to present a petition of 3,577 residents of the parishes of Bishampton and Throckmorton, Pinvin, Wyre Piddle and Hill and Moor, and of other residents of Worcestershire. Some 90.5 per cent. of the residents of Bishampton and 95.1 per cent. of the residents of Throckmorton have signed the petition, which was collected in just over 10 days.
  The petition states that those people are concerned that the proposal by the Home Office to locate an asylum seekers accommodation centre at Throckmorton is not in the interests of the asylum seekers themselves.
  The petition states that that is contrary to national, regional and local planning policy, the site having already been expressly ruled out for any form of residential development in the structure plan approved by a Government inspector.
  The petition states that the centre will overwhelm small local communities and that, following adjacent land use as the largest landfill site in the county and the emergency imposition of the regional foot and mouth burial site for 128,000 animals last April, this is an unacceptable burden on this small corner of rural Worcestershire.
  The petitioners further deeply resent the refusal to allow them the opportunity to have their case judged through the normal democratic planning process as the Home Office has used emergency procedures under special Government regulations.
  The petitioners therefore request
  that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to look for more suitable sites for asylum accommodation centres from the perspective of both the asylum seekers and local residents.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Workplace Fatalities
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Wr. Stringer.]
10.2 pm
Tony Baldry: In 1998, a constituent of mine, Simon Jones, a student at Sussex university, was tragically and traumatically killed after just two hours on his first day working for the Dutch firm Euromin Ltd., at Shoreham docks. I believe that Simon's death and the subsequent acquittal of the company's general manager, James Martell, has made clear fundamental failures of the law when it comes to safety in the workplace. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, I have no doubt that there is a real need for the Government to examine closely the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Health and Safety Executive and the police in cases of deaths at work.
In Simon's case, we need simply to consider the gulf between the observations made by some of those authorities and the actions that they took. I understand that a now-departed ships agent and sales executive at Euromin wrote to the HSE to say that it would
"only be a matter of time before someone was killed",
and that there was "inadequate manning and safety" at the clocks. What did the HSE do? Nothing.
Let us consider the activities of the CPS. I understand that it wrote to Simon Jones's family to say that there was
"no doubt Euromin employed an unsafe working environment".
There is no doubt about the words of the CPS: Euromin employed an unsafe working environment.
Despite there being no dot bt about the severe lack of safety at Euromin, what did the CPS do after Simon's death? Nothing. It was not until the third time of asking—not until two High Court judges had told the CPS that it was "irrational" not to prosecute—that the CPS decided that it was
"in the public interest to prosecute'.
I have no doubt that it is now in the public interest considerably to strengthen the law in relation to deaths at work.
The death of Simon Jones at work demonstrates existing shortcomings both in the law and in the practices of the agencies that should be most concerned to ensure that everything that can be clone to reduce the risk of workplace deaths is done. Sadly, other cases also demonstrate complacency and the slow and seemingly less than committed prosecution policies that currently exist.
Although I intend to outline several problems, there is one overarching and urgent necessity: every work-related death should be treated as a manslaughter investigation from the outset, until manslaughter can be eliminated. Without that provision, it is clear that the hurdles will remain too high for those who want to prosecute.
However, any attempt to improve safety at work is undermined when one realises that the HSE is not doing its job of investigating deaths at work. Only 6 per cent. of serious accidents at work ate looked into by the HSE, while a mere 10 per cent. of severe injury cases, and amazingly, only 20 per cent. of cases in which death occurs, lead to prosecution. That means that the HSE does
278
not investigate four in five deaths at work. That is of greater concern given the even more staggering fact that the HSE appears to suggest that 70 per cent. of the 25,000 deaths at work since 1995 were the result of management failure. In that case, why have only six cases of corporate manslaughter been brought, and why have only two of them resulted in conviction?
I am additionally concerned that the HSE may have substantially under-recorded the number of deaths that take place at work. When I wrote to the director general of the HSE on that point, he pretty much conceded that the HSE often has an insufficient idea as to whether an individual is an employee or a member of the public when it initially registers a death in the workplace. That is unacceptable. Indeed, if the HSE is unsure about whether it is recording as members of the public people who are in fact employees, that serves to underline the pathetic rate of corporate manslaughter cases being pursued. I hope that the Government and the HSE will seriously consider implementing proposals to increase the reporting of all deaths in the workplace.
This specific case, however, raises two wider concerns which relate to the actions of the police and the CPS as well as of the HSE. Those three authorities form the "protocol of liaison" on deaths at work. I shall offer some suggestions that the Government might consider in relation to this protocol and to the CPS and the police, but first I shall focus again on the HSE.
Currently, there are two categories of offence as regards a work-related death: manslaughter and regulatory offences. Manslaughter requires evidence of gross negligence as against simple negligence for a regulatory offence. That immediately creates a problem as regards corporate accountability. I ask the House to consider the Home Office's recent response to me on that point.
A letter from the Home Office of 24 October 2001 stated that although the Government intended to legislate, they must
"ensure that we balance the entitlement of the public to see justice being done and the need to protect corporations that have taken all reasonable precautions from an unjust prosecution".
However, the letter went on to state that the Government felt that they must also ensure that
"the emphasis is on the responsibility of the corporation itself, as a legal body, taking responsibility for its actions … however, individual officers could still be prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence".
By distinguishing between manslaughter and regulatory offences in relation to deaths at work, one Government objective is being cancelled out by the other. Surely, on a simple interpretation, logic might suggest that a work-related death through negligence is no different from a gross act of negligence and hence the presumption of corporate manslaughter. Why do the Government feel the need to distinguish between manslaughter and regulatory offences? What is the difference between gross negligence and negligence?
Although I agree that the HSE's focus should remain largely preventive, it occurs to me that part of the reason for its disappointingly low level of investigation and prosecution is that it is attempting to strike a somewhat false balance. Clearly, that would be easily remedied if all deaths at work were initially treated as manslaughter until proven otherwise. That problem is plainly underscored

279
when one considers the protocol's initial assessment in relation to police investigation. Consider the wording of the introduction to the protocol:
"the police will conduct an investigation where there is an indication of manslaughter".
Yet paragraph 1.1 says that a police investigation could be undertaken
"where the circumstances might justify a charge of manslaughter".
Even more contradictorily, paragraph 2.1 asserts that that may happen where there is
"evidence or a suspicion of … gross negligence".
Such inconsistent language in the protocol about what evidence is needed before an investigation is even started will not advance the accountability of businesses, their managers and directors.
It is now necessary for the Government to introduce legislation so that corporate killing is immediately treated as manslaughter until the evidence demonstrates the contrary; otherwise, if the Government's new protocol retains the distinction between the initial assessment and manslaughter inquiries, there surely needs to be consistency about the degree of evidence before a proper manslaughter inquiry can be commenced.
In my opinion, evidence that might justify a charge of manslaughter presents far too high a test. It does not even offer the chance for consistency in police investigations. That lack of consistency and its consequence as regards the police attitude towards deaths at work become clearer if one considers the resources made available for the initial investigation.
In various responses to my letters, the Home Office has made it clear—I quote from a letter dated 15 January 2001—that
"one of the most important parts of the Protocol is for Chief Constables to appoint Regional Liaison Officers, who should maintain contact with nominated representatives in the CPS and the HSE in the relevant region".
But it was not necessarily clear that that was the case with Simon Jones's death. For example, it took more than six weeks for the police investigation to begin. Why? I would suggest once more that the inherent weaknesses in the current two-stage process mean that it is not made clear whether the initial assessment itself is an investigation; thus it seems likely that some police forces will not direct into it sufficient resources. Not only is that ambiguity unacceptable, it does not create the accountability to which the Government aspire.
In fairness, I suspect that the Government believe that the protocol involves more accountability than it does. For instance, the Home Office letter to which I alluded on the line of accountability of police investigation stressed effective working with the HSE, yet how can such work be effective when the HSE itself appears to support my concerns with the current initial assessment under the protocol, given that it observes that
in most cases it is unlikely that a manslaughter investigation will commence based solely on an initial assessment of the facts surrounding a fatality"?
If that is so, and initial assessments only pick up the most transparent cases of manslaughter, the two-stage process must surely have failed, especially if the HSE has failed to refer evidence to the police.
280
Furthermore, it seems that the protocol's current process of undertaking an initial assessment may in itself result in unnecessary delay in those cases where a decision is subsequently taken to launch a manslaughter inquiry. Indeed, it would appear that there was a perhaps an inverted occurrence of that scenario with Simon Jones's case. In a letter to the victim's family, the HSE states:
"I said that the HSE were about to brief Counsel to ensure we had all the necessary evidence … however, before this final item of evidence was obtained, the start of the Judicial Review process into Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to take manslaughter prosecutions was announced. This prevented us obtaining this last item of evidence and left us once more in the position of awaiting a decision on manslaughter prosecutions".
Surely that cannot be effective working, as the Government claim.
It is clear to me that, if the Government were to introduce legislation so that directors or managers were responsible for deaths at work, the new protocol would create a far clearer line of accountability. Directors are, after all, responsible for employees in all other corporate aspects. Thus two further issues need to be clarified under the current protocol.
First, there are the continuing concerns over how the criteria are applied by HSE inspectors. The Government chronically under-resource those authorities, yet it is clear that, although the HSE needs to operate within resource limitations, if it were to develop more detailed guidance, such a system would ensure that decisions on whether to investigate would be more rigorously based and more transparent, which would ultimately lead to more consistency. There is also the additional concern about whether the HSE passes evidence to the police as it should.
Secondly, there are the actions of the police when it comes to evidence gathering. I am told time and again in Home Office responses that police officers—I quote from a letter of 5 December 2001—
"go through a nationally organised training programme … of a very high standard."
I do not doubt that. However, I doubt the effectiveness of the protocol when it is clear that many police forces are unaware that the protocol even exists.
I understand that the police are not provided with any training on issues relating to manslaughter in the workplace and on how to conduct a thorough investigation in these circumstances. How can that help those responsible to be accountable? It is perhaps no wonder that in Simon Jones's case the actions of the CPS fell well below what is acceptable. I can only assume that the Government's talk of balance on corporate death and the CPS's action, or lack of action, puts the prevailing defence of the "effective workings" of the protocol on a somewhat false foundation.
In Simon Jones's case, there was the wrong application of the law and the wrong law was being applied. As a consequence, I am not filled with much confidence when the Government tell me that everything is all right because the CPS will be involved at every stage to ensure that legislation is "fully workable and effective".
It comes as an insult to the family of Simon Jones when, after its recent Crown court case, Euromin is fined only £50,000 for what clinically has to be described as a corporate death. Once again, it perturbs me that the law

281
is being applied the wrong w ay round. Surely corporations should be fined if they fail to secure safety, but manslaughter, and hence prison sentences, should be invoked for those directors whose failure on safety results in fatality.
If that is to happen, the Government need to publish their promised Bill on corporate manslaughter. Yet Parliament is still awaiting a commitment for the timing of such a Bill. If and when there is a Bill, I would ask the Government to consider the following five questions. Will the Bill make clear the line of accountability between the police, the HSE and the CPS? Will the Government ensure that if one or more of these authorities fails to take sufficient action, they will then take action against those authorities? Will the police be given proper training on issues relating to manslaughter in the workplace and on how to conduct a thorough investigation?
Will further protocols cease with the two-stage process of investigation and initially consider all cases of deaths at work as corporate manslaughter? Ultimately, will corporate directors be held responsible for corporate employees—such responsibility being the most effective deterrent against insufficient safety at work which causes deaths at work?
I suggest that these five questions would make legislation workable, effective and, above all, balanced. I strongly suggest that the five questions, if answered properly, would in part ensure that, as the Minister concerned at the time told Simon Jones's family in a letter of 20 September 2000:
"When flagrant health and safety crimes are committed, the case for punitive punishment is unquestionable."
There are far too many deaths at work and we need to ensure that actions are taken that make deaths at work a crime that does not pay.
10.18 pm
Rob Marris: I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for allowing me time to speak briefly. It is shocking that the number of deaths at work increased last year. This is a timely debate.
I have a personal interest in this subject because Simon Jones' cousin, Cath, lives in my constituency. Along with other members of his family and many supporters, she and her husband, Ray, have campaigned energetically for justice, both in memory of Simon Jones and for the sake of others.
I shall focus briefly on some aspects of practice rather than the law itself, which was covered by the hon. Gentlemen. Many changes are needed, and I shall consider four of them.
In 1998, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Health and Safety Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service developed the protocol to which reference has been made. There is an agreed procedure for liaison between these organisations where there is a work-related death. The protocol is a significant step forward, but we must ensure that the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the CPS are fully trained in this specialist area, preferably through joint training, thus enabling prompt and thorough investigation.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's call for every work-related death initially to be treated as a manslaughter investigation, until manslaughter can be discounted.
282
Incidents should also initially be investigated from an organisational point of view—in other words, what went wrong in the system? Investigations of individuals should be in the context of any organisational failures that are discovered. Prevention based on a change in systems is usually more effective than simply focusing on individual blame. Arrangements for access to fatal accident sites must be clarified to ensure that it is clear who is in overall control and that the police do not deny HSE investigators prompt access to the site on the grounds that it is a possible crime scene. I therefore seek assurances from the Minister on joint training, initial investigation of manslaughter, organisational investigation and site access.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing this debate; he made a number of important points about deaths at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), in a brief contribution, asked a number of important questions which need to discussed in the context of possible future legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. I am aware of the awful circumstances surrounding the death of Simon Jones; it was a terrible and unnecessary tragedy and my deepest sympathy goes to his family and friends. His death has remained at the forefront of the minds of my colleagues in government as we work on improving health and safety. Too many people are still dying at work. The hon. Member for Banbury suggested that there had been 25,000 deaths at work since 1995. I believe that that was an inadvertent slip; 2,500 people have died at work since 1995. Last year, 295 workers were killed, which is unacceptable. It is a central tenet of health and safety practice that workers should expect to return home in roughly the same condition that they went to work; losing one's life as a result of one's employment is utterly unacceptable.
I fully recognise the concerns about Simon's death and shall respond to some specific points raised during the debate, particularly the questions at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech and those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We shall certainly look carefully at the issues that the hon. Member for Banbury raised when we formulate proposals for legislation. I shall say more about legislative proposals shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look carefully at the effect of any changes in the law on those enforcing it. For example, the national training programmes for the police service are reviewed and updated in line with changes to legislation, which are reflected as appropriate in the training that the police service receives. We shall also consider how the changes in the law will affect guidance issued to the police and the existing protocol.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the protocol that has existed between the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown Prosecution Service since 1998. It may assist the House if I explain that the protocol is an agreement between the signatories to ensure effective liaison between the organisations when there is a work-related death. It promotes and encourages joint decision making and a co-ordinated approach from investigation to, where appropriate, prosecution before the

283
courts. I stress that the protocol is intended to supplement the operational guidance on the investigation and prosecution of cases by the police, the HSE and the CPS and does not dictate how an incident may be effectively investigated.
Experience of the operation of the protocol suggests that while it has proved an effective tool on a number of occasions, there is room for improvement. Accordingly, since September last year, a committee has been looking at how the protocol may be developed to address some of the concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman, such as the approach to the initial investigation. I understand that a public consultation exercise to engage organisations that have had direct experience of the protocol took place between January and the end of February this year. Responses from the exercise will help to inform the review of the protocol. Following the exercise and other considerations, the revised protocol is expected to be introduced this autumn.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether corporate directors would be held responsible. We take the offence of manslaughter extremely seriously. We are always mindful of the need for businesses to operate successfully, but we also believe that companies must operate in a responsible and safety conscious manner. We outlined proposals for the reform of the law on corporate killing in the consultation paper entitled "Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: the Government's Proposals".
Currently, the law requires that if a corporate body is to be found liable for a manslaughter offence, it is necessary to identify a controlling mind, typically a director, who can be proved to have committed the offence. That has made successful prosecution extremely difficult in practice, except in the case of very small undertakings, and has meant that there have been only three successful prosecutions for corporate killing.
The new offence of corporate killing that we propose seeks to capture conduct that falls far below what can be expected of a reasonable undertaking in the circumstances. The offence does not require the risk to life to be obvious. Instead, all that is required is that the way in which the company's activities are managed or organised fails to ensure the health and safety of its employees. Therefore, the undertaking as a whole is seen to have committed a management failure, even if the cause of the specific death is the act or omission of an individual.
We fully expect the new legislation to provide a clearer avenue for securing successful prosecutions against undertakings whose standards have fallen far below what could reasonably be expected, and where failure to uphold the standard has in part been responsible for a death. We envisage that the introduction of the new offence will encourage companies that have so far failed to do so to take their health and safety responsibilities much more seriously.
The hon. Gentleman implied that the HSE does not investigate all deaths at work. I emphasise that that is far from the case, as I shall make clear. The HSE is confident that it is informed about all deaths in the workplace, other than deaths that may be work-related but do not occur in the workplace and are perhaps road-related.
284
The HSE's revised enforcement policy statement, which was published on 28 January, states that all work-related deaths reportable to enforcing authorities should receive a site investigation. That has always been the case. Deaths would also be investigated if they were accidents to members of the public on a site where work was taking place. The HSE's published accident figures include deaths to workers and to members of the public which result from work activities.
Other reported incidents or complaints are selected for investigation according to publicly available criteria. Perhaps I could deal now with the suggestion that the HSE did nothing about Euromin. In fact, Euromin had been visited by, or had other contact with, the HSE in 1994, 1995, 1996 and early 1998. Advice on a number of issues had been given, but no formal enforcement action had been taken.
The enforcement policy states that if an investigation reveals that prosecution is justified—that is, that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and it is in the public interest—prosecution will go ahead. The aim of the revised enforcement policy is to achieve greater consistency and transparency in decision making on investigation and enforcement. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury that that is very important.
The revised enforcement policy aims to ensure that the HSE and local authorities bring to bear the full range of health and safety enforcement powers, including prosecution, to ensure compliance with health and safety law. It has also been designed to achieve an effective balance in what enforcers do, and I support that approach.
Enforcement, including prosecution and deterrence, is crucial, but not at the expense of promoting voluntary compliance and models of excellence which also have a legitimate call on resources
The preventive inspection programme is at the core of the HSE's business and it is always seeking to improve the way in which it carries out this work. Premises are selected for proactive inspection using criteria such as the risk from the processes likely to be taking place, past incident history, standards in the industry and our confidence in management. Only higher risk businesses are inspected.
We know that resources are an important factor in enabling the HSE to do its job, and that is why we have increased its overall resources. We provided an additional £63 million following the 1998 comprehensive spending review and a further £45 million in December 2000.
The increases over those three years have allowed for an overall increase in the HSE's staff, and that has enabled the HSE to make more visits and to handle more investigations and complaints. Since the Government took office, the number of HSE prosecutions and formal enforcement notices has increased. Last year, the HSE issued nearly 50 per cent. more improvement and prohibition notices than in 1996–97 and prosecuted nearly 20 per cent. more individual duty holders.
However, demands on the HSC and the HSE to improve health and safety will always be high and will always outstrip the resources available. That is why the revitalising health and safety initiative, launched in June 2000, is so important. Effective health and safety is about getting duty holders to fulfil their obligations as a matter of course, not just in response to an inspector's visit,

285
and that means working in partnership with stakeholders to achieve long lasting improvements in voluntary compliance. That is not just a paper exercise and I am confident that it will deliver.
First, targets will be set for the health and safety system for the first time to reduce the incidence of fatal and major Injury accidents by 10 per cent., and ill health by 20 per cent. by 2010, with at least half the improvement to be achieved by 2004. The setting of those targets has been a catalyst. It is encouraging to see the private sector committing to delivering targets, which contributes to the national effort. So far, 25 of the traditional industry sectors have done so, with a further eight to follow suit.
286
Secondly, the HSC is prioritising and focusing its resources and efforts on areas where major improvements are necessary if the targets are to be met, and it encourages partnership. I am pleased that in many of the revitalising initiatives, industry, employees and the trade unions are involved together.
I reiterate my sympathy for Simon Jones' family, and I hope that what I have said this evening gives assurances about the Government's commitment to improve health and safety to minimise the risk of further tragedies.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Parish and Town Councils
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Local Government Act 1894 established parish councils for villages of more than 300 people. That Act followed a series of substantial late Victorian local government reforms. During the 108 years since then, parish councils and their urban equivalent of town councils have become established in every corner of the country. They have evolved over that time, but to their credit they have retained their distinctive character.
Effective local councils represent some of the best practice in good governance. First, they are part of the communities that they serve, which ensures accountability. Secondly, they are focused on the provision of local services and amenities, which is what people want. Thirdly, they are often independent of Whitehall and the political party machines. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, they are diverse: they genuinely reflect the different urban and rural communities for which they are responsible.
I am fortunate that in my constituency of Hertford and Stortford and the area covered by the East Hertfordshire district council we have some excellent parish and town councils. The four town councils represent from 8,000 people to about 31,000 people. The parish councils are similarly varied. Some represent one single village; others represent a series of villages and hamlets. All of them, however, share a common sense of public service and, in good times and bad, they have striven to do their best for their communities.
I take this opportunity to record my thanks to the hundreds of men and women who, down the years, have served as councillors, clerks or staff, and for the wonderful public service that they have provided. In a quiet manner—dare I say it, in a barely active way, but none the less effectively—parish and town councils have helped to shape the character of their communities. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will join me in extending their thanks for that public service. Indeed, as the very future of public service is in question, we should pay tribute to those who have given so freely of their time and talents.
The role and organisation of local councils are now changing. During the past two years, the Government have published a series of consultation papers and statutory documents on how our parish and town councils should operate. Those plans include changes in their powers, funding and organisation—and even on how councillors should conduct themselves. Taken together, those changes represent a significant redefinition of the role of the local council. That is why
2WH
I was delighted to learn at the end of last week that I had secured today's debate. It is a shame that hon. Members from some political parties are not able to take part.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Mention them.
Mr. Prisk: I wish to retain a degree of independence, but as my hon. Friend points out, it is a shame that the Labour party seems to be sleeping this morning.
Mr. Moss: Inactive.
Mr. Prisk: Inactive; my hon. Friend is quite right.
Mr. Peter Luff: Certainly not vibrant.
Mr. Prisk: Certainly not.
I shall consider three aspects of the Government's plans. The first is the funding system known as quality councils; the next is the management system termed best value; the last is the code of conduct for councillors. Each aspect may seem minor—they may even sound dull—but together they represent a major change in how local councils will work, and therefore in how our local communities will develop.
I shall begin with quality councils. Initially, they sound great, do they not? Who could possibly object to encouraging higher standards among local councils? Yet when one examines the scheme in practice, one realises that the main means of promoting the higher standards that the Government propose is the hypothecation of funding. Local councils would therefore be forced to comply with Whitehall rules to be eligible for funds. The Government have remorselessly practised that classic Whitehall tactic in almost every aspect of our public services. The result has been less local decision making and more power vested in Whitehall.
That is not the way to encourage people to become involved in our local communities, because it sends the message that Whitehall knows best, and Ministers do not trust local people to make the right decisions for their communities. That is clear from the way in which the Government fund education, health and our police services, which are losing good people who feel that Ministers do not trust them to take decisions. The same will happen in our parish and town councils if the Minister pursues the policy that he has in mind.
The second of the Government's plans relates to the system known as best value. For those who are unfamiliar with it, I should explain that the best value management system is intended to raise performance standards through—I hope that hon. Members will excuse the ridiculous management jargon—continuous performance, performance planning and service reviews. Like many management consultancy fads, it turns a simple common-sense idea into complex bureaucratic language that all too often sounds like gibberish.

3WH
If I may, I shall give a brief example of that gibberish from the Government's consultation paper on quality in town and parish councils. In discussing the proposal's benefits, it says:
"In order to support the process of developing partnership arrangements for the improved delivery of services on behalf of principal authorities by local councils, our proposals need to be underpinned by the statutory performance management framework for principal authorities."
It is early in the morning, so I appreciate that that is not easy to comprehend, but I think that in English, it means that we must pass new laws to make the provisions work.
If such management waffle is bad enough in large multinationals, it is even worse when it is imposed on small local councils. That is not simply my view, but that of many of the respondents in the study that the Government recently published. The study was conducted by the Institute of Local Government Studies through the university of Birmingham. It examined 41 councils involved in the best value programme and took a detailed look at the first year. It stated:
"While, as indicated, there was broad acceptance of the basic principles of Best Value as representing good management, the overall experience to date has been mainly negative. In particular, the regime is perceived as being far too demanding, unduly rigid and insufficiently attuned to the specific circumstances and needs of local councils. Most respondents argued that, in their experience to date, the costs of Best Value had far outweighed the benefits gained. Furthermore, they saw little prospect of the costs being recouped through efficiency savings achieved through Best Value reviews."
The study went on to ask the councils detailed questions. One finding was that the yearly cost for the average council would be between £20,000 and £40,000. The respondents were somewhat more concerned about value for money. The study stated that in the six councils that were visited for follow-up purposes
"the argument was heard that the direct costs of compliance with Best Value requirements … had far exceeded the value of the service development benefits … Moreover, as indicated, equally widespread was the view that many of those service development benefits would mostly have been achieved anyway through less resource-demanding and more routine practices of good management."
I want to highlight the nature of the use of performance indicators, as they seemed to be especially unsuccessful. There is a case for using them in management, but they have to be selected carefully. They must be meaningful, in terms of what they measure, and of real help. Another important quotation from the report will show that, sadly, that is not always the case. The report states that
"there was no doubting a widespread scepticism about the value of performance indicators … at this level of local government … As one councillor said with regard to monitoring standards of upkeep in the local cemetery: 'when the grass is long, the paths need weeding or the graves are untidy people tell you in no uncertain terms. We make sure they don't have to tell us. I walk through that cemetery every day, every single day, so I can keep an eye on it. I don't have to measure it to know when the grass is too long'."
4WH
That summarises the way in which the system has gone mad. I hope that the Minister will explain what lessons the Government have learned from the study on a system that, far from providing best value, seems to have little or no value in the eyes of those asked to implement it.
The Government's plans to impose a code of conduct on local councillors are shortly to be debated elsewhere in the House. The code seems remarkably prescriptive. It introduces a register of parish councillors' interests that will include their employment, business and property. It will require them to register any gift or hospitality worth more than £25, so presumably raffle prizes at the local fete will be somewhat restricted. It also contains a requirement to disclose any personal interest, or interest of their spouse or relatives, and to withdraw from the room if those interests are discussed.
Everyone in the House seeks the highest standards of behaviour in public life, but those measures are clumsy and draconian when applied to local councillors. They are disproportionate to the budget involved, and fail to distinguish between major and minor breaches. Also, they could not work as drafted in many small parishes. If someone in a small community is asked to declare his interests and those of his spouse and all his family, I can envisage some parish councils having no one left in the room to discuss the issues. That is the silly nature of the proposal.
Perhaps worst of all, the code creates an enormous sense of disquiet among the vast majority of hardworking and law-abiding councillors. They feel that the Government no longer trust them.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems with the code of conduct is that it is mandatory? It was originally envisaged that local councillors would have discretion as to which elements of the code of conduct they wanted to adopt locally for their own circumstances.
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend is right. He has underlined the critical point, which is that under this Government, the days of discretion and variety are gone. The system is all about compulsion and imposition, and that is one of its weaknesses.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plethora of reorganisation is causing a problem, in that many people are asking why they should bother giving up their time to serve the community and take all the hassle of being parish councillors? Indeed, is that not what the Government set out to bring about? I think that the Minister for the Environment recently asked what role parish councillors had. Under this Government, they have no role, and the code is an attempt to see them off.
Mr. Prisk: As always, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. As a new Member, I might want to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt, but more experienced colleagues clearly understand the issues better than I do. There is a danger that what my hon. Friend described will be the result. I hope that the Minister will categorically state that it is neither the intention nor the wish of the Government to see that take place.

5WH
These examples of the Government's plans highlight how they seem to have chosen what my hon. Friends agree is a centralising and bureaucratic agenda that will curtail local freedom and destroy the diversity that makes our parish and town councils distinctive. That is the wrong approach. Instead of meddling in management systems, the Government should be improving local services. Instead of imposing a bureaucratic code of conduct, they should be tackling known offenders, and instead of enforcing conformity—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has pointed out—they should be celebrating the diversity of our towns and parishes.
In the last 108 years, parish and town councils have become the foundation of many local communities. I hope that the Minister recognises that many of his initiatives have lost their way. It is time to give back to councils the freedom to build for the future and the confidence that that will engender.
9.45 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has done the House a service in calling for this debate. The more I look into the matter, the more fired up I get, and the more I have listened to my hon. Friend and thought about the Government's underhand surreptitious policy, the more angry I have become. I think that that is true of my hon. Friends as well.
It is a tragedy that the Government are sneakily trampling on the decency and traditions of organisations that do an enormous amount of good in the communities that they serve. The Government call for "community" and "voluntarism" and other aspects of good citizenship, yet they are destroying all that, and undermining much of the quality of life that we—particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies—value highly.
I have more than 100 parish councils in my constituency. Some of them have lovely, former Viking names—Thorpes, Byes and Little by the Rivers, and so on. These little organisations serve the genuine needs of people who live there, without the hassle—until now—and supervision of an overregulated governmental system. They are enormously valuable to the people on their doorsteps. After 10 years, I like to think that I know every corner of the 500 square miles of my constituency. However, the other day I discovered one that I had not realised existed—a hamlet of about 15 houses at the end of a cul de sac. It has a vibrant parish council that looks after the mundane things that most bother the residents about the community in which they live—the views that they see every day, the paths that they use and the fields in which they have always walked their dogs.
Parish councils, by their very nature, are varied—as my hon. Friend has said. They are diverse. They have value because they do not fit into the straitjacket of some theoretical governmental pattern. They have evolved to suit the needs of their communities. They can be tiddly or big, busy or dormant, and they can suddenly rise up and get angry when they need to because an issue affects them. They do not have to harass the Minister actively every day about this or that policy or consultation document. They are simply there to respond, when
6WH
needed, to the demands, requirements and feelings of those who live in the area. They are small, cuddly, and harmless, but they are genuine community organisations that exist to serve their people. The more they are interfered with, the less effective they will be.
Let us consider what parish councils do. They have no executive authority and cannot set a budget, decide where a house is to be built, move a road or build a building. All that they can do is express an opinion, and act as a pressure valve for locals who want to express their opinion, who tend to get especially hot under the collar about planning matters. The most that they can do is to stick a tiny precept—a fiver or a tenner—on the borough or district council budget to fund things of particular concern to small communities, which have gained popular consent and approval. That money might go towards a flagpole on a village green, or to restore the wagon wash or an ancient wall that has crumbled over the past 50 years. It might be put towards repairing the local church—they lychgate, or a wall, for example. At any rate, it will go towards something that exercises the feelings and views of those who live in the parish.
What are those councils doing at the moment? Most are organising jubilee celebrations. They will probably not have a precept for that, because all the money coming into the celebrations will be voluntary, but the focal point for the expression of community enjoyment and party organisation—putting up the bunting and the lights at Christmas, for example—remains the parish.
The Minister does not seem to be interested in what I am saying, but I hope that he is listening.
Mr. Prisk: Not only is the Minister apparently uninterested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but it is appalling that not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher is in this Chamber today. They claim to have an interest in local matters, but where are they? I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not need to be reminded that we are debating a subject, rather than who is in the Chamber.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend is right, none the less. We can count, and on this occasion we do not even need all the fingers of one hand to count with.
Let me address another issue to which, this time, the Minister might pay some attention, which has affected my constituents and may have affected those of other hon. Members. I am talking about flooding, which has bedevilled so many local communities over the past three or four years. Surprising instances of flooding have occurred: suddenly springs start bubbling up through the tarmac, and a plain is flooded that has not been awash with water for decades.
Parish councils are the source of knowledge and understanding about the direct effects of water flows in their immediate vicinity. They are where the wisdom lies. Some old farmer who has been cutting the daisies—rather than pushing up the daisies-for decades, knows where the water goes and can explain to people imported into the planning authority the effects of different types of building.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. In Ashford in the Water, which is in my constituency and which suffered flooding last year, the main point of contact for people was a parish councillor, with whom the Environment Agency also corresponded. The parish council provided a useful contact point.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is right. The combination of the diligence of a local Member of Parliament and the activity of a local parish will ensure that Ashford in the Water is not for ever Ashford under Water.
Parish councils provide valuable information and act both on things that might ruin the lives of people in the parish and on simple things. At this time of year, one walks into a village and sees the daffodils blooming under an oak. They did not come to be there because of some district council or Member of Parliament, but through the activity of a parish council, which cobbled together a few quid to make the village a lovelier place in which to reside.
My point is that all that work is at risk of being destroyed. What fires me up—and clearly fires up my hon. Friends too—is the Government's underhand policy of completely destroying the historic and useful activities of parish councils. Let us start with this putrid, stinky, disgusting little document, in which some civil servant has arbitrarily categorised every parish council in the land on the basis of no decent quality information whatever. The terminology of categorisation is designed to deride. Parish councils are described as "inactive", "dormant", "barely active" or, just occasionally, "vibrant".
I do not mind my parish council being slightly inactive or only half vibrant; what I want to know is that it will represent my interests as a resident efficiently and honestly when necessary. So if it is dormant but can rise when the need provokes it, that does not mean that it is less good as a parish council. This entire document—this vague and arbitrary, although supposedly specific, listing—is deeply offensive and insulting to many people. What would happen if I were to categorise Labour Members of Parliament as dormant, inactive, vibrant, or even thick? I could draw up a comprehensive list, based on far better information than we find in this document about our English parishes.
I want to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about declarations of interest. One can argue that people who make executive decisions should declare their interests, whether those decisions are about planning, whether they enable people to put money in their pockets or whether their decisions may be misunderstood—
Mr. McLoughlin: Especially in Doncaster.
Mr. Duncan: In Doncaster, as my hon. Friend says, there is a track record of that sort of thing—but not in parish councils, because they do not have executive authority. They are glorified, but none the less helpful and valuable, residents associations—a useful but harmless safety valve for the expression and channeling
8WH
of opinion. The suggestion that the local squire or former schoolteacher, who does his or her decent duty as chairman of the parish council, should have to list their assets and declare their interests, and those of their spouse, is obscene. That is a grave intrusion into privacy and an abuse of human rights. It shrouds the decent work of the entire community of parish councils in a cloud of suspicion that they do not deserve. It amounts almost to an assumption of guilt. I, and many people who serve on parish councils, find that offensive.
Thirdly, I want to say something about audit costs. We now have the absurd situation in which the little "residents association" parish council must submit audited accounts to the district auditor. In one case in Clipsham and Stretton, in eastern Rutland, the Audit Commission billed the council £250 for submitting the accounts, but the total balance in the accounts was £238.20. This ridiculous Government are telling parish councils that they must submit their audited accounts, but they do not need auditing. Does the parochial church council belfry account or kerbstone account need auditing? Cannot a local accountant just tick the box to certify that the accounts, set out on one page, are honest? Expenditure on daffodils, £5.50; cash in hand, £128; donation to the bell tower, £50. Do such accounts need auditing? They do not. The Minister is shaking his head, so we look forward to hearing him confirm that people who serve on parish councils will not be required to declare their interests, that no audit fees will be imposed to clobber parish councils, and that they will be left alone.
The Government's agenda, working from a socialist theoretical point of view, is to ensure that all the organs of government are tidily structured under one pattern of thought, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Conservative Members value the diversity—and almost the inexplicability—of parish council structures. Whether they are tiddly or big, active or inactive, does not matter; they are a force for good.
I am suspicious that as the agenda for bigger and more regional government is pushed forward, and it is argued that anyone who has anything to do with public service must put their assets on the line for all to see, the people who will be destroyed are those who do their duty, as a public service, by serving local communities on parish councils. The hidden agenda of the Minister and his Government is to destroy the parish council as we know it. That is a crime. The parish council is of value, and is a force for good. Can the Minister confirm that it will be left alone to do what it has always done as well as it has always done it?
10 am
Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great pleasure to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak on a rural issue for the second time in less than 24 hours. I do not want to cause offence to my friends in the hunting world, but this is probably a more important long-term issue than that which we were debating on the Floor of the House yesterday.
I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously. He has heard a characteristically passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I share his anger because what he

9WH
described was right. I hope that the Minister will not conclude from the lack of support in the Chamber from his hon. Friends, or from the Liberal Democrats, that there is a lack of passion in the countryside on the issue. Genuine worry exists in the countryside. I do not know whether the Minister's constituency of Southampton, Test is arranged in parishes. [Interruption.] It is not. I am grateful to the Minister for admitting that.
One problem is that the Government do not understand parishes—that is not a criticism, but an observation. We have a necessarily urban policy-making elite in the civil service, and an urban-dominated Government. Such a Government should be careful about rushing into policy judgments on rural institutions that are not represented at policy-making or ministerial level.
Parish councils are strange and diverse animals; they are the small platoons about which Edmund Burke wrote, and they comprise the fabric of our community. I rely heavily on them for advice on a range of issues. I make it my point to write to the chairmen and clerks on a regular basis, and I listen carefully to what they say. When I am invited to take a role in a planning decision, I will do so only if the parish council confirms that it would be right for me to become involved. I visit parish councils as regularly as I can, and I celebrate their diversity—they are an extraordinary range of organisations. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said that the Government were trying to fit them into a neat policy framework—a series of boxes—he hit the nail on the head. I am a charitable soul so I am inclined to believe that they are doing that out of ignorance, not malice, but perhaps I am too charitable.
If one did characterise parish councils, one could take four levels: the micro parish council, which is typically a parish meeting; the standard village parish council; the large village parish council; and the town council. I shall quote a letter from Abberton parish meeting that I received a couple of weeks ago. I have sent a copy to the Minister, who may not have received it yet. It is a response to the Countryside Agency's survey of parishes. The Minister will say that that survey was not of parish councils, but of parishes. However, parish councils see the survey as a measure of their effectiveness, and the vibrancy of parish councils is one of the indicators through contested elections. Therefore, although the Minister's legalistic defence may hold good in court on a point of law, it is not common sense. Parishes in my constituency are up in arms about the agency's analysis.
Abberton parish meeting is not up in arms, for the reasons stated in chairman Mr. James Taylor's letter. He writes:
"May I give you a brief picture of the parish of Abberton, which I hope will give you the background to our apparent somnambulant posture."
He goes on to describe the small, 999-acre hamlet of Abberton, which has not greatly changed over the past 40 to 50 years. He paints a picture of its two farms, which employ only seven people, two of whom travel in daily. He says that the parish meeting is called when required, and most recently that was to debate speed limits in the village—an important issue in several rural communities. He says that those at the meeting objected to the urbanisation implied in the speed limit system that the county council wanted to impose.
10WH
Mr. Taylor explains that planning applications are circulated by hand to interested parties. When problems arise such as the flooding of the highway—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made a powerful point about the role of parish councils and flooding—direct contact is made by the parish council, there is no need to call a meeting, and matters are sorted out. He talks about the church, St. Edburga's, where the monthly service is all that it can manage. Members of the parish go to the neighbouring parish of Bishampton to take part in drama and choir activities. Those people are pretty vibrant, even if the parish meeting is not particularly so. A local choir comes to practice in the church, it is true, and there is an occasional bus service to Pershore and Stratford, although that causes some concern in the village because it apparently damages the kerbs. There was a bonfire in 2000 for the millennium and that will happen again for the Queen's golden jubilee.
Mr. Taylor says, at the end of his letter:
"I hope this gives you a flavour of our community. We do go to some LA meetings and receive large amounts of mail"—
I expect that most of that is from the Government—
"but if I judge my neighbours right, we as a parish are quite happy to be left asleep."
That is the point. Many such organisations are happy to do precisely that. To understand parish councils as a coherent entity is to misunderstand them when there is such a diverse range of them.
At the other end of the scale of villages is Broadway parish council, to which I shall return later in my remarks, and large town councils such as Evesham and Droitwich, each with a population of more than 20,000. Those are wildly different organisations, and to apply the same set of rules, whatever those are, to all those different types of organisation is a fundamental policy error. The Minister denies that he is doing so, but that is what the parishes see daily in the letters that they receive from the Government.
Mr. Prisk: Is this problem not compounded because the Minister involved admitted that
"consultation was not done directly with the individual communities"?
Someone decided the nature of the parish remotely. Is that not insulting?
Mr. Luff: I have had a very detailed letter from the Minister and his colleague at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister for Rural Affairs, about that process. Reading between the lines, it is quite clear that they admit that it was deeply flawed. The Minister for Rural Affairs told me how many parishes in my constituency responded: only 22 out of 56. I have to say that of the 22 that he said responded, most do not remember responding and most do not remember having received a survey in the first place. I suspect that that was because the Government used an out-of-date list of parish council clerks—a real problem. The survey came at the height of the foot and mouth disease crisis, when the parishes in rural England were up to their necks, dealing with a whole range of problems. They did not have time for another Government survey. That was a barmy time to do that exercise.

11WH
The Minister for Rural Affairs, in a letter to me, highlighted three parish councils that had not responded, as if that was a criticism of them: Bishampton and Throckmorton, Hill and Moor and Wyre Piddle. The reason that they did not respond was that the Government had dumped on them a major foot and mouth disease burial site without any consultation with those parishes whatsoever. When I discovered belatedly that that was happening, at my suggestion they were invited to the press conference to have the details revealed. That is the attitude of the present Government to parish council—they just do not feature in the Government's thinking.
The Minister says that the Government are not treating all parish councils in the same way, but I have a letter in my hand from Nicky Holland, the clerk to Abbots Morton parish council. That is one of those small village parish councils, bigger than a parish meeting but smaller than the council of a large village like Broadway—a typical parish council. She says:
"Over the past two years, we feel that Abbots Morton Parish Council has become a vibrant Council. As the Clerk I have attended a year's course at Worcestershire College; the Chairman has attended various training courses along with other Parish Councillors. We have increased our meetings to six a year to cope with the extra workload from the White Paper, have adopted Standing Orders and dealt with employment issues. We have responded to comments regarding Government documents and other papers that have been brought to our attention."
Yet, of course, that was a parish council that was characterised as "sleeping" in the Government's analysis.
How can that be? The work load described there has come about because the council is being forced to respond to Government initiatives at a level that just does not concern parish councils. The Minister is probably being briefed by his officials, and I understand that. I have every sympathy for him—he does not understand parish councils and does not have them in his constituency—but I urge him to look at the reality and not the fine words that he gets from his officials. I urge him to open his eyes to the reality of what is going on.
I have already mentioned the Government's failure to consult parish councils at times of great crisis. I re-emphasise their failure to consult parish councils. Failing to consult Pinvin parish council at the time of foot and mouth disease when imposing a burial site in my constituency was a monstrous breach of their duty. Parish councils want to be consulted. Why have they not yet been given the power, for example, to be statutory objectors to the grant of operator licences to heavy goods vehicle companies? In the vale of Evesham, in south-east Worcestershire in my constituency, there is a huge problem with heavy goods vehicles. Yet when an operator licence is applied for and the parish council seeks to make its view known to the licensing authorities, it is not allowed to do so because it is not a statutory objector or consultee. Only an individual—not a parish council—who is adversely affected may express a view.
12WH
I raised the matter with the Government, probably two years ago, and was told that they would take steps to correct it. They have not yet done so. They find time to put all kinds of impositions on parish councils but not to give them what they want. I plead with the Minister to reconsider the role of parish councils in the HGV licensing process. They desperately want and need the power and would really appreciate having it.
We have talked about the Countryside Agency's analysis of parish councils, and I explained why the Government would defend it. However, it is wrong to defend it. It has caused huge offence. I write to my parish councils regularly, and I seek to be honest and straightforward with them. They are not party political animals. If the Minister thinks that members of parish councils are all Conservatives, he is wrong. Despite the absence of the Liberal Democrats today in Westminster Hall, they are a powerful force on many parish councils, as are Labour activists. Parish councils are not party-based organisations, and I try to deal with them in a non-partisan way, as one must. Their anger about the survey should not be understated.
I have a letter from Evesham town council, which shares the deep concerns about the issue. Very kindly, it sent me a copy of the March 2002 edition of a publication that I had not seen before, Clerks and Councils Direct, which is probably targeted at the larger councils. An article with the headline "Sleepy tag is `grave insult' explains the survey and indicates that councils know what it is all about and have not misunderstood it, as the Minister might think. It says:
"Community leaders are fuming as a result … many councils who have fallen into the first two categories"—sleeping or barely active—
"say the labels are nothing more than an insult because of the countless hours they spend working to improve their communities."
Although I am grateful to the Countryside Agency for its reassurance that more reliable methods will be used when the exercise is repeated—as it will be—to help the Government develop indicators of community vibrancy, it fails to understand that one does not need such indicators, for the reasons given in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Rutland and Melton. We do not need more bits of information and bureaucracy. Parish and town councils work as they are. They do not need to be tinkered with, nor do they need control from Whitehall. They just need to be left to get on with the job that they have done so effectively for so long.
The article continues:
"Windleston and Rushyford Parish Council, in the heart of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Sedgefield constituency in Durham, found itself described as dormant. Its members meet four times a year".
I think that the council will be a little insulted by the description. In fact, we know that it is, because the chairman has complained:
"Great Aycliffe Town Council serves 28,000 people, with a £2 million budget and employing 80 staff. Yet it is in the same third-tier category as parish councils such as Windlestone and Rushyford.

13WH
Deputy council leader Alan Grey said that the town council offered a variety of services, including recreational facilities, parks, a golf club and large sports complex, and play groups."
Its survey rating is absolutely extraordinary.
I accept that the exercise was trivial. I was told in a parliamentary answer that it was conducted in only two days, which is amazing, considering that there are 6,000 parish councils in it. However, the Minister must understand that, though trivial, it matters, because it has crystallised the concerns that have developed among parish councils during the past three or four years about the Government's attitude to them.
I am not often upset by letters from Ministers, because they are not often very robust. They are written by the same civil servants who brief Ministers, and they always try to avoid being too confrontational. However, I received an extraordinary letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs. It was written about three weeks after I issued a press release. To get a letter from a Minister in any Department, let alone DEFRA, within three weeks of a press release is surprising. I wait three months for parliamentary answers and three or four months for letters from DEFRA, which is one of the worst Departments in Whitehall for responding to parliamentary questions.
The Minister for Rural Affairs accused me of sending out a Conservative central office handout, which is simply not true. The document was entirely my own work—every single word of it. The Minister accused me of saying things that I had not said, and concluded:
"I hope you will now join me in supporting and promoting the role of parish and town councils. Their role is too important to be used as a political football, as indeed is the role of the Countryside Agency."
We are not using parish councils as political footballs but are desperately trying to stand up for their interests against an uncomprehending Government. Instead, we are using the Government and, to an extent, the Countryside Agency as political footballs.
I find the Minister's remarks deeply offensive and wrong. I have written a four-page letter to him in response, which I hope that he will personally read. I hope that he will apologise, but somehow I doubt it.
Parish and town councils are not adequately consulted. They have been insulted by the Countryside Agency and the Government and are being forced into a straitjacket through the quality initiative about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke so eloquently. I have asked all the parish councils in my constituency to show me their responses to the quality initiative. One or two of them are not particularly concerned about it, but the vast majority of them are profoundly worried. They regard the measure as a further encroachment on their traditions and on what they have been good at for so long. That spirit informs their responses. I urge the Minister to read them carefully and not rely on large national organisations for advice. He will be surprised by what he finds.
We all know the story about the boy who cried wolf, and I do not want to be accused of crying wolf today.
14WH
The Minister points at my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Government are beginning the process of disintegration of parish councils. The straw that broke the camel's back was the wretched document, the Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2000, which we shall debate in a statutory instrument Committee later today. I cannot believe that the Government really know what they are doing with such a document. The code is more prescriptive than that for Members of Parliament. If we compare what we and what parish councils are required to declare, we find that the order of magnitude for parish councils is worse. The Minister must first understand one practical consideration. Even if the declaration were required, let us consider the work load that will be placed on the poor, overworked clerks who do so much excellent work for local communities, often for low remuneration. It is extraordinary how much will be involved in keeping the code up to date.
The Minister explained in a letter that the duty to declare £25 gifts would apply only to those given during the course of parish council duties. That is not what the code says or how we interpret it. I repeat the warning that I made in a recent letter to him. There are often local disputes in parishes; people may not get on well. They are not always happy places. Parish council politics can be pretty brutal; those who listen to "The Archers" know that. By the way, the Minister may wish to know that that programme is set in my constituency and that of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith).
There are often petty rivalries and jealousies at local level. I will not name names, although I am tempted to; but I can think of one or two rivalries in which the code will be a very powerful tool for vexatious constituents. People will take entirely spurious complaints to a new national body. The complaints will receive massive publicity in local newspapers but will then be dismissed at great cost to those involved. Such action will cause great stress to individuals who were falsely accused. The Minister will be ill-guided if he pursues the provisions under the code of conduct.
The Minister seems to consider that the code is reasonable and that, under the Nolan rules, matters should be transparent. As has been made clear, the budgets of parish councils are typically piddling or nonexistent. I accept that it is regrettable and wrong for someone to make a fiver out of the odd grass-cutting contract that is handed out, but does that justify such provisions? The communities would find out about such matters pretty damn quickly. Such networks do not need formalisation; they are informal. There have been cases of fraud, such as the one in my constituency in which a parish clerk ran off with a lot of money. I accept that some powers of control are needed, but in those circumstances public bodies had bent over backwards to lend her money without checking whether her applications were legitimate. The proposed audit requirements will not change that behaviour because it was how the money got there in the first place that should have been examined.

15WH
The Minister must know what is contained in the code. For example, never mind the declarations of
"any land in which he has a beneficial interest"
or whether a person has
"one hundredth of the total issued share capital";
never mind
"the name of any corporate body which has a place of business or land"
in the area, or
"the name of any firm in which he is a partner … the address or other description … of any land",
or any land in which the person has a licence
"(alone or jointly with others) to occupy for 28 days or longer";
the person must also declare
"his membership of or position of general control or management in any—
(a) body to which he has been appointed or nominated by the authority as its representative".
That will be in the minutes, so why does it have to be declared? It is more bureaucracy—there will be more forms to be filled out.
What is a
"body exercising functions of a public nature"?
I do not know. People would also have to declare membership of any
"company, industrial and provident society, … charity, or body directed to charitable purposes"
and any
"body whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy".
What on earth are those? I do not know whether the Abberton parish meeting will know what they are. People must also declare membership of any
"(e) trade union … or professional association."
Anyone who joins or resigns from a trade union or professional association must register and unregister that within 28 days. A breach of that would be a solemn breach of the rules.
The Minister may think that none of that matters, but it does. The regulations are the straw that broke the camel's back. In the past few weeks, more and more parish council chairmen have said to me, "We're thinking of giving up." The first has now decided to do so. I have a letter from Salwarpe parish council. I appreciate that Salwarpe parish council might not seem very important to Whitehall, but it matters a lot to the people of Salwarpe and the surrounding area. In a formal letter to the monitoring officer at Wychavon district council, the parish council chairman says:
"I am writing to tell you therefore that, following extensive consultation and discussion on an individual and collective basis, no member of this Parish Council finds the provisions of the new code of conduct acceptable in its present form.
Salwarpe Parish Council accordingly passed a resolution unanimously at its meeting on 11th March that it does not intend to adopt the new code of conduct that comes into effect on the 5th May. In the circumstances it follows that no individual councillor will have given the written undertaking that is required by the deadline of two months after this date. We have received also three months notice of the resignation of our Parish Clerk."
16WH
The letter then says that Wychavon district council will have to take over the administration of Salwarpe. It continues:
"It is a matter of great sadness to all of us on Salwarpe Parish Council that this situation should have come about. We recognise the importance of the role of Parish Councils in the life of the community and in the maintenance of the most local form of democracy. The years of voluntary and unpaid service that we have given are evidence of this. We also recognise that all local Councils must operate to the highest standards of integrity. However the provisions of the new code of conduct, particularly in the form of the public disclosure of assets and the provisions of the complaints procedure, are such as to create a wholly unacceptable basis for our continued involvement as Parish Councillors."
I tell the Minister that there will be more such councils. I know of another—Broadway parish council—that is planning to do the same thing. In that case, some may take the place of those parish councillors who resign, but the parish council will become unrepresentative and will lose its power as a result. My constituency has been fully parished for as long as anyone can remember, and the Government have started ending that. I find that utterly unacceptable.
The Minister hears anger from us; that is because we feel angry for those parish councils. I urge him to think again. He is not getting an accurate picture of events on the ground. More parish councils will go, as Salwarpe has done, unless he changes his mind this afternoon in Committee. I beg him to withdraw the statutory instrument.
10.22 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on initiating this excellent debate.
Hon. Friends who have joined in the debate have put pressure on the Minister. I speak to him in the spirit of friendship; we have both spent much of our political life in Southampton. When I was a Local Government Minister, I represented Southampton, Itchen, which is a wholly urban constituency. I now represent a constituency that is largely parished and also has some town councils. I admit that when I was doing the Minister's job I had no understanding of what parish and town councils and their councillors contributed to our national life. The fact that he has come here with his brief does not mean that he understands the impact that the regulations that he is imposing will have on ordinary people who are doing their best for their community.
I have always taken the view that those in parish and town councils are the unsung heroes of local government, because they work voluntarily and know that they must raise every penny that they spend through their parish precept. They have absolute accountability—an accountability that does not extend to other areas of local government, in which it is distorted by the grant mechanism and by the lump sum awards given by various tiers of central Government. Local town and parish councillors know that there will be tight scrutiny of every pound that they spend. The consequence is that only the most responsible people and volunteers participate in town councils.
The code of conduct has given parish councils the impression that the Government do not appreciate their work, and that they think that they are all like

17WH
Doncaster councillors and are on the make. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) keeps referring to a London councillor. I hope that he will not make the same mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister made the other day by slurring people who have not been convicted of criminal offences and tarring them with the same brush as those who have: the Labour councillors in Doncaster who have been convicted of criminal charges of corruption and who are now in prison. It is pointless to try to slur other unnamed councillors in the way that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. The Government's agenda is driven by their understandable embarrassment about Doncaster. They say, "We must not allow Doncasters to occur elsewhere." Our parish and town councils are the last places in which such events might occur.
With almost a slip of the tongue, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) dealt with residents associations. Some town and parish councils will ask, "Why should we bother to be a town and parish council? Why don't we set ourselves up as a residents association? If we do, we shall be relieved of any requirement to conform to the code of conduct." That might be a consequence of the implementation of the code of conduct.
A further insult to town and parish councils came from the latest Green Paper on planning. The current edition of Local Council Review—the newspaper that is produced by, and for, local town and parish councillors—says that the Green Paper contains no reference to local councils' role in planning. However, we know that they play that valuable role. Such councils do not decide on planning cases, but they play an important consultative role. They can take the temperature of local opinion on planning, and refer that to the district council or county council that takes planning decisions. That role is fundamental to town and parish councils, but there is not a single line referring to it in the planning Green Paper. That is a further example of the Government's cavalier approach to people who operate in town and parish councils.
I ask the Minister to find out about the major contribution that town and parish councils make to the fabric of life in this country from his colleagues who have such councils in their areas. I give him a strong message to take from the debate: get your bureaucratic hands off our parish and town councils, and let them get on with the job that they are doing so well.
10.27 am
Colin Burgon (Elmet): I am sorry that I spoilt the line of some Conservative Members who desperately hoped that no Labour Members would turn up.
Mr. Alan Duncan: You are on your own, mate.
Colin Burgon: I am on my own but I shall battle on.
There are more than 15 parish councils and one major town council in my constituency. I do not understand the picture that has been portrayed. Since the Labour Government came to power in 1997, a parish council has been set up in Allerton Bywater, which is the village that I live in, and the neighbouring village of Kippax is in the process of setting up another one. I am sure that the Minister will give us statistics that show that the number of parish councils has increased since 1997.
18WH
I value working closely with parish councils, as do some Conservative Members. Recently, I worked with Clifford parish council to oppose an unsuitable development in that village, and I hope that it will prepare a village design statement. The neighbouring East Keswick parish council recently won a national award for its village design statement, and the people who put in the work, which was voluntary, are certainly well regarded by me.
There are two model parish councils in Swillington and Micklefield, which are in the neighbourhood of Allerton Bywater. I support their work in running a host of activities for elderly and young people at Christmas and throughout the year to ensure that a village community is preserved in the parishes.
I shall now discuss the declaration of interest. I have spoken to local parish councillors, and I checked the matter with Mike Auty, who is the chairman of Micklefield parish council and represents the small area of parish councils on the Yorkshire association. He said that he would have no problem with the declaration of interest, and that he would not oppose it. He is well versed in the way in which the legislation is being developed. What is the Minister's response to the contrasting statement by Gerald Wilkinson, a Wetherby town councillor, who said that he wanted the register of interests to be kept not in Wetherby but 12 miles away, in the centre of Leeds, to keep busybodies from looking at it? Councillor Wilkinson said:
"This list of interests should not be held by the town clerk or parish clerk but by the city council's legal department … This will still be open to the public but they would be likely to view it only if they have a genuine reason and not out of idle curiosity. It should keep away the busybodies who want to go and look at the councillors' interests and perhaps … to stir up trouble."
It is laughable that someone in Wetherby who is interested in the status of Wetherby representatives must make a 24-mile round trip to Leeds for the necessary information. There is a paradox—if parishes are local, information should be gathered locally.
Although I welcome the debate and acknowledge the tremendous work done by many town and parish councillors, it is obvious that some claims of their impending doom and death are exaggerated.
10.30 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this important debate. We have concentrated on parish councils. I will talk more about town councils, but I agree with much of what has been said about parish councils.
In the 1890s, the citizens of London alone elected 12,000 people to local boards, committees and councils. Today, approximately the same number serve on boards that oversee local services in London. However, little more than 1,900 of them are elected—the vast majority are appointed by central Government.
We seem to be moving away from local provision. In the 1940s, health care, electricity, gas and social security were nationalised. Today, education, housing and policing are becoming more centralised, and the people who make up the centralised bodies are generally given their positions by the Government of the day and are not elected by, or accountable to, the people affected by

19WH
their decisions. That has resulted in a democratic deficit. The best way to correct that is to put power back into the hands of those in the best position to exercise it with understanding and accountability—government at the lowest possible level. It makes sense for local issues to be dealt with by those directly affected by, and most knowledgeable about them.
There are approximately 70,000 councillors serving on England's 8,159 town and parish councils, and approximately 14 million people come under the auspices of those councils, which vary widely based on unique local circumstances. Although people may associate town and parish councils with small rural villages, the benefits of that grass-roots democratic network are enjoyed in many larger towns and suburbs. It should not stop there. Such councils encourage community involvement and are as relevant in larger cities as small towns.
The need for parish and town councils has become greater with the creation of unitary authorities, which represent wider areas with fewer councillors. They are increasingly unable to take into account the specialised characteristics and needs of communities under their governance, which is why we should extend the network of town and parish councils so that everyone has access to them. At the same time, the power of such councils must be augmented. Local bodies should not be so tightly bound by limitations in jurisdiction and expenditure, as some currently are and as the Government appear to be proposing with recent initiatives. Our view is to let the ballot box be the arbiter, using a proportional voting system, rather than the Secretary of State.
Parish and town councils have an important role to play in liaising with other groups, such as local authorities, voluntary organisations, community bodies, the highways authorities, the police and the health services—in short, all the other agencies that deliver services to the citizens who live in the parishes and the areas that are covered by the town councils.
There are cases in which it would be more efficient for parishes to undertake some of the tasks that are currently carried out by higher-tier authorities. The goal should be to further the principle of subsidiarity, and to ensure that higher tiers of government undertake only the duties that the lower tiers cannot—or do not wish to—carry out on their own. To achieve that goal, it is important to branch out and find new ways for parish and town councils to provide services for their communities; sometimes they will do so independently, and at other times they will do it in collaboration with voluntary organisations or local businesses, or in partnership with the higher authority.
Town and parish councils do not face capping and, generally, do not receive grants from the Government. Thus, they often have more freedom with regard to spending than do the local authorities above them, as the Government have less direct financial control over them. However, parish spending is considered to be part of the expenditure of the district council. That can result in a district council that is struggling financially pressurising the parish to cut back on its spending. Additionally, some parishes receive a grant from their district council, and that limits their independence.
20WH
There is also the issue of double rating. That occurs when the council tax collected by the district council is not properly abated to account for the tasks that are done by the parish or town council and paid for by the parish precept. The Liberal Democrats would like the parish to levy its own precept, as that would lead to greater control over what it is spent on. Of course, where parishes are taking on duties from other bodies, they should receive the appropriate reimbursement for their work directly from those bodies. We are aiming to achieve transparency.
Parishes should actively promote community participation. All decisions should be taken at meetings that are open to the public, well advertised and held in an accessible meeting place. That is often the case with regard to the meetings of parish and town councils, and I do not see the harm in central Government's setting a guideline that says that that is how it should always be done. Citizens should have the opportunity to make representations directly to the council and any of its committees, and all meetings should include a period for public questions.
There is a need for a nationwide basic standard of service that is offered by all parish and town councils. However, too much Government prescription defeats the purpose of devolution, and it is important that parishes have the flexibility to tailor their services to local needs and wants. They also need the leeway to make innovations, to ensure that services are provided in the most appropriate and effective ways. Therefore, we are arguing for diversity with regard to local government: no single, clear model should be forced to suit all.
Some parish councils have been termed "sleeping". That has offended many councils, as the criteria for evaluation were crude, and no constructive suggestions for improvement were offered. It is important to ensure that parish and town councils are doing their jobs well and efficiently, but they should be accountable to the people that they represent: having the Government breathing down their necks is not conducive to making improvements in the way that they conduct their business.
Whether parish and town councils should be included within the best value regime is questionable, even where they have an annual budgeted income of over £500,000. We should also question whether they should be included within the new ethical framework, the main elements of which are now in place. That framework includes a code of conduct that all parish councillors must sign up to, and a new independent body, the standards board, which will investigate breaches of the code.
On the face of it, how could anyone object to that framework? However, subjecting parish councillors to standards that are higher than those that Members of Parliament are expected to meet is either going too far or—some hon. Members may hold this view—not going far enough. I think that we are going too far with regard to parish and town councils.
The Liberal Democrats believe that parish government at its best is true grass-roots government and facilitates active participation by individuals from all sections of the community. It helps to articulate the needs and aspirations of that community, especially to

21WH
other 'service providers. It contributes strongly to the development and improvement of the area, and can support or deliver well targeted services with high value added and at low cost. Management-speak is not needed to see that that is the case where councils have taken on such responsibilities.
We believe that anything of concern to or that has an impact on the local community is the business of town and parish councils. They are the bedrock of our democracy and the foundation stone of civilised communities.
10.40 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing a vital debate, and all my colleagues on the powerful arguments that they deployed. It is unfortunate that the Minister will not have that much time to answer all the excellent points made. However, the debate is the first of two bites at the cherry, as the statutory instrument on codes of conduct will be dealt with in Committee this afternoon. The issue is much larger than the Government realise, and they may have totally miscalculated their policy on the relevant level of local government. The code of conduct is completely misguided, but I shall come to that later.
At the heart of the matter, the Government do not seem to understand and appreciate the importance and value to communities of the lowest tier of local government, which parish councils represent. Their heavy-handed approach to the issue—their control freakery of wanting to micromanage everything from the centre—overlooks the public service that individuals are prepared to contribute to their local communities, unpaid. The Government do not seem to understand that politics is not an issue at that level. We are talking about the independent voices of individuals in a local community who are prepared to stand up, be counted and serve their community out of a sense of duty.
Labour's record on promoting the interests of parish councils is poor, and various forms of Government rhetoric have been used over the years. In 1999, they talked about neighbourhood forums replacing parish councils, and then went on to consider appointed officials and neighbourhood managers rather than voluntary representatives elected by local people. They backtracked on all that. Today, various pieces of legislation threaten parish councils, which have to cope with a barrage of Whitehall regulation, interference and increasing red tape.
We believe that that could be the first step of a Government hidden agenda to do away with parish councils altogether. It is important that the Minister answers that claim, which has been made by many Members today, certainly all those from the Opposition. We do not know what the Government intend to replace parish councils with, but the Minister should come clean and tell us their long-term agenda.
If the hidden agenda is not to bring about the demise of parish councils by putting pressure on them, how will the Government respond if parish councillors resign in huge numbers as a result of the imposition of the legislation? That would effectively render that tier of government useless. Are the Government prepared to face that? Letters from parish council chairmen and
22WH
clerks provide evidence to suggest that they are not prepared to serve further under the duress that the legislation, certainly that on the code of conduct, appears to impose on them.
We believe that the hoops through which parish councillors have to jump should be removed entirely. Councils should be given freedom automatically, rather than having to earn it, because earned autonomy is a bad concept. Only if they fail should their freedoms be curtailed.
Colleagues have mentioned the performance grading done by the Countryside Agency, which is a Government quango that will have done the work under the aegis of the Government. That demonstrates yet again their lack of openness on the issue. The Minister for Rural Affairs wrote to colleagues to say that
"it is juvenile and irresponsible to suggest that the Countryside Agency is 'secretly' measuring the effectiveness of parish councils".
Yet he admitted in answer to parliamentary questions that
"the list had not been previously published",
consultation
"was not done directly with individual communities"
and individual
"parish scores were not intended to be published"—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1033–34W.]
Mr. Luff: Pretty secret.
Mr. Moss: Absolutely. That demonstrates a considerable lack of openness across the board.
This afternoon, hon. Members will debate the statutory instrument that implements the code of conduct, and every aspect of the legislation is draconian. It introduces a register of parish councillors' interests, which should include details of their employment and their business and property dealings. Councillors are required to register any gift or hospitality worth more than just £25, disclose any personal interest or interest of their spouse or relatives and withdraw from any proceedings where such interests are discussed. It has been put to me that the interpretation of the code of conduct is such that parish councillors who work higher up in local government, particularly at district or county level, are told to leave the room and to take no part in debates pertaining to district and county responsibility. I am not sure whether that is true, and it would be helpful if the Minister said unequivocally that councillors will not be precluded from debating issues that relate to the other council tiers that they represent.
The code of conduct is seriously flawed and should, at the very least, be redrafted. We would expect extensive consultation with parish councils across England before that happened. The statutory instrument that implements the code is due to come into force on 27 May, six months after it was laid, so we are close to the date on which the code trips in. Twenty-eight days after that, all councillors must sign up to it. Like those of us in the shadow Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions team, the Minister has no doubt received letters that provide mounting evidence that many parish councillors are not prepared to do so.

23WH
That would render many parish councils inactive, and I cannot believe for a moment that that is what the Government intend.
When parish councillors stood for election two, three or four years ago, they did so under the terms that pertained at the time. For those in the middle of their period in office, the whole ball game has changed, and they strongly resent that. The Minister should, at the very least, say that the completely different regulations that pertained when some parish councillors were elected are to remain in force until new elections are held.
Overwhelmingly, we believe, parish councillors are well intentioned and honest, but the code of conduct implies that many have ulterior motives for involving themselves in council work. The implication of that for their integrity has angered many people; it could be the reason for a number of resignations as we approach 27 May.
Many important points have been raised on that issue, which strikes at the heart of democracy in local government. It should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than for an hour and a half here and another hour and a half in Committee. The scandal is that the statutory instrument was intended for negative resolution. If we had not prayed against it, it would have sailed through without debate. That shows the insulting way in which the Government treat local government at all levels—in this instance, those who serve on parish councils.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I concur with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that it is a shame that we have only a relatively short time for this debate and that I have little time in which to respond, because I would like to comment on a number of issues.
I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) for initiating this important debate. Opposition Members made a number of interesting and important points about the current and future roles of parish and town councils, challenging the Government's attitude to them. Of course we have no hidden agenda. On the contrary, our policy is clear: town and parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy, and they will continue to play a key role in many towns and villages.
Our rural White Paper, "Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England", set out how local councils can become equipped to take on a stronger role as representatives of all parts of their communities. It contained a number of significant new proposals, including the creation of quality parishes, which will involve principal authorities and dynamic parish councils working together better to meet the needs of their communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) drew attention to the increase in the number of parish councils. Since the Government came to power, 82 have been created and we are considering proposals
24WH
that could result in the creation of a further 22. The accusation that the Government are stifling parish councils, or attempting to remove them, is erroneous.
Further to indicate the Government's concern that parish and town councils should play a substantial role in local democracy, we are putting money into grants, training and support for them—for example, £15 million over three years in community services grants, £15 million over three years for parish transport fund grants of up to £10,000 towards the cost of local transport projects, £5 million over three years to help about 1,000 rural communities to prepare parish plans and £2 million to establish a national training and support strategy.
I must put to bed the canard that the Government have a secret agenda for parish councils. It is absolutely untrue that the Countryside Agency vibrancy indicators are to be used to stifle parishes or to downgrade them; the opposite is the case.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear my responses to the points that have been raised, I should not give way to any great extent. However, I do so briefly.
Mr. Prisk: The Minister said that the study was worth while. Does he not understand that undertaking it without consulting local communities insulted those communities? The nature of the process seems bizarre. Can he explain the purpose of a further study?
Dr. Whitehead: Yes. Community vibrancy is one of 15 headline indicators that were established to measure progress in implementing commitments made in the rural White Paper. That is why that indicator was included and why that research was undertaken. There are no implications for the future of parishes or suggestions that the Government have a hidden agenda in measuring developments in the role of parishes and setting other indicators of local vibrancy in rural areas.
Despite its being clear that parishes are diverse—there are large parishes, small parishes and town councils—this debate has been dogged by some hon. Members speaking as if all parishes are the same and of the sort described in the ridiculous speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Of course, there are several large parish councils, but the suggestion that all parishes are being subjected to the best value regime is untrue.
There are 41 best value parishes—the largest town councils—with a turnover of £500,000. Parishes are not being subjected to the quality parish initiative, but they can take part if they wish. The aim is to help them to strengthen the work that they are doing. Indeed, benefits will accrue from quality parish status.
It is true that parishes are diverse and have a varied role to play in the life of our communities. Some do the sort of work that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton suggested; others are involved in a wider range of activities, so it is important to acknowledge their diversity.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Audit requirements?
Dr. Whitehead: The Government acknowledge that several different audits should apply to parishes and

25WH
recognise that it is inappropriate for the same scrutiny to apply to parish councils and principal authorities—scrutiny should relate to the risk identified. We are, therefore, working closely with the Audit Commission to introduce a lighter-touch audit regime for parish and town councils. The commission has already undertaken extensive consultation on proposed changes to parish council audits and the intention is that the majority of parish councils will undergo a basic audit relying on self-certification. That should lead to lower audit fees for most parish councils.
With our agreement, the commission has put in hand amendments to its code of audit practice to implement that lighter-touch regime. Where changes to parish council conduct are necessary to implement the new regime, we will consider amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996. We plan to consult extensively on proposals to amend those regulations later this year. That is in addition to the announcement that we made last October to increase from £5,000 to £50,000 the financial threshold above which parish councils are required to prepare income and expenditure accounts.
Hon. Members raised concerns about the model code of conduct—as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, we shall debate the matter further this afternoon—but several of those suggestions are wrong. Indeed, the suggestion in a recent article in The Sunday Telegraph that people should declare a good dinner with a good claret is quite erroneous. Clause 1 of the model code shows that the requirement for declarations relates to business carried out by the parish council.
Hon. Members are labouring under a misapprehension about registration. Members will have to declare interests relevant to any debate, but that will not preclude them from taking part in the debate, and is no different from the declaration by the last Conservative Government that requires pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests to be declared, and on occasions requires members to leave the chamber when things are being discussed.
Hon. Members: Chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order.
Dr. Whitehead: I am referring to the chamber in the parish council, when things are being discussed that relate to the conduct of the parish council. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is incorrect in suggesting that members of other authorities will be required to leave the parish council meeting if certain business is discussed.
Parish councils should be at the forefront of identifying their communities' needs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that time is up. We must now move to the next debate. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has just made it for that debate, as he initiated it. Several hon. Members from various parties have said that they would like to participate, and if hon. Members are disciplined, I shall be able to call all those who want to speak.

New Partnership for Africa's Development
11 am
Hugh Bayley: This is the third debate that we have had in this place about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. I was fortunate to secure a short debate on the subject last July, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is here today, secured a debate six weeks ago. We have the opportunity for a longer debate today, because many hon. Members requested that we should discuss the new partnership in the run-up to the G8 meeting in Canada in June. It is appropriate that Back Benchers should be able to guide the Government on the issues that we should like them to discuss at the meeting.
This debate was originally supposed to be called "New African Initiative", but may I ask Hansard to retitle it, "New Partnership for Africa's Development", because the new African initiative has been renamed in that way?
There are many reasons to be pessimistic about the development prospects for Africa. The burden of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and the prospects of overcoming the causes of poverty are matters of real concern. Many African countries are poorer in real terms than they were decades ago, and the value of aid has fallen in real terms over the past 10 years, from about $19 billion a year 10 years ago to some $11 billion today. However, I shall not waste time repeating figures, as all the hon. Members in the Chamber are experts on the subject, and the figures are familiar to us all.
There are many reasons to be optimistic, however. Botswana has the world's highest growth rate, for example. Diversification in the economies of sub-Saharan African countries is an important factor. For too long they have been reliant on primary products whose prices have fallen on the world market. Non-traditional exports from Uganda have been growing at some 70 per cent. per year. There has also been strong growth in non-traditional exports from Ghana, Mozambique, Madagascar and other countries. That underlines the point that not all African countries are in the same situation, and that a one-size-fits-all development strategy is simply inappropriate. Development strategies need to be tailored to the needs of each country to capitalise on the natural resources and strengths of individual African states.
There are political as well as economic reasons for optimism. The New Partnership for Africa's Development comes from African leaders, who recognise that they and their countries must change. In an address to the South African National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces in October last year, Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, had this to say about the New Partnership for Africa's Development:
"This programme is premised on African ownership, African control of the projects and programmes, with African leaders accepting openly and unequivocally that they will play their part in ending poverty and bringing about sustainable development. We are agreed that we must strengthen democracy on the continent; we must entrench a human rights culture; we must end existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts. We have to deal with corruption and be accountable to one another for all our actions."
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does Thabo Mbeki's endorsement of Mugabe's rigged election last week, and the hon. Gentleman's experience of corruption in Nigeria last week, when we both visited that country with the International Development Committee, lead him to greater optimism or less?
Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman raises issues that must be tackled if the partnership is to work. There must be change in Africa, as there must be in the policy response of developed countries. I would have mentioned Zimbabwe in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject, and as it is clearly in our minds because of today's talks in London, now is a good time to mention it.
The Commonwealth observers' report highlighted serious flaws in that election. However, our response, which the media have emphasised and underlined, is a response that Africans are all too weary of hearing. That is because we have taken up the case of white farmers but have forgotten that the vast majority of Mugabe's victims are black Africans.
Mr. Robathan: Who has forgotten that?
Hugh Bayley: Seventy thousand farm workers have been affected by the evictions and violence in the countryside. The denial of human rights that affected journalists, which we read about in our newspapers, also denied many black Zimbabweans their vote, denied opposition organisations the right to organise and express their views, and denied employees the right to organise trade unions or strike. Those are human rights issues for black Africans, and we must take up the cudgels on their behalf just as much as on behalf of white farmers. We must consider human rights, not only the arguments of kith and kin.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on another point. For most sub-Saharan African countries, it is 40 years since independence. During that time, Europe's former Asian colonies have thrown off the dependency culture and forged ahead economically, but too many African countries are still ready to blame colonialism for their present difficulties. One of the encouraging things about NEPAD is that it states clearly that Africans are in the driving seat. They are responsible for their countries, and for their countries' policies and development. Yes, they need partnership with people from outside Africa on trade, aid and conflict resolution—but they are the primary movers.
Another reason for optimism is that the leaders of the developed world are now taking a greater interest in Africa. It is decades since a British Prime Minister has made Africa a major foreign policy priority. To find a Prime Minister with an interest in development similar to that of our present Prime Minister, we would need to go back to Harold Wilson, who set up War on Want. It is also a long time since a Chancellor has taken such a lead on such issues as has the present Chancellor, who has made proposals on debt relief, and, in response to the Zedillo report, proposed to the Federal Reserve bank in New York in November 2001 that a global development fund should be created. Indeed, last year our Prime Minister was the key person responsible for persuading the G8 to invite the African authors of the new partnership to come to the G8 summit and explain
28WH
what they were proposing. As a result, the G8 commissioned work to enable it to respond to the NEPAD proposals at this year's summit.
What do I think are the ingredients for the partnership's success? First, Africa must use its own resources to the full. The International Development Committee returned on Saturday from a visit to west Africa, and I give one example of what we did there. In Kintampo, Ghana, we visited a health research centre working in partnership with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Hopkins university and Harvard in the United States, and other universities around the world, to lead high-quality clinical trials. Those have established that vitamin A supplements for pre-school children aged up to five can reduce deaths and morbidity from infectious diseases by some 30 per cent.
That has now been picked up by the Department for International Development and international aid agencies in their health policies. I pay tribute to Dr. Paul Arthur, the director of that institute, an inspired and talented doctor who, sadly, died just days after we met him. People such as Paul Arthur are absolutely vital to African development, and something that we can do is talk to the vast diaspora of African professionals and intellectuals who live in Europe and other parts of the developed world and encourage them to return home to provide support for their countries' development programmes.
It is important to encourage stronger domestic saving and investment. In Nigeria we met several commercial bankers. The private sector has a role, but African Governments must promote investment and revenue collection. We discovered in Nigeria that 92 per cent. of the state's revenues come from levies on oil extraction. Oil has been a blessing to Nigeria in many ways, but also a curse, because the rest of its revenue collection has all but disappeared since. Nigerian Members of Parliament whom we met asked us to increase aid to Nigeria. In certain circumstances, we should do so. The Department for International Development is spending £22 million this year on development assistance to Nigeria, which will rise to some £35 million next year—and I applaud that. However, we must also ask Nigerians and the Government of Nigeria what they are doing to raise resources themselves.
There are many poor people in Nigeria for whom paying tax is not a possibility, but people in this country start paying tax when they earn about £4,000 a year. I can make the case for people in my constituency to pay slightly more tax to enable our Government to increase the resources going to development, but it is extremely difficult for me to argue that people on £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 a year in the United Kingdom should pay more tax for development, when people on £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 a year in Nigeria pay no income tax at all. We must raise such questions directly and clearly with the developing countries in which a proportion of the population are in a position to make contributions through taxation to their own country's development.
We also need greater transparency. Before we consider the case that the Nigerians are making for the relief of debt, we should clearly know where their oil revenues are going. We should also know that, were we to relieve some of the debt burden, the resources

29WH
released would be used to help poor people in Nigeria. There is a strong onus on the Nigerian Government to do that.
There is also a large role for private investment. In Enugu we saw vast investments by the brewery companies Heineken and Guinness. Such investment can be encouraged by the rule of law, so that outside investors know that if they invest, their assets will be safe and respected.
Our half of the partnership requires substantial change in the rules on trade by the Governments of rich countries. Had Africa maintained its share of trade from the late 1960s, its income would be about $70 billion a year more than it is today. NEPAD identifies a resource gap of some $64 billion, which would not exist if Africa had the same share of world trade that it had 35 years ago.
At the World Economic Forum in New York last month, Niall Fitzgerald, the chairman of Unilever, called on G8 Governments to respond immediately and open their markets to African products. When we were in Ghana, we learnt that raw cocoa beans could be imported to this country with no tariff, but that manufactured chocolate imported from Ghana to the EU carries a 70 per cent. tariff. It is not surprising that it is extremely difficult for Africa to sell its products in Europe.
The Quad countries, comprising the EU member states, Canada, the United States and Japan, have food and agriculture subsidies worth more than the gross national product of every country in sub-Saharan African put together, so the commodities that Africa could most easily export—agricultural produce—are locked out of the developed world. That must change, and I hope that the G8 meeting will address the matter.
Alone among G8 countries, the United Kingdom is increasing the proportion of its gross domestic product that is given to aid, albeit from the low base that was inherited from our predecessors. For NEPAD to work, there must be greater aid resources. The United States announced an intention to increase aid by $5 billion a year. It is important that we talk to their Government about how much of that will go to Africa, and how much will be used for the alleviation of poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals.
During the first Africa-Europe ministerial meeting in Brussels last October, the ministerial communiqué said:
"The Ministers welcomed the new African initiative as a partnership programme which should be one of the bases for future co-operation between Europe and Africa."
If the European Union wants that to happen, it must reallocate aid from the near abroad, particularly central and eastern Europe, to sub-Saharan Africa.
Tony Baldry: Hear, hear.
Hugh Bayley: Indeed; just six weeks ago in the Chamber the hon. Gentleman made a case about the 10 largest recipients of EU aid. If I remember his figures rightly, seven are in eastern and central Europe, and only one—Uganda—is a sub-Saharan African country.
The EU also needs to focus more on using aid to achieve the millennium development goals of targeting aid on poverty alleviation and it must improve the
30WH
efficiency with which EU aid is applied in the field. For example, we were not impressed by the efficiency with which the EU office in Nigeria operated.
It is important that EU aid is used efficiently, and is targeted on places in which it will have the greatest impact on poverty alleviation. Aid donors must therefore make choices. In Nigeria, the Department for International Development made choices about which four Nigerian states would be partner states for UK aid. That was done to prevent our aid from being spread too thinly. We looked for partners that were seriously committed to reform, and we organised a competition in which different states made proposals to us. Four states were successful at the end of the competition. I would like the Government to consider the merits of allocating more aid on the basis of competition, because the method emphasises to the recipients of aid their responsibilities to use it to achieve agreed poverty alleviation goals.
11.19 am
Tony Baldry: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that self-discipline means five minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Or less.
Tony Baldry: Very briefly, the debate is timely, against the backdrop of Monterrey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing it. I entirely agree with everything that he said and particularly endorse his final comments about competition. There is a lot to be said for a structure in which people do not think that development aid is a right but something that they must demonstrate can be put to the best possible use. I do not intend to repeat all that I said on 6 February but just wish quickly to share some impressions from the Select Committee's visit to west Africa.
Partnership involves both sides meeting obligations. We have had much discussion in the Chamber about the obligations of the rich north, the rich west and the developed countries. We had some good news last week when the Chancellor announced that increased development aid will be forthcoming in the Budget. We look forward to learning whether the increase will be in real terms or just cash terms. It was also good news that the Council of Ministers announced in Barcelona that the EU states would seek to achieve 0.39 per cent. of gross domestic product for development aid as soon as possible. Those are steps in the right direction.
However, our African colleagues also have obligations under the partnership: they must be realistic about debt, encourage democracy, bear down on corruption and promote enterprise economies. From a meeting with members of the Nigerian National Assembly, we learned that there is not a realistic attitude about mutuality on debt relief. Debt relief, which we all encourage, does not remove the need for countries to follow sensible fiscal policies and recognise their obligations. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, much Nigerian debt is guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. People have borrowed money on commercial contracts for commercial purposes, but there seems to be no acknowledgment that our

31WH
taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for contracts that fail. We must ensure that colleagues in Africa understand that debt relief involves obligations on them as well.
On encouraging democracy—setting aside countries such as Zimbabwe, where the facts speak for themselves—it seemed to us that in Ghana and Nigeria the democratic system was very much one of patronage, with money coming down, and petitioning, without the accountability that we have. There is a role for us as Members of Parliament to play. We must remember that Nigeria has been ruled by a military dictatorship for much of the past 40 years. Many members of its National Assembly have been in office for only two years.
When the Berlin wall fell, we in this place did an enormous amount through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to help colleagues in eastern Europe acquire skills to become effective parliamentarians. We may need to do more through organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to help Commonwealth colleagues in Africa to develop skills as parliamentarians so that they can hold governments to account, work out their relationships with their constituents and participate in functioning democracies. All six of us who participated in the Select Committee visit have indicated that we would be willing to support individual members of the Nigerian National Assembly who come here, to help them in the way in which the Westminster Foundation for Democracy helped parliamentarians from eastern Europe.
On bearing down on corruption, we met the Nigerian commission that has been set up to tackle corruption. It is well intentioned but very slow, having been affected by two years of constitutional wrangling as to whether legislation is consistent with the Nigerian constitution. We must continue to send the message to colleagues in Africa that corruption is not only insidious in its own right but frightens off inward investment. The continent of Africa receives a tiny amount of direct inward investment; I suspect that part of the reason for that is concern about corruption.
On encouraging enterprise economies, we were all struck by the fact that in Nigeria, apart from oil, and in Ghana, apart from cocoa and gold, there seemed to be little new enterprise. We came across factories that had closed down because, people said, of a combination of Government interference and management incompetence. Most of the companies that made money in Nigeria were parastatals.
Through our aid policies and so forth, we must find ways of encouraging greater enterprise in such countries if they are not simply to become aid dependent. Partnership involves both sides meeting obligations. We must encourage our colleagues in Africa to see that the New Partnership for Africa's Development involves meeting their obligations on debt, democracy, bearing down on corruption and encouraging enterprise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I make a plea for very short speeches.
Tony Baldry: It was short, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Robathan: Only five minutes.
11.26 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing this debate on a subject that has concerned him for many years. I join him in congratulating the Government, especially the Prime Minister, on showing such a strong commitment to the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
The significance of the new partnership should not be underestimated and although the importance of the initiative for African countries is clear, it also has wider significance. The principle underpinning the partnership is that only through enhanced forms of co-operation and mutual dependence between states can sustainable and secure development be achieved. That principle has a global resonance, so it is essential that G8 countries give the initiative the type of practical backing necessary to make it a reality.
I should like the Minister's response on two issues that trouble some non-governmental organisations about the new partnership. First, I understand—and hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the G8 timetable for the continuing implementation of the new partnership is in advance of that currently taking place in Africa. The G8 discussions are due to be finalised by the end of April, whereas discussions within African states will in no sense be complete by then. The danger is that the processes in G8 and African states could be decoupled, which would not be in the interests of a successful partnership.
Secondly, the NGOs are concerned about the apparent lack of involvement of African civil society in the process. At the recent African development forum in Addis Ababa, a fear was expressed that the new partnership was too donor driven. If it is to stay true to its original aim of improving the lot of ordinary Africans, we should quickly formalise the participation of civil societies within Africa and G8 countries. There has been little opportunity for such consultation to date; I hope that the position will be remedied before the G8 formulates its official position next month.
The need for the new partnership to mean something to wider African civil society is illustrated by recent developments in Zimbabwe. As hon. Members are aware, some people suggest that events in Zimbabwe undermine the case for a new partnership. I argue that we should reach a different conclusion. We should not let the actions of an increasingly isolated despot such as Mugabe undermine what has ambitiously but rightly been described as the relaunch of Africa. Zimbabwe shows us precisely the need to achieve reforms in governance if potential for growth and development in Africa are to be achieved.
We are right to call for Africa's leaders to demonstrate in their approach to Zimbabwe the seriousness of their intention to change Africa for the better. I was pleased to see reports in today's papers about the tougher line that the South African and Nigerian Governments appear to be taking. Let us put pressure on those Governments and support opposition movements and civil society in Zimbabwe, but let us not write off what is meant to be a long-term initiative just because of the current and, let us hope, short-term difficulties in Zimbabwe.

33WH
Africa faces a huge development challenge but, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York said, it has enormous potential for growth and development. There are countries in Africa with growth rates that are well above the world average. G8 countries have a common interest in the peoples in Africa and in promoting development and stability in that continent. I welcome the Government's support for the process to date, and I urge them to make further advances in the ways that I have described.
11.30 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I would like to bring everybody back to the first of the four core elements of the new African initiative, which is:
"First and foremost, there is a clear awareness that peace, democracy, and good governance are preconditions for investment, growth, and the reduction of poverty."
I applaud that, and I am sure that we all would. However, are the Presidents of Algeria, South Africa and Nigeria serious? They put the initiative together and are the leaders of it.
We have heard about Zimbabwe. Was there peace in Zimbabwe? Was democracy exercised in Zimbabwe? I do not think so, and nor does the SADC observer mission that said:
"The climate of insecurity in Zimbabwe since the 2000 parliamentary elections was such that the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the norms and standards for elections in the SADC region."
That is pretty clear. Unfortunately, President Mbeki would rather placate the tyrant Mugabe than stand up for the poor Africans who are being oppressed, intimidated and killed in Zimbabwe. That leaves aside the question of peace and what on earth the Zimbabwean army is doing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mbeki has ignored that, and unless he is willing to stand up on it, I do not put much store by the great words that he put into the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
As we have heard, the International Development Committee was in Nigeria last week. That was the most depressing African country that I have visited; I was deeply depressed when I returned. Today, President Obasanjo is seeing whether he can get reconciliation in Zimbabwe.
According to Transparency International, Nigeria is the second most corrupt country in the world. We saw that—God, did we see it. Allegedly, $100 billion has been looted from oil revenues. The country is largely run by a kleptocracy. President Babangida, as he then was, who led the military dictatorship for eight years, is still living in tremendous comfort and enjoys enormous wealth that was looted from his country of Nigeria. No action is being taken against him. President, or General, Abacha, who died famously four years ago, was condemned out of hand as a corrupt dictator—even the Commonwealth condemned him. However, his portrait still hangs at Abuja airport. That also speaks reams.
The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), with whom I agree largely about what we saw in Nigeria, put the case for tax extremely well. Nigeria's external debt is about $28 billion. No tax is levied on the rich, although $100 billion has been looted. Its annual oil revenue is something like $18 billion, but the people to
34WH
whom we spoke had no concept that they, rather than the international community, should do something about that.
I echo the hon. Member for City of York—I should call him my friend—by asking why poorish people in the United Kingdom should pay tax to allow bigger rip-offs by that klepocracy, where members of the National Assembly recently voted themselves a tax-free pay increase of up to about £50,000 or £60,000, in addition to a free car and a house in Abuja.
I give an example. A large new stadium is being built in Abuja. The cost of that is spiralling out of control in a way that makes the dome look well organised. It is absolutely astonishing. There is no transparency and nobody knows where the money is going. However, everyone talks about it because they can make a pretty good guess.
There is a stench of corruption around that and everything else. Will the Minister write to me, rather than responding in the debate, about the position of Julius Berger, which is a German company? Germany is our ally and partner in Europe. According to everyone whom I met in Nigeria, the company is closely associated with infrastructure contracts in a way that gives cause for concern—I shall say no more than that.
Corruption—the stench of which is everywhere—is institutionalised throughout Nigeria. If Obasanjo is to be serious, he must tackle it. I applaud the fact that he has set up a commission, but I am not left with any optimism that it will take on such serious issues.
I thought that the Department for International Development was doing well in aid. Its two focuses on AIDS and governance are good. I have already stated my position on governance in Nigeria and, candidly, it is probably the Government's position, too, although I would not necessarily expect them to say so. Everyone knows that AIDS is the terrifying black death that is stalking Africa. Nigeria has a HIV infection rate of more than 5 per cent., yet 95 per cent. of people use no contraception. That will seriously hit Nigeria. We all wish the New Partnership for Africa's Development well. It is the only game in town. I want Africans to take control of, and responsibility for, their own destiny. However, last week left me with the belief that I should like to see positive action in order to justify optimism.
11.35 am
Paul Goggins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate and on setting such an optimistic tone for our discussions. It is easy to become depressed when we hear such evidence and statistics.
I wish to make four points. First, what has been happening in Zimbabwe, however depressing it may be, must not be allowed to derail the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Its progress depends on good governance and the behaviour of Mugabe is the exact opposite of that. It would be wrong if a mood of pessimism among the G8 countries or a difference of opinion between African and non-African members of the Commonwealth were to reduce support for the new partnership. My strong message to the Minister is that, whatever has happened in Zimbabwe, support for the new partnership must continue if we are to deal with the

35WH
half of Africa's people, who still live on less than $1 a day. The nub of the issue is that, if Mugabe's re-election was a defeat for democracy, it must not be allowed to become a further defeat for the poor people of Africa.
Secondly, if good governance is an essential aspect of the new partnership so, too, is the need for more generous development assistance. In 1994, that assistance formed 11 per cent. of Africa's gross national product and, by 1997, it had fallen to 5 per cent. I welcome President Bush's announcement of an extra $5 billion for the United States aid budget. It is not an uncritical welcome, however, because we have yet to see that strings are attached to it and the United States starts from an appallingly low level of just 0.1 per cent. of gross national product. None the less, the announcement is an encouraging sign of a new understanding of the need to tackle not only terror, but global poverty.
I was also pleased, as were other hon. Members, to hear of the agreement in Barcelona with the new commitment for all European Union countries to reach an average of 0.39 per cent. by 2006. As a signatory to early-day motion 386, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will confirm that the United Kingdom's contribution to that effort will be at least 0.4 per cent. of GNP by 2006 on the way to 0.7 per cent. by 2012. As the Chancellor has confirmed, unless we take such action, we will not meet the millennium development goals by 2015.
My third point is that aid alone is not enough. We need deeper debt relief. Thirty-four of the 42 highly indebted poor countries are African. Although considerable progress has been made over the past four or five years, lower growth rates and the fall in the value of exports have clearly hit some African countries hard. There is a need to review the HIPC initiative constantly in the light of that. Of course, debt relief should not be unconditional, but far too much is still repaid in interest that should be going into the development of education and health in the poorest countries.
My fourth point relates to that made strongly by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The United Nations estimates that 16.3 million people have died from AIDS in Africa, and that more than 3 million of them were children. It also estimates that 28 million people in Africa are living with the disease, and that in some southern African states the infection rate is perhaps as high as 25 per cent. I am appalled by that figure, and I often wonder what our constituencies would be like if we were faced with such an infection rate for HIV.
It is clear that something must be done. The time, energy and resources that poor people in Africa are spending on combating AIDS are time, energy and resources that are not being spent on combating poverty. Therefore, I hope that the G8 will support better preventative and care programmes, particularly for children who have been orphaned as a result of AIDS. I also want to see an increase in the global health fund to improve the health infrastructure.
Many other issues have been touched on, such as conflict resolution, the need for trade reform and the need to reform the arms trade. However, my final point
36WH
is that—whatever the G8 decides with regard to aid, debt, peacekeeping or trade—the most important aspect of the new partnership is the shift that it is effecting in the balance of power and responsibility. The situation is no longer about what the rich countries can do for the poor countries; it is now about what we can do together. That new situation is based on a plan that has been owned and shaped by a new generation of African leaders, and I believe that it will be their leadership—as much as the resources of the rich world—that will determine the outcome of the ambitious partnership project.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a further plea for speeches to be as brief as possible.
11.41 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been a useful debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing it and on making such a thoughtful contribution. He was right to point out that the New Partnership for Africa's Development has lots of positive aspects, and we hope that they will be developed.
None of the Labour Members who are present has quoted from the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour party conference of autumn 2001, but I will not apologise for quoting from it. He said:
"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier."
That is true, and all the statistics, trends and arguments that we have heard this morning reinforce the points that the Prime Minister was making.
Many hon. Members who are present have personally witnessed the state of the economy and the politics in different African countries. I recently visited South Africa with my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), where I saw the sharp contrast between the wealth of Cape Town and the poverty of surrounding areas, and when I visited Kenya with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), we saw the wealth of parts of Nairobi sitting cheek by jowl with the horrors of the slums of Kebira.
The entire situation is grim. For generations, things have tended to be done to Africa, rather than with it, and that has happened with regard to a variety of subjects, such as humanitarian aid, development assistance and international capitalism in the raw.
As many hon. Members have said, recently there has been a welcome shift of emphasis in politics in southern Africa—and that change has been especially marked in South Africa. That has been a key development; it has led to a growing self-confidence and a recognition that Africa's future should be about self-determination and taking charge of the agenda. The clearest manifestation of that is the new partnership, and it is welcome that the Government have been supportive of it.
The Prime Minister backed up his conference speech with his tour of Africa in February, but how such enthusiasm sits with arms exports and support for Tanzanian air traffic control is unclear. Perhaps the Minister can square that circle, when he responds?

37WH
Since the meeting in Genoa in 2001, the G8 has also been enthusiastic. Just a couple of months ago, at the world economic forum, half a billion US dollars were committed to a fund to support the new partnership.
There is such enthusiasm that one might think that some kind of backpackers' convention for world leaders could be organised in Africa. The continent is certainly receiving a lot of attention. The need is there and the international will is clear, and, therefore, the circumstances should be right for a major push. However, at this very moment, the political conditions in Africa are crumbling. As the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out, NEPAD depends on key conditions—peace, security, democracy and good political governance. The situation in Zimbabwe is surely crucial, and the reaction to it perhaps more so. As Walter Kansteiner, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, memorably said:
"The road to NEPAD runs through Harare".
Like the voters before them, the evangelists for NEPAD now find that the road is blocked. The international community is either dazzled by the blinding activities of the election process or deliberately turning its back.
The judgment on Zimbabwe will surely be key to the success of NEPAD, but we are getting confused signals. Observers witnessing the same events somehow saw different things. The European Union talks about tightening smart sanctions, and the Commonwealth—well, what exactly is it doing? The timeliness of the debate is uncanny and perhaps rare for an event in this place. The troika of Nigeria, Australia and South Africa meets in London today. Those countries have a huge responsibility to themselves and the wider African community. Not that Commonwealth suspension is the worst threat on earth; it is unlikely to topple Mugabe. Surely what is more important is the signal that it will send out.
President Mbeki is in a particularly tight spot. The African National Congress may have supported the election result, but the President has so far been silent—judiciously so. He knows that the crisis has already laid waste to the South African economy. If a wrong decision is made now, the situation will be exacerbated. The intensity of his diplomatic initiatives in the past 24 hours is to be welcomed and shows how seriously he is taking the issue. Beyond this crisis, the future of NEPAD could be at stake. Its credibility is on the line, and although the G8 is unlikely to withdraw support as a result of what is happening in Zimbabwe, it will send out very damaging signals.
The reaction of private investors is surely of more significance. It is most alarming. No big-bang sanctions are contemplated; that is not at issue. It would be damaging if investors and traders in Africa starved the country of funds. That would undermine the initiative before it got much further. If southern Africa fails the test, what of the east? In Kenya, which has elections this year, the economy is in tatters and the prospects are grim. If Zimbabwe is tolerated, what message would it send to the leadership in Kenya?
We can—and, rightly, do—agonise over our role in all this. However, even in the short debate on the issue this morning, it has become clear where the focus must lie. The United Kingdom and the Commonwealth can make their points of view clear and can protest
38WH
vigorously, but it is southern Africa that counts. Mbeki is key. NEPAD is rightly about Africa taking the lead. Never has that been more necessary than now.
11.47 am
Mr. John Battle: As we meet, the G8 conference on financing for development is taking place in Monterrey. It is vital that the G8 increases the resources provided. Otherwise, the millennium declaration—under which the rich countries pledged themselves to halving poverty, providing primary education for all children everywhere and reducing infant mortality by two thirds by 2015—will be unattainable and more than 50 million children, mainly in Africa, will die of hunger and preventable diseases by 2015.
I welcome the American President's extra $5 billion announced this week, but it is worth noting that that is less than a tenth of the latest annual increase in America's defence spending. Egypt and Israel receive three times the aid that America gives to all sub-Saharan Africa. I do not wish to mention only America; I want our country and all the G8 countries to do more. However, I want to focus not on the G8 and resources from the top, but on what can be done to build strategies from the base, rethinking the process of development and what the word "partnership" might mean.
Take the example of Ghana. Some 40 per cent. of the population are poor, a third are in extreme poverty and more than half of those living in northern Ghana are classed as the rural poor. The scale of poverty in northern Nigeria, too, is shocking, and the standard of living in that increasingly semi-arid desert land is pre-biblical. People are trying to scratch a living on the face of the earth in areas where streams have dried up. I mention that because the Department for International Development strategy papers on those countries are encouraging in their radical analysis. Disempowerment, of the poor in particular, is a key focus, and other issues include lack of knowledge, skills and resources and unfair global trading policies.
I shall focus on the disempowerment of poor people. The DFID country strategies for Nigeria and elsewhere refer to tackling extreme poverty in rural areas. In such places, agricultural policies have fluctuated or been variably implemented so that there is policy confusion, as DFID puts it. There are multiple, overlapping institutions with conflicting mandates. Environmental and common property resources—pastoral lands, water and forests—have been squandered. How does one get a grip on all that? There will be a political accountability gap where new Governments make the transition from military rule to democracy, but elected Assembly Members are not the only ones who do not know their real democratic powers. The people themselves do not know their role in the process.
What shift can we see from primary capital development projects to the development of participatory techniques that engage the poor? We cannot simply build capital projects; I have seen clinics in Africa standing empty because there are no revenue resources to keep them running. We must, of course, face the challenge of what to do about countries that do not have enough staff because those people have come to Britain, and that is particularly true of Ghana. That

39WH
aside, however, clinics are useless if villages do not have the resources to keep them running, even if the governor thinks that building a clinic is the best option for the area.
In other words, economic growth alone will not help, and we must introduce local administration, distribution and control systems that engage the people. We should target action for change at the local level, where there is still a strong tendency towards self-help. Some people build their own villages, and the tiny Birni Gwiri village in the Kaduna national park in Nigeria built its own clinic without any outside resources whatever.
I should briefly mention how DFID can do more—not by helping as such, but by using the radical and far-sighted process that it is developing. How can the voices of the poor be included to a greater extent so that the poverty reduction process is theirs? The challenge is to develop a vibrant civil society in which the poor can properly engage in poverty reduction, and the key is to involve them in a structured way in developing the strategy so that they own it at local level. There are signs of hope in Rwanda, for example. The Ubudehe process, which takes its name from a local word, builds on the local devolution of power, engagement and resources to the micro level of 100 families. That radical strategy has been built from the base.
DFID has worked with the World Bank on community involvement strategies in Nigeria, and it has also worked on such strategies in Ghana. The way forward is to build from the base—the development of local participation and local governance is the key to the future. Why? We are developing a real partnership and a real sense of mutuality. We are not helping the poor so much as finding out how they can work on their own circumstances.
The DFID officials whom I have met around the world are superb and have a far-sighted, radical outlook. They are doing pioneering work on pro-poor civil organisations and on developing participation strategies to enable the voices of the poor to be heard. In that, they are perhaps building on the work of the university of Bath centre for development economics.
All that work can help to illuminate what we need to do on basic community development in our inner cities. In other words, it is not one-way traffic and not simply a question of us helping Africa. Community development initiatives and the participation of the poor in rural villages in Africa can show us how to engage people here so that, even in my city of Leeds, they do not see the single regeneration budget as a middle management project that is being imposed on them. Good, well-intentioned officials come along to help, but the people do not own the process.
We can learn from Africa. That will help us to make sense of the expression "new partnership for development", because I am not convinced that we are all that developed in Britain.
11.54 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate; I endorse much of what
40WH
he said. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose contribution is particularly important with regard to support for local initiative rather than the imposition of top-down solutions that might not be received in the way in which the donors patronisingly expect them to be.
I, too, welcome the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The choice that faces the Secretary of State and the Department—the Minister might allude to it—is whether to give good governance the incentive and encouragement that it needs to be rewarded. The hon. Member for City of York touched on the point when he talked about aid competition. Good governance is patently an essential element of trust for those who wish to help the heavily indebted poor countries, and examples of it should be preferred pour encourager les autres. Many such countries do not have perfect systems; many are as poor as the countries under tyrannical regimes.
That is a hard choice for the Department and one that I have raised with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House. In considering it, we must accept that it involves a complex series of issues—aid, trade, good governance, health and debt relief must ride together in a package. I couple my remarks with those of the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Pump priming for education and health programmes, particularly in relation to AIDS, must concentrate on people at ground level. The importance of training and skills has been mentioned, but I urge hon. Members to focus on malaria, because it is killing off both old and young, leaving a sterile and static "middle" population, often blighted by AIDS. That is one of the most difficult economic challenges that such countries face.
If we focus only on education, health and poverty eradication, all of which are important and necessary, we risk losing what is, ultimately, the greatest asset in boosting poverty eradication—trade. Aid can do much, but trade is the ultimate solution. Getting those countries to participate in the global economy in a way that is real for them is one of the biggest challenges. We must be able to trust each other on peace and security and the eradication of international terrorism, which allow good governance and democratic traditions to flourish.
As chairman of the all-party Tanzania group, and having been involved in third world debt relief, not least because I was born in Tanzania, it is fair to say that no hon. Member or party has a monopoly on compassion, concern or interest in those matters. While we can debate the precise percentages of aid given by this and previous Governments—I do not make the point pejoratively—having a realistic and sustainable commitment that is supported across the House is what matters.
Like everybody, I am disturbed by the endorsement given by the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria and Tanzania to the so-called deserved victory in Zimbabwe. That is disappointing, but it could be said that there was not perfect good governance in the United Kingdom given the problems in Northern Ireland over many years, so we must be careful not to be purist.
I shall take Tanzania as an example; it does not have perfect good governance, as there are problems in Zanzibar. The serious issue of the air traffic control

41WH
system has been raised on the Floor of the House. I have tried to look into it in detail, because it seems to generate a lot more heat than light. There are tensions, which I can understand, and, quite properly, there have been discussions in the Government. I welcome that, because it is proper to have the debate.
The Tanzanian Government went through what they consider to be a perfectly good due diligence process. They put out to international tender, obtained a preliminary export licence from the Ministry of Defence for the preferred bidders and consulted the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on a dual civil and security system. I could have used the word "military", but in Tanzania the military aspect is irrelevant, because it does not have the military capability to respond to a threat. The greatest difficulty is smuggling, because smugglers export 15 tonnes of gold from Tanzania each year.
It would have been better if Tanzania had paid for the civilian aspect of the air traffic control project, costing £9 million, and the international community had paid the other £18 million. Such a dual approach would have offered a solution, but I was happy to see jobs secured for this country's manufacturing industry.
I apologise for having gone over my time by a minute. I urge support for the package approach of looking carefully at aid and we must consider the organic initiatives on health and the threats to it that were mentioned earlier. We must continue debt relief and, above all, in celebrating good governance, we should take an organic-plus approach to developing countries and poverty relief, rather than adopt a patronising approach of granting aid downwards, which is counterproductive.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) gives me an unofficial assurance that she will not speak for more than three minutes, I am happy for her to contribute before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman to wind up.
12.1 pm
Ms Julia Drown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party group on third-world debt, I was recently invited to the Netherlands to meet parliamentarians and representatives of non-governmental organisations from Africa and elsewhere. We debated debt relief and the new partnership for Africa. I may need to declare an interest, because I have not yet refunded the cost of my accommodation, although I am in the process of doing so.
I welcome the new partnership for Africa, but, like other speakers, I believe that the civil society issue must be recognised. The partnership document was not translated from English into other languages until last month, four months after publication of the original. Furthermore, it is important that we do not raise expectations. The document refers to one voice for Africa, but Britain and France cannot agree on the great lakes, so it is unrealistic to expect African countries to agree on everything.
I hope that the Minister will answer a few questions about debt relief. There is increasing recognition that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is not good
42WH
enough and will not by itself achieve the millennium goals on debt. If that is the case, why does the new partnership document refer to going through the HIPC and Paris Club process first? It may be appropriate to pursue that process concurrently, but much more needs to be done if we are to achieve those important goals.
How are we to get help to Ethiopia, which needs to spend $2.5 billion on health to achieve its goals, but is currently spending less than $100 million? How will we deal with the situation in Malawi? The HIPC programme sets a growth rate of 6 per cent., but Malawi's growth rate is about 3 per cent. and getting worse. There is a massive famine there and people are dying right now, but deaths could be avoided if we got more help to such countries.
Will the Minister confirm that the reference in the partnership to a long-term objective, linking debt reduction to costed poverty reduction outcomes, is the same as linking debt reduction to the millennium development goals? If so, why can that not be confirmed at Monterrey to eradicate current concerns about the goal being watered down?
There has been much talk about Nigeria and recognition that we could and should do more, but something needs to happen on both sides. Although we should not underestimate the power of civil society and parliamentarians, we need information. I have been pressing for specific answers for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has given us some of the most useful information about taxing people. Nigeria is talked of as oil rich, but it receives less than 27 cents a day per person—less than a dollar a day—and about 90 per cent. of the population have no access to essential drugs. Nigeria is still owed ecological debts, although many debts were paid under military rule.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to loans being given for bad projects. There is responsibility on both sides, however, as people here should have known that we were giving loans for bad projects. We must play our part.
The stadium in Nigeria was mentioned. Senators in that country oppose building it and we must support them if they are to be able to talk out loud. Unquestionably, much more needs to be done and we must continue to consider the matter closely. We should also tackle the problem of money that is stashed away in western banks and do more on money laundering so that we can return the money that is owed to Nigeria and other countries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): I trust that the three Front Benchers will divide the remaining time equally.
12.5 pm
Norman Lamb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate. The timing could not be more fortuitous, with President Obasanjo of Nigeria, John Howard of Australia and Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, meeting today in London to decide the Commonwealth response to the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe.

43WH
I note the comments of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) about not allowing what happened in that country to derail the process, but the judgment that those leaders reach will have profound implications for the achievement of goals by the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The two issues are inextricably linked, which presents President Mbeki with an enormous dilemma, as he has championed the concept of an Africa-led recovery programme. Failure to show leadership now, when the principles underlying NEPAD face such a stark challenge, could leave the process stillborn and destroy the credibility of a necessary element of securing inward investment.
Of course, Zimbabwe is not alone on the continent in failing to follow the principles of democracy and indulging in corruption. There is a danger of the west striking a hypocritical note if we do not challenge other countries, which are regarded as our friends, where democracy has been woefully lacking.
Why should we regard the continent's reaction to this election as so important? First, change is so badly needed in Zimbabwe. So many people in Africa are offended not only by the flawed election, but by the hopelessly corrupt economic mismanagement and the vicious crushing of dissent over so many years, which have brought that country to its knees. Once a proud exporter of food, it now relies on food aid to feed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, with 500,000 in danger of starvation.
Secondly, we regard the election as important because of its timing. As NEPAD struggles to take off, Mbeki and others simply must meet the challenge to give the project credibility. This is its first big test. There is no doubt that Mbeki recognises that challenge; the only question is, has he the will and ability to act?
As the hon. Member for City of York said, Mbeki's speech last October was impressively clear on NEPAD's potential value as the best and, indeed, only available framework for development in Africa. He stressed that the essential precondition of any renaissance in Africa is that the programme be led by Africa. I shall not repeat the quotes used by the hon. Gentleman, but Mbeki also said:
"Clearly, these measures of ensuring democracy, good governance and the absence of wars and conflicts, are important both for the well-being of the people of Africa and for the creation of positive conditions for investment, economic growth and development."
Mbeki recognises the essential link between democracy and good governance as well as the creation of positive conditions for investment. If the wrong message is sent out now, those conditions will simply not exist.
It is suggested that Mbeki is pursuing a policy of engagement and softly-softly diplomacy because he fears a collapse in Zimbabwe that might tumble over the borders of South Africa, bringing in tens of thousands of refugees, and the impact of that on the South African economy. However, it is plain for all to see that prevarication and lack of leadership might themselves destroy the South African economy.
Africa getting its act together will not be enough for NEPAD to succeed, because it involves partnership with the developed world. The G8 is already engaged in
44WH
the process, but a massive challenge faces the developed world as well as Africa. Too often, our approach to Africa has been characterised by cynicism and hypocrisy. We must take a more transparent, more honest and more intelligent approach to fulfil our side of the bargain.
The level and purpose of aid for Africa have too often damaged development rather than helped it. It has been tied to trade, and it has been paid to our friends rather than given where it was most needed. Aid for low-income countries with policies that are better than average according to World Bank criteria fell from 1.9 per cent. of recipients' gross domestic product in 1991–95 to 1.2 per cent. in 1996–99. The role of the United States and the European Union in payment of aid moneys to Africa has been lamentable.
Arms sales feed conflict in Africa, which in turn makes escape from poverty impossible. Simon Jenkins recently wrote a powerful article in The Times, pointing out that UK arms exports to Africa increased from £52 million in 1999 to £125 million in 2000, and are likely to rise to more than £200 million next year. How is that paid for? By increasing those countries' debts. The shocking case of Tanzania, and the sale of the £28 million air traffic control system, is the latest shameful example. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor for making a stand against that.
The combination of US and EU tariffs and subsidies is effectively a massive barrier to Africa selling its goods on the world market. So much needs to change on our side for NEPAD to be given a fair wind, but why should we bother? We have to bother because of the moral case for engaging in Africa, but a case can also be made that is based on intelligent self-interest. A massive challenge lies ahead and it is essential that the G8 remains engaged, but both sides must recognise what is needed for this important initiative to have any chance of success.
12.12 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: It has been an interesting debate. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has always taken a great interest in these matters. Fortunately, many hon. Members have been able to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who does a distinguished job as Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), whose powerful remarks I shall return to in a moment, the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). In a short debate, we have managed to pack in a variety of speakers and a wide range of views.
When we look at the way in which the New Partnership for Africa's Development is supposed to work, we are bound to consider the first test of it. Sadly,

45WH
I agree with the pessimism expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby; those of us who have been watching the sad but all too predictable events in Zimbabwe are bound to say that the aspirations for NEPAD have not been borne out. My hon. Friend spoke about his experiences when he and the hon. Member for City of York visited Africa as members of the International Development Committee a week or so ago. He said that he came back more depressed than he had ever been about the prospects for the development of good governance.
One concern shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby and the hon. Member for City of York was the view of the British taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman said that he was quite happy to make a case for his constituents to pay more tax in order to have more money for overseas aid, but that the case would be more difficult to make if his constituents knew that some people in Nigeria earned £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 and paid no tax at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby suggested that there was no real understanding among the elected politicians that he met in Nigeria of a need to tackle that problem and move to a system of democratic accountability and proper taxation. That is not only depressing, but all too familiar to those of us who have seen how so many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have descended into virtual countries, as a constituent of mine who has great experience in Kenya described them.
Although Her Majesty's Opposition want to see the underlying aspirations of NEPAD succeed—who could not wish something with genuine good intentions well?—we worry that the concerns that we have expressed about NEPAD's emphasis on Government-to-Government aid, rather than support for reputable non-governmental organisations, have not been listened to. As we have said, when the Department for International Development considers its future contribution to initiatives such as NEPAD, there should be much more clear support for NGOs and charities. Those are more accountable and cost-effective, and less corrupt, and they often have greater experience of working on the ground. Almost every speaker in the debate has talked about the extent of corruption. We know that when aid is given Government-to-Government, what happens to it when it reaches the recipient Government is, sadly, the problem.
There must be a much greater commitment from African countries to good governance if any of the targets or aspirations that underlie NEPAD are to be met. I have spent some time in South Africa, and have seen the contrasts that the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale rightly mentioned between grinding poverty in some areas and wealth in others. If we are to tackle those contrasts, we must wish the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, well. Also, it would be reassuring if the leadership of sub-Saharan African countries were prepared to condemn the appalling recent abuses of democracy in Zimbabwe. I share the pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, who said that one cannot take aspirational statements seriously if, faced with that first test, all we see are expressions of support for the rigged Zimbabwe election.
46WH
The Foreign Secretary said that
"there has been every sign of ZANU-PF-backed violence and intimidation, right up to the close of polling, as well as many reports of irregularities, including a shortage of polling booths in urban areas, and harassment of opposition election agents in rural areas."—[Official Report, 12 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 740.]
Sadly, it appears that many African countries pretend, at least publicly, that they do not agree with that assessment. There is great concern that the Government of South Africa have been reluctant to criticise the tyrant of Zimbabwe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby rightly called him. That Government are thought to have put pressure on their official election observers to declare the election free and fair. The South African Minister with responsibility for the police, Steve Tshwete, tried to persuade observers that the elections in Zimbabwe were "credible" and "legitimate". A South African observer was quoted in our national press on 11 March as saying:
"We feel uncomfortable. The pressures are going to be enormous".
Aziz Pahad, the deputy Foreign Minister, has called on South Africa's press to stop "demonising" President Mugabe. One member of the South African election observation team said that the media had exaggerated the violence, and that the notion of a free and fair election was
"a product of Western liberal political processes".
What hope for a move towards good governance if real democracy is traduced in that way?
President Obasanjo of Nigeria is, as many hon. Members have said, closely linked to NEPAD as one of its chief backers. Before the close of voting, the head of the Nigerian observer team of the Zimbabwean elections, Ernest Shonekan, said that he was "particularly impressed" by the conduct of the election, despite some "skirmishes".
He said:
"It will be very difficult for anyone to come and tell us that it was not free and fair".
Senior aides to President Obasanjo were quoted by the press as saying that the Nigerian leader was unlikely to back the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
Nigeria exhibits the difficulties inherent in NEPAD. President Obasanjo is the first civilian head of state in more than 15 years, but has struggled to implement even the basic tenets of NEPAD in his country. Nigerians are still caught up in the worst cycle of ethnic, tribal and religious violence since the civil war in the 1960s. Thousands have died. At the start of last month, at least 100 people were killed in the commercial capital, Lagos, after three days of ethnic clashes.
Although we recognise the aspirations underlying NEPAD, as I have said, and should like it to succeed, in the light of the failure of its first test in Zimbabwe we are bound to be very pessimistic. I hope that the Minister will say at least that he is prepared to put much more effort into supporting the work of NGOs and charities on the ground in Africa, which might be a better way of causing NEPAD's real underlying concepts to succeed in future.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): May I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on having secured the debate and on the clarity with which he analysed the challenge? I genuinely welcome the fact that I have a short time in which to respond to the debate, because that is a product of so many hon. Members' wishing to participate. All contributions have added something to our understanding of the challenge that Africa faces.
We know that half those living in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than a dollar a day and that one in five have their lives blighted by conflict. Conflict is the scar on the back of the continent. We know that 25 million people live with AIDS, a disaster for Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) was absolutely right about that. It is a disaster not least because, in some countries, it is causing the wiping out of almost all that was gained in life expectancy during the past generation.
Economically, Africa is the only continent that has gone backwards. Its share of world trade has halved in the past generation. Some 40 per cent. of the savings generated within the continent of Africa leave it every year, and it is not the case that Africa has been overexploited by trade and foreign investment. The truth is that it has had too little of either. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) rightly and forcefully made that point.
As if all that was not enough, there is also corruption, poor governance and unfinished, or in many cases unstarted, reform. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), reflecting on the recent visit to Nigeria, spoke with enormous passion about the sheer scale of corruption. I can add to what he said only by pointing out that during the period of General Abacha's regime, the international community put $1.1 billion of aid into Nigeria, while he and his family looted $6 billion from that country.
I think that we are all agreed that Africa is, quite simply, the greatest regeneration challenge that we currently face in the world. It is all too easy to be transfixed by the headlights of the statistics on the state of Africa. I am glad that several hon. Members have referred as well to the beacons of hope in the continent, including the progress made on reducing poverty in Uganda. We could also mention the growth rates in Botswana and Mozambique, which offer us hope. The New Partnership for Africa's Development offers us a chance to build on those successes for the future.
The most important things about NEPAD, an initiative made in Africa for Africa, are: first, as hon. Members have said, that it represents a commitment to solve the continent's problems; secondly, that it recognises the need to take a regional approach to poverty reduction and greater equality; and thirdly, that it is an approach that works with the international community in forming what is, in essence, a deal. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was absolutely right in saying that it is a deal with obligations on both sides. The deal is that Africa will seek to resolve its problems, particularly in areas of conflict and governance, and in return the international
48WH
community will respond with support for NEPAD's priorities, with increased resources that are better targeted and with trade reform.
NEPAD is a long-term initiative. I understand completely the impatience that several hon. Members expressed in their contributions and their concerns that early tests may indicate a cause for pessimism. However, if we are to respond to the challenges that Africa faces we cannot afford pessimism. We must put it to one side, renew our optimism—even in the face of adversity—and recognise that we will have to give the partnership time to fulfil its potential.
The UK's development aid to Africa is rising; it has nearly doubled since 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Monterrey at the G8 conference on financing for development, which is a real test of the world's response to poverty alleviation in general, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said. Aware that aid to Africa has actually declined in recent years, we have worked hard to encourage other donors to increase the aid that they give.
We have seen some progress. Under pressure of the advent of the Monterrey conference, the EU recently agreed to raise its average overseas development assistance gross national income figure from the current 0.32 per cent. to 0.39 per cent. by 2006, which represents an increase of about $7 billion a year. The United States has announced an increase in its aid budget of $5 billion during the next three years although, as my hon. Friend and others pointed out, that is still a very small share of its national wealth.
On debt relief, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that it is delivering progress: 25 countries have benefited—Ghana is the latest—from $50 billion worth of debt relief. The biggest single obstacle to the remaining countries in Africa accessing the relief for highly indebted poor countries is conflict.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) about the timetable. The G8 plan for Africa will be launched at the summit in June and will be followed by the African Union summit in July. Much effort is being made to ensure that the two processes work in parallel, because each must support the other.
Money is part of what is needed, but it is not everything. We must try to build peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Angola. The news from Angola over the weekend gives some cause for hope. We must open up trade opportunities, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, particularly by giving the African countries access to G8 markets.
Governance has dominated the debate, and the issue of Zimbabwe has been raised. All of us are deeply worried by what has occurred but, in truth, the outcome is unlikely to reverse the desperate economic and social decline in that country, which is greatly affecting the poor. However, I share the view of those who have said that, although Zimbabwe is an important test for Africa, it is not the sole test against which we should judge the success of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, because the issue of governance will remain important.

49WH
Several issues have been raised. On patronage, the hon. Member for Banbury was absolutely right about the culture that exists in some countries. However, let us be honest: it was part of our culture not all that many years ago, and we should try to remember how we moved to where we are today. The hon. Gentleman spoke forcefully about the need to support elected representatives in making the transition from one way of doing business to another.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned tax. I can only say "hear, hear" to his suggestion that the well-off should pay more tax. His comments were a particularly pleasant feature of the debate.
I am not sure that I would go as far as agreeing with the suggestion about bidding that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. However, we should take account of those who are committed to reform in deciding where to put our money and our priorities.
I heartily endorse the passionate comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West about regeneration. If we want to regenerate successfully—be it in an inner-city ward, a country or a continent—ownership must come from the bottom up. We need a long-term commitment. NEPAD represents a commitment on the part of Africa, but we need action rather than words.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dunkeswell Airfield
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: High up in the Blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency, Dunkeswell airfield, which was built during the second world war, is still used today by light aircraft. It has a small museum that is funded and supported by local people. I pay tribute to the museum chairman, Mr. Claude Caple, and many local residents for their tireless support. For the past few years, the museum trust has been trying to acquire some of the remaining buildings on the site, so that the museum can be extended to include the important buildings that are part of its history.
The anti-submarine operations centre at Dunkeswell played a pivotal role in the second world war during one of the momentous events in European history. It was the only United States navy administration base and antisubmarine bomber command centre in the United Kingdom. It kept open the vital sea lanes to England, protecting the convoys from attack by Hitler's U-boats during the dark days of the war. Today, the historic operations centre is testimony to the valour of the airmen of the US navy fleet air wing 7 who were stationed at the former Royal Air Force airfield, which became known as Air Facility Dunkeswell, US Atlantic fleet. Those airmen flew 6,424 hazardous bomber missions, day and night, far out into the Atlantic ocean, between September 1942 and June 1945.
In recent years, there has been concern about the future of the buildings, particularly the operations block. I have sought the support of Defence Ministers, who have been very helpful. However, we seem to be at an impasse. Genuine concern is felt in my constituency that Defence Estates is running out of patience. It needs to dispose of land assets. It is waiting for English Heritage to decide whether to list some of the buildings on the site and has said that some of them may not be safe on the grounds of health and safety. My worry is that the bulldozers will roll in and deprive the museum of its opportunity to create a permanent visitor centre, which will be of historical and educational benefit to United Kingdom citizens, as well as a fitting tribute to the many United States veterans and their relatives who visit or contact the museum each year.
I wish to outline some of the key points in my correspondence with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in recent years. In 1996, a report by Paul Francis, entitled "The Blackdown Hills Airfield Survey", was produced for Devon county council and East Devon district council, which commended the retention of, among others, the operations block. The report is substantive and its high quality is still relevant today. In February 1998, the museum's trustees alerted me to the possible threat to the buildings on the site. I telephoned the Ministry of Defence and was informed that the buildings were considered unsafe under health and safety rules. I raised with Ministers the request on behalf of the museum's trustees to pass the title of the buildings to the museum trust, a registered charity. The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, now the Minister for Transport, sent me a helpful letter dated 18 March 1998 inviting me to outline the museum's concerns.

51WH
At the request of the MOD, the museum set about producing a feasibility study on how the buildings would be used as part of the museum site. The Minister agreed to a site meeting with officials from both the Ministry of Defence and English Heritage.
The meeting, which I attended, was held on 6 July 1998 and it was very positive. The principal conservation architect for Defence Estates explained that a national military aviation thematic study was being carried out, and, at the time, I understood that about 150 sites would be considered for preservation as part of the study. That was part of English Heritage's monuments protection programme and it was scheduled for completion by the end of 1998.
Following the site meeting, Mr. Lake of English Heritage, who had not seen the buildings before, wrote:
"Personally I thought the site meeting was a positive and useful event, and I was very impressed by the determined enthusiasm of the Museums members. On behalf of the MoD, I remain available to provide assistance as required."
By 14 December 1998, a representative of Defence Estates had written to the museum saying:
"I can confirm that the Royal Marines would be willing to sell the WW2 Command Centre (Ops Bldg) to your Museum. However, in order to achieve such a sale which would be on a private treaty basis, it would be necessary to obtain our Headquarters and Ministerial approval to a private treaty purchaser without offering the site for sale on the open market. Should our Headquarters and Ministerial approval be given to a sale, it would be necessary for us to make a joint submission to the District Valuer to assess the value (if any). I am unable to pre-empt a Ministers decision in this case and therefore could not give you an unequivocal letter of intent as indicated. However, I would be prepared to take the case up to Ministers if you could provide me with a detailed case for purchase. Such a case should include details about the Museum and its objectives together with its future plans and reasons for wishing to purchase the Ops Buildings at Dunkeswell. It would also be useful to include a letter of support from your local MP and Council Authorities supporting your purchase. I believe we should restrict our action to the Ops building at this stage."
I confirm that the museum had not only my support, but that of Devon county council, East Devon district council, the Blackdown hills joint advisory committee, Dunkeswell parish council and, of course, the many veterans who are in contact with the museum. Over 500 of them are alive today and receive regularly the FAW7 newsletter.
By 7 January 1999, Tony Whitehead, the principal conservation architect, had written to the museum saying:
"I have been enormously impressed by the dedication of the members of the Museum Project supported by the local community in developing an active memorial for the actions of the US Navy's anti-submarine Bomber Command. Finding sympathetic new uses for historical buildings remains one of the most important challenges facing Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence. We are therefore very grateful for the initiative shown by organizations such as yourselves in championing imaginative projects which in addition will afford social end educational benefits derived from historically significant sites.
The timing of your initiative is particularly notable, in that it coincides with the English Heritage Aviation Thematic Study. Whilst there are many surviving buildings from WW2, their future can only be sustained through the enthusiasm and commitment of organizations such as yourselves. Without local backing,
52WH
prevailing but often fragile WW2 sites will inevitably decline and disappear. Commitment such as yours acts as an insurance policy to ensure future generations do not forget the sacrifices made at a crucial part in the nation's history.
You have important challenges ahead, and in my capacity as MoD's building conservation specialist, I remain available to assist in seeing this project through to fruition."
On 12 January 1999, Jeremy Lake of English Heritage wrote:
"Thank you for your letter … Our thematic survey of military aviation sites and structures has drawn our attention to the special significance of this site."
He continued:
"Our work is largely focused on a very small number of the best preserved sites, but association with the three principal air battles of the second World War (the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic and, to a lesser extent, Strategic Bomber Offensive), is enabling us to identify substantially complete examples of key building types on the most historically significant sites. Dunkeswell is one of this very small number, due to its unique role as the only US Navy airfield in the United Kingdom and close association with the crucial battle of the Atlantic. I am, therefore writing to confirm our support based on an extensive programme of documentary research and fieldwork, for the historical importance of this site."
On 15 February 1999, the museum alerted me to the fact that the marines from Lympstone, who had operational access to the site, were inspecting it for future demolition. Again, a different Minister was in charge at the time—I was on to my second Ministry of Defence Minister about the matter. Late one Saturday night, a telephone call to the duty officer, who was based in Belfast at the time, prevented the demolition and the museum set up an appeal fund to acquire the buildings. Admiral William Crowe, the former US ambassador who had attended the site meeting with us, became the patron.
On 11 June 1999, the Minister wrote to me saying:
"The Royal Marines, having now completed an internal review of their training requirements at Dunkeswell, have concluded … the site is potentially surplus to their requirements. This clearly has an impact on the future operation of Dunkeswell".
So, from what had started in hope, especially following that useful, important and constructive site meeting, things were again going wrong and there were constant worries that the buildings were somehow going to be removed. The need to list the buildings and the thematic review seemed to slip down the timetable. I realise that a different Government Department is now dealing with the issue, but one would hope that different Departments talk to each other. As I wrote to MOD Ministers, I automatically copied my correspondence to the DCMS. It wrote and told me that the thematic review would not end until the end of 2001 when the listing would be considered.
In the meantime, Defence Estates in Plymouth pressed the case that it wished to dispose of the site. The reply that I received from DCMS on 17 September 2001 was not terribly helpful. At one stage, Baroness Blackstone, the Minister, explained that she could not understand why the museum trust could not start an appeal for new money to buy the buildings. Obviously, it is difficult to raise public funds without a commitment that the buildings can be bought. There is a lot of interest in supporting an appeal, especially in the US, but there must be some recognition that the trust would be able to acquire the buildings in the first place.

53WH
I have seen a letter dated 10 February 2002 to the DCMS from Defence Estates, south-west region, that concludes, among other things, that
"English Heritage have already acknowledged the difficulties for the MOD and a conclusion to the Dunkeswell Management strategy is now imperative. I would refer to Tony Whitehead's letter to Eleanor Hodge dated 3rd September 2001. To that end, I will be discussing a timetable for the partial demolition with the Service Authority to coincide with the existing planned works for the remainder of the airfield."
I understand that partial demolition means taking the buildings down to a height of 3 ft.
"I will advise that no action be taken prior to 1st April to afford interested parties a further opportunity to photograph, survey and record the buildings".
That sounds to me, as it does to the people in Dunkeswell, as though a photographic record of what was there is suggested. However, there is a clear indication that unless matters are quickly resolved, there is a deadline of 1 April, only a fortnight away, when action and authorisation may be taken for the buildings to disappear altogether.
As the Minister will be aware, the site and the museum epitomise all that was best about those who served there more than half a century ago. Today, people in the local community of Dunkeswell, many of whom never met those brave young men, have given of their efforts to ensure that Dunkeswell is remembered. All too often in political life, bureaucracy, delay and poor communications between Departments mean that things fall through the net. With the 1 April deadline just round the corner, I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to ensure that good progress can be made. If there is a political will, that can be achieved. As the newsletter of the veterans states:
"Many returned home, Some stayed forever, None shall be forgotten."
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate. For reasons that I shall explain later, I welcome the chance to talk on the subject. There is no doubt that Dunkeswell airfield is an important part of our heritage from the second world war and the defence of the Atlantic seaways. One of my great regrets about my job is that although I am responsible for defence estates, I do not get the chance to visit as many sites as I would like to.
Mrs. Browning: I cannot resist. I must offer the Minister a personal invitation to come and see Dunkeswell airfield for himself. A visit to the airfield is a lovely day out.
Dr. Moonie: I had a feeling that I was leading with my chin on that one. I hesitate to say that I will come in the very near future, but I promise the hon. Lady that, given the opportunity, I shall attempt to visit the airfield and see it for myself.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about proposed work that is to be carried out at Dunkeswell airfield. We have exchanged correspondence on the subject in the past; indeed, as she recognises in her speech, she has exchanged extensive correspondence with quite a few
54WH
defence Ministers and others on this matter. I hope that my remarks will serve to reassure her that it remains the case that nothing will be done on the airfield without continued, close and careful liaison with all the interested parties.
We in the Ministry of Defence take our responsibilities for historic and heritage properties seriously. My Department has responsibility for more such sites than any other Department. We have in excess of 650 statutorily protected historic buildings on our estate. That number includes both listed buildings and scheduled monuments. We strive to maintain those to the highest standards that we can, and to build on Government-wide good practice. The "2001 Annual Report on Historic Buildings" published late last year illustrates that commitment. To that end, we maintain close contact with English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
When buildings are retained, we try to devise ways of using them that are both sympathetic and practical. If there are no other practical options and we have to dispose of buildings, we work closely with public and voluntary organisations to try to ensure that their future is secure. I have spoken of the strong partnership and liaison that exists between my Department and others and the statutory bodies concerned. When we can, we go further than that, and take into account as far as possible the interests of more general stakeholders. I fully recognise how much an airfield like Dunkeswell means to a wide range of people who live locally or have served on the base.
As the hon. Lady said, the airfield, near Honiton, was constructed during the last war, and was used as a base from which coastal-command aircraft could counter the submarine threat. In 1943 it was transferred to the United States air force and then to the US navy fleet air wing before flying operations ceased in 1946, although we used it as a satellite for RAF Merryfield until 1955. Most of the airfield, including the majority of its runways, was sold in the 1980s. Private aircraft operate from a section of the old runway and several industrial units have been constructed on what was the technical site. The retained area, known as the Dunkeswell airfield training area, is now surplus to requirements, and is being prepared for disposal. The Dunkeswell Memorial museum resides in a temporary building at the entrance to the airfield, and I understand the concerns of the museum's chairman, Mr. Claude Caple, for the future of the site, and his wish to preserve as much as possible of the historical environment. Indeed, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I am supportive of the museum's aspiration to acquire some of the buildings.
The site also forms part of the military aviation thematic study by English Heritage, which commenced several years ago. We await a decision from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on two groups of buildings that were proposed for listing—the control tower complex and the operations block.
Defence Estates has formally expressed concern about the operations block, and its potential for sustained use in the future. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Dunkeswell case was discussed by Defence Estates—the Ministry of Defence agency that is responsible for the defence estate—and English Heritage at a liaison meeting as recently as 12 March. I also understand that officials of the Department for Culture, Media and

55WH
Sport are currently considering whether a listing decision is required on the control tower complex and the operations block in advance of the final report of English Heritage on the military aviation thematic study.
I understand that the Dunkeswell buildings are being considered as part of a nationwide review of similar sites, and I accept the difficulties that that poses for determining a particular case in advance of the main review, unless there is an immediate threat to the buildings.
Mrs. Browning: I understand that when this review started there was consideration of 150 airfields, and that that has been reduced to 100 as a result not of what is on the airfields, but of the necessity to dispose of more of them.
Is it true that there is pressure from the Treasury? I do not suppose that the Minister will give me a clear answer to that, but if he were to wink or nod, that would be good enough for me. Have they reduced the number from 150 to 100, and if that is the case, does that put a question mark against Dunkeswell? When we talked about it three years ago, we were not so concerned that it might be at risk.
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to say that I have no great wish that the Ministry of Defence should retain ownership of land for which we have no need. It is up to English Heritage to recognise which of the historic sites associated with the second world war are worth preserving. I do not think that there should, a priori, be an assumption that because something is of historical interest it should be preserved for all time, but a full and representative sample of those sites should be preserved, and, from what I know of the Dunkeswell site, it would appear to fit that category. That is a personal view.
Such sites are being considered as part of the nationwide survey, and as the hon. Lady knows, national surveys can take an inordinately long time to deal properly with matters. That is not meant to imply any criticism of colleagues in other Departments. It is simply the case that such surveys take a long time to resolve matters, and that is why I am happy that the Dunkeswell case is being looked at as a matter of urgency.
I turn to recent communications from Defence Estates about our intentions with regard to the site. I can assure the hon. Lady that we have no intention of demolishing the control tower. What is proposed is that certain dangerous structures associated with the operations block should be removed to permit explosive ordnance clearance to be carried out. At the moment, health and safety concerns prevent the relevant experts from entering the block to carry out that work, which is essential if we are to be able to dispose of the site. Ironically, because we cannot give an assurance that the block is clear of explosive ordnance, even contractors employed to make the block safe would have to work from the outside. That clearly indicates the problem that we have.
Mrs. Browning: I am particularly pleased to hear that the control tower is safe, because I said that I would
56WH
chain myself to it if I did not get a satisfactory answer, as the Minister knows. I understand that a certificate is needed for explosive ordnance clearance in the operations block and that other health and safety matters must be tackled. When those issues are dealt with, however, will it be necessary to demolish just one wall or will the whole building be razed to just 3ft above the ground, which is virtually the same as demolishing it?
Dr. Moonie: If I can proceed, I believe that I shall refer to that. If I do not, I shall certainly give the hon. Lady a detailed response later.
We are sensitive to the issues involved and have refrained from taking action until the views of all stakeholders have been taken into account. That does not, of course, mean that action is not urgently required. My officials have made representations to DCMS, highlighting the precarious state of the operations block and the fact that an early decision is required on whether it is to be listed. The museum has been kept fully informed about that correspondence and about developments that might affect its interests.
None of the parties involved has objected to our proposals to date, but despite the passage of time, we are still not in a position to move forward. For that reason—and because we are conscious of our health and safety responsibilities, which cannot be taken any less lightly than our responsibility for preserving heritage—my officials proposed a reasonable time scale within which they believed action needed to be taken. They gave 1 April as the date on which we would commence contractual procedures to effect vital health and safety work.
Health and safety considerations and our duty of care to members of the public who visit the airfield mean that we must consider the future of several other buildings and structures, which are not included in the thematic study. The hon. Lady will appreciate that those were put up in haste during the second world war and that their construction is very basic. Those temporary structures were intended for the duration of the conflict and have, consequently, declined to a very poor state of repair; indeed, some of them can be described only as dangerous.
I regret any undue alarm to which our proposals may have given rise, but I cannot apologise for seeking to resolve a difficult issue. Doing nothing is not an option that we can sustain for much longer. We could put up fences around the dangerous structures, but our experience elsewhere shows that they cannot be guaranteed to keep out the inquisitive. Sadly, such an approach would not discharge my Department's heath and safety responsibilities or significantly reduce the risk to the public, including trespassers. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Lady that it was never our intention to take unilateral action on the commencement of demolition. I am therefore happy to confirm that no action will be taken until all interested parties, including the hon. Lady, have had the opportunity to attend an on-site briefing, at which my officials will explain the proposals and demonstrate why they are necessary.
I recognise that it is not easy to strike a balance between heritage and health and safety, but if my Department is to act responsibly, it must consider how

57WH
such a balance is to be struck. Were an accident to happen, it would hardly be excusable to say we were waiting for guidance. Equally, we cannot sell or transfer the site and its heritage buildings to another owner until the essential explosive ordnance checks have been carried out, which cannot be done while the current risks exist. We are in contact with DCMS and English Heritage on those important issues, and I hope that we can move rapidly to resolve the issues that affect Dunkeswell.
As the hon. Lady confirmed in her speech, my Department has striven over the past three or four years to meet the various demands that have been put on it as regards Dunkeswell. We have involved all the key Departments, bodies and parties that have an interest, we have taken active steps to keep the museum aware of how matters were developing and we have tried to be sympathetic to all the aspirations that have been expressed. We have, however, also had to recognise and meet our obligations as regards health and safety and explosive ordnance clearance. That said, I give an assurance that we will take no action on demolition until I am satisfied that it is the correct approach. It is, however, essential that action is taken soon, because the present position cannot be maintained indefinitely, and the risks mount with each passing day.
I will take a personal interest in the issue, and I shall be happy to speak to the hon. Lady again if she wants to raise concerns with me. I welcome this debate and very much hope that it will be the catalyst that allows us to make speedy progress at Dunkeswell.

Asbestos (Scotland)
1 pm
John Robertson: Let me say at the beginning of my speech how helpful my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) has been. I commend him for all the work that he has done on the issue.
A year after Chester Street Insurance Holdings collapsed we appear to be no closer to meeting the needs of those who were affected—and that includes people who do not yet know that they have been affected. At business questions on 7 March I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he knew that companies that had agreed to pay compensation to asbestos-related disease sufferers, and to future sufferers, were now reneging on the deal. My right hon. Friend replied:
"I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the matter and make full use of the facilities of the House to do so."—[Official Report, 7 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 433.]
That I have done, in part, by securing this debate. I intend to do whatever else I can to ensure that people suffering because of asbestos will receive the money to which they are entitled.
Asbestos dust is responsible for more work-related deaths than any other cause. Doctors have warned that the number of deaths has not yet reached its peak. Use of asbestos has been widespread since the mid-19th century. As a result, victims are not confined to one industry but are spread through many industries, including and particularly shipbuilding, construction and energy. Asbestos-related disease creates a chronic respiratory problem for sufferers, resulting in impaired mobility, and the dust can also cause mesothelioma, a cancer for which there is no cure.
It is known that 90 per cent. of mesothelioma cases in the United Kingdom—some 1,500 a year—follow asbestos exposure. Years can pass before the effects on those exposed to asbestos become apparent. Because of that latent period, cases of asbestos-related disease will continue to rise. Furthermore, although the delay between first exposure to asbestos and the development of the cancer is likely to be 10 or 15 years, the cancer is usually fatal within two years.
Because of that it is vital that claims for compensation are settled speedily and in a straightforward manner. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), said in a debate in this Chamber on 16 January:
"There is a need to ensure that compensation, where it is required, is delivered speedily and effectively to those who have contracted those awful diseases as a result of their work, or … as a result simply of being in a certain neighbourhood where an industrial process is taking place."
In other words, delays to claims for compensation are not acceptable if time is of the essence.
People are now doubly victims. They are exposed to asbestos by their employer and then let down by the failure of insurance companies to compensate them. Thousands of people who worked at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, John Brown in Clydebank or Fairfields had taken out policies, together worth up to £400 million, with Chester Street Insurance Holdings.

59WH
When Chester Street became insolvent and Iron Trades was sold off, hundreds of pre-1972 cases were left in limbo. A scheme was worked out with the insurance industry covering the pre-1972 cases left by the collapse of Chester Street. However, solicitors representing my constituents who are seeking compensation tell me that people who suffered as a result of the Chester Street collapse have not received a penny from the scheme.
The debacle raises several questions. I am concerned because the Financial Services Authority approved the Chester Street restructuring when it was quite clear that the company was heading for collapse. The FSA interpreted its duty as protecting the company and its shareholders, not the ultimate victims. How many times have we heard that in the last 20 years?
Cases such as Chester Street and Turner and Newell have highlighted what happens when things go wrong. Sufferers of asbestos-related disease endured a major blow in the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2001 as a result of the Fairchild case. The Court of Appeal stated that if two defendants had exposed a claimant to asbestos equally, the "guilty" fibres could not be identified, so both defendants escaped liability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said in an earlier debate on the issue, that is like saying that if two people shoot someone and we cannot tell which bullet the victim died from, both those people are innocent of murder.
Shipyard and building workers often work for a number of employers. Under that ruling, it is impossible to prove the source of the disease. As a result, such people have nowhere to go under current legislation. They stand no chance of receiving compensation unless a national compensation scheme is put together by national Government. What has happened to natural justice? Will the Secretary of State put pressure on her colleagues to introduce such a scheme?
The Court of Appeal's decision effectively overturned the principle that the courts have applied in such cases for many years. Previously, and in my opinion correctly, defendants were joined and liability was apportioned according to the time for which the person had worked with each employer. In the previous debate that I have already mentioned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions also said:
"The Court of Appeal commented that for the claimants not to receive compensation was a major injustice—it said that its own judgment was a major injustice—and that it was one that should be remedied by express statutory provision or by an agreed insurance industry compensation scheme."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 87–88WH.]
Sadly, I feel the former will have to be the case.
I have seen no evidence of insurance companies hurrying to pay people compensation for catching any asbestos-related disease.
The move to ensure that one employer does not suffer unduly because of the negligence of another means that the victims have no protection; thus thousands of victims of fatal disease have been deprived of compensation. It is crucial that the Government introduce a national policy of compensation for asbestos workers. Again, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.
60WH
It is time that someone in Government stood up for the victims, not the perpetrators of the crime—the companies and those who work so hard at not paying up. The ruling has left those seeking compensation in limbo; some lawyers in the insurance industry are working not to seek justice for the defendants but to find a route around the industry's liabilities and responsibilities towards its asbestos victims. I understand that the House of Lords is to hear an appeal in two cases relating to Fairchild on 22 and 23 April. I shall be interested to see the outcome; I hope that sanity will prevail and that the decision will be overturned.
I should also like to raise the issue of British Shipbuilders, which is very important to my constituents. British Shipbuilders is a public corporation, and it has concluded that it should not accept liability from other limited companies. I appreciate that the DTI does not intervene in legal cases, but we must ask whether the Department should hold an inquiry—or would that slow things down even further? I wonder whether that is what the insurance companies want; it fits their modus operandi.
The Government's pneumoconiosis scheme provides for the payment of compensation to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to obtain redress in the courts because their employer has gone out of business so there is no one at whom they can direct a legal action.
I understand that in the light of the Fairchild case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has announced that the Government's compensation scheme will apply to Scotland. That is helpful, but the Fairchild judgment has manifold implications for that scheme. Is it right that as a first step, action should be taken against former employers of people who have contracted one of those diseases, and only when it is not possible to establish whether the employer is liable, or if a liable employer cannot be found, will the pneumoconiosis scheme take over? During that time, of course, the asbestos sufferer is dying.
I agree that the Government scheme should not allow companies to walk away from their liabilities, but in that limbo stage, what else can we do for the victims?
Mr. James Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the bugbears for the 1997 Labour Government concerning compensation was the small payment of £2,500, which did not carry the clawback tag? When we abolished that small payment, we gave those who suffered from pleural plaque, mesothelioma and asbestosis the opportunity to claim much larger sums.
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. He is much more experienced and knowledgeable in such matters than I am. Those small payments must have helped at the time, but they do not help people today, and it is those people whom we need to consider.
Insurance is about taking risks, and making payments when things go wrong. Some companies have already gone into liquidation, but others are using such tactics as going into voluntary liquidation in order to avoid

61WH
their liabilities. Turner and Newall and Federal-Mogul took that route to escape their responsibilities. The Government must consider what needs to be done to deal with that problem. We do not want the insurance industry to be able to abandon its responsibilities and leave them with the taxpayer. When considering compensation, we must remember that lump sums and periodic payments should be the equivalent of the compensation payments that courts award in negligence cases.
Almost 1,000 claims were made during the last complete year of the scheme, whereas fewer than 10,000 payments were made during the 20 years from 1980. Clearly, those payments are increasing annually. Considering the rise in the number of cases and in the number of claims for compensation, that could cost the Treasury tens of millions of pounds. The amount of money, however, is small compared with human life.
I end by asking a few more questions of the Secretary of State—questions that are of prime concern to my constituents and to those of the other hon. Members here today, and possibly throughout the country. What is being done in Scotland to allay fears that the Scottish courts may deal less favourably with asbestos sufferers? What action is being taken to safeguard the interests of asbestos suffers, who have seen Turner and Newall go into administration? We should collate a "name and shame" list, which would at least let the people know whom to trust when doing business with insurance companies. Why should the people of Scotland—or even the people of Britain—keep them in business? Honour would appear to matter only when money is not involved—but asbestos sufferers are not interested in honour, only in justice.
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. It raises a number of issues of considerable concern to people in the west of Scotland. I too associate myself with his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), who led the campaign to get justice for the victims of asbestos.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, I feel a deep sense of grievance about the events surrounding Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. Chester Street, formerly known as Iron Trades Holdings Ltd., had significant exposure to employers' liability insurance, and almost all the shipbuilding firms that had used asbestos were insured through Chester Street. The circumstances surrounding the company's failure are interesting, in that two companies were formed, one with the assets and another with the liabilities. Guess which one was left with responsibility for the victims of asbestosis? When Chester Street failed, former employees were faced with a defunct manufacturing company and a defunct insurance company.
There was particular uncertainty for people employed before 1972. Employers' liability insurance became compulsory in Great Britain only from that year, and it was initially unclear whether any pre-1972 claims against Chester Street would be met. After careful
62WH
examination of the company's assets and liabilities, the Chester Street administrators set the initial dividend for creditors at 5 per cent.—5p in the pound.
As an MP for the west of Scotland, I have received representations from several asbestos victims. Like many of those who had to challenge the insurance industry, they found that they had no voice. I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends have taken it upon themselves to act as the voice of those innocent victims. I have some form in dealing with the insurance industry, as I dealt with issues relating to personal pensions mis-selling when the Government were elected in 1997, and the situation grieves me because I regard the insurance industry as a major contributor to the financial services industry, and such behaviour by rogue companies gives the whole industry a bad name.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Association of British Insurers, to leaders in the insurance industry and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury who, when the Chester Street situation became apparent, immediately took action with a view to securing some means of compensation for the victims. I am speaking to members of the Chartered Insurance Institute this evening and I shall reiterate those points in my speech.
I was absolutely delighted when I heard that we had arranged a compensation deal for victims. I know some of the victims, and some of the widows of victims, who are dealing with difficult financial circumstances, and it was a source of great irritation to me to discover that payments were not being made in a timeous manner. I know that there are complications in ensuring that payment will be made to the victims. The Government have responsibilities through their involvement with British Shipbuilders, and we are meeting our liabilities towards former public sector employees, but where a private sector company still exists, it is expected to meet its liabilities. Where the company no longer exists, the ABI and the financial services compensation scheme will meet those liabilities at 100 per cent. in respect of post-1972 employment, and at 90 per cent. for earlier periods.
John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time taken by the ABI to get the money to the people who need it is now bordering on the extreme? The victims need the money now. Unfortunately, next year will be too late for some of them.
Mrs. Liddell: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend has just made what is probably the most important point of all. Indeed, the High Court has already approved the scheme, and I can see no reason why there should not be progress in making payments. I accept that the administrator has a legal obligation to be fair to all the creditors, but I feel that one of the best ways of doing that is to get the payments made as rapidly as possible.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mrs. Liddell: This is my hon. Friend's debate, and I am duty bound to reply to his points. If I have time near the end, I shall take the hon. Lady's intervention then.

63WH
The administrator has said that he is doing his best to keep fees and expenses to a minimum. I accept that, but we shall not see much progress until we see the actual cheques in the post to people.
I have received representations about delays in making payments through the Chester Street arrangements. I met my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, Frank Maguire of Thompsons solicitors, Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Tommy Gorman of Clydebank Asbestos Group to discuss that and related matters. Following that meeting, I was so appalled at the stories that I had been told that I invited to Dover house various organisations involved in dealing with the claims, including Iron Trades Management Services, the service company that deals with the validation of claims and with settlement documents. It works for the Chester Street administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers. Other groups involved are the Association of British Insurers and the financial services compensation scheme.
The first point made was about the complexity of the process. I accept that it is a complex process. I have some experience of complex processes, having just had to deal with coal-related health compensation, with something like 200,000 claimants; the Government are currently paying out £1,000 a minute in compensation. I am receptive to points made about complexity, but not to people who try to hide behind the complexity of the process. The bottom line is very straightforward, and human beings are suffering from terrible diseases as a result of their former employment. They are right to look for the quick payment of compensation, and I see no reason why there should be a delay at all.
I have been given assurances that everyone in the claims process, including lawyers, will ensure that their procedures are as efficient as possible. I make the point again that not only those administering the scheme but the lawyers handling the claims must make sure that they are on top of things, and moving as rapidly as possible.
John Robertson: My right hon. Friend has just hit the nail on the head: part of the problem is that there is no communication from those people. Lawyers are not communicating with the people who are suffering, and there is no communication from PricewaterhouseCoopers. They must talk together. The people at the sharp end are those who are left to come to my surgeries to ask me what is happening—and I have to arrange a debate on the subject. That should not happen.
Mrs. Liddell: I take my hon. Friend's point. At that meeting two weeks ago, I told those concerned that I wanted to see them in six weeks—that is, four weeks from now—for an explanation of the progress being made and the action that they had taken. I take on board the fact that we must have concrete information. I want to see progress in paying claims, but I also want hard statistics on the number of claims and the outstanding claims. Iron Trades, PricewaterhouseCoopers, ABI and the financial services compensation scheme have agreed to produce a newsletter about the claims process. I shall
64WH
ensure that my office distributes that to hon. Members with an interest in asbestos issues, so that they can ensure that the victims are given the information they require, and also so that those Members are on hand to let me know as rapidly as possible where there are pitfalls in individual cases of which I have not been made aware.
John Robertson: I make the point again that my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, do not want to receive a newsletter. They want something personal. They do not want their personal cases in a newsletter; they want to know what is happening themselves. I accept what my right hon. Friend says, which will be useful for me as an MP, but sufferers have to get personal letters before they see their case in a newsletter.
Mrs. Liddell: I agree with my right hon. Friend. There must be no question of personal details appearing in a newsletter—but as a constituency MP, I know that it is often useful to have routes for getting answers on individual cases. Hon. Members found that, in coal health compensation, helplines and access to lawyers proved extremely useful for speeding things up in complex cases. We have a responsibility and a role, which we willingly accept, to batter down the doors of bureaucracy to ensure that our constituents get a rapid response.
I shall respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland on personalised information by asking for a helpline to be established so that hon. Members and claimants have ready access to information on the status of claims.
My hon. Friend asked a number of other specific questions, which I am happy to answer. There have been past worries about Scottish court procedures when dealing with asbestos claims. However, the Lord President of the Court of Session recently appointed Lord Mackay of Drumadoon to oversee asbestos-related cases in the court. That has resulted in expediting cases. It is a devolved matter, and Richard Simpson, the Deputy Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive, keeps a close eye on it. I am sure that he would not be averse to receiving requests from hon. Members for information.
My hon. Friend also asked about Turner and Newall, which is a difficult case that causes great frustration to hon. Members. There was a meeting of the Turner and Newall creditors on 11 February at which the administrators approved a proposal to continue to manage the business, assets and affairs of the company, and to work towards the development of a reorganisation plan. It is expected that that will provide a mechanism for managing asbestos liabilities. Creditors' committees have been established, and the interests of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases are represented on them. Administrators are trying to establish the employers' liability insurance that Turner and Newall had. Once that is established, they will consider whether consent should be given to enable former employees to prove their claims against the company. I give my hon. Friend my personal guarantee to monitor such progress.
My hon. Friend also asked me to name and shame laggards. If that proves necessary, I will not hesitate to do so, but I hope that it does not come to that. I would

65WH
rather congratulate companies on rapid progress than make it plain, especially to those who are considering doing business with them, that they have been laggards in paying out much needed compensation.
The legacy of asbestos is serious and tragic for many individuals and families in Scotland. The Government, who are working with the Scottish Executive, are taking steps to tackle the problem, and I assure hon. Members that it is top of my priorities. He is right that the clock is ticking for many victims, and that some of them will not see compensation. We must continue to apply pressure to ensure that they receive fair and rapid compensation.
John Robertson: I should like to ask about the interim payments that are made to people—I mean substantial interim payments, not a few hundred pounds. Perhaps the Minister has some ballpark figures from the ABI. We need money from it right away. Surely that can be done.
Mrs. Liddell: I am not aware of procedures for interim payments, but I shall raise them with the ABI, the financial services compensation scheme and PricewaterhouseCoopers. That is a good idea, which should be seriously considered.
I take on board my hon. Friend's point about channels of communication. I shall ensure that a channel of communication exists between the Government and asbestos groups in Scotland, and ensure that it is fast and efficient. I shall do everything in my power to ensure that we do not forget about the people who are suffering from those diseases. The Government will act in a co-ordinated manner to keep the spotlight on all the parties involved so that just compensation is paid as quickly as possible.

11 September (UK Victims)
1.30 pm
Mr. David Amess: All of us remember clearly what we were doing last year when aeroplanes crashed into various buildings in the United States of America. I remember only too well: I was at home, listening to the radio. Our house was being redecorated and I was amateurishly helping. When I heard the breaking news, I first thought that it was some sort of stunt—it was so unreal. I went downstairs to turn on the television and witnessed what I thought at the time was a remake of a Hollywood movie, so incredible were the scenes. Little did I realise that the terrible events that took place would affect several of our constituents, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).
As politicians, we know that it is possible to forget such events too quickly. The terrible attack last year was undoubtedly the result of failure in all sorts of areas. If the world were in a good state, the planes would not have crashed into those buildings in the United States. I hope that people in all countries will never forget the events of last year, but will continue to work towards recreating the world order so that such a thing can never, ever happen again. That will not be easy to achieve, but it is something that politicians in the UK Parliament should not forget.
It is easy to forget the loved ones of the victims. I had no idea how closely we in Essex were involved in the matter until I received a letter just a few weeks ago from Mrs. Berenice Gould, who is the mother of Mrs. Gilbey. Mrs. Gilbey, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, contacted him some considerable time ago.
I am in total command of the correspondence in which my hon. Friend has been engaged and wish to pay tribute to his efforts. He has done a magnificent job in bringing the circumstances of the widowed Mrs. Gilbey to the attention of the American authorities and in trying to get the British Government to do all that they possibly can to help her. I make no criticism whatsoever of the British Government's role in supporting the victims.
My hon. Friend and I spoke to Mrs. Gilbey last night on the telephone for more than an hour, so we are in a position to give the House an accurate account of how she feels at present. It was moving to hear her two small children aged three and seven in the background as we spoke with her. In one sense, she is entirely on her own, because her husband has no relatives at all. However, the local community has given her wonderful support. Her own circumstances were not particularly well managed. A short time after the tragedy, she was told to leave by the American authorities. Not only was she told that, but she was given no financial support. Even now, she has been given no financial support by the firm, Euro Brokers, for which her husband worked. She advised me last night that the only money that she has received has been from the Red Cross and United Way. Each week, she reports to them along with the other widows, giving them her bills. It is humiliating. I am not sure that there is any easy way around the problem, but her circumstances are dire.

67WH
Unless Mrs. Gilbey becomes an American citizen, her life policy on her husband will be taxed at 60 per cent. Not only that, but the compensation will be taxed at 60 per cent. She wants to become an American citizen; it is what she wants for her children and, indeed, it is what she believes her husband, Paul, would have wanted. She said last night that she had spent the past nine years in America building a home that she believed would be a future for her family. The memories of her husband are still very clear in her heart. Her children, Max and Mason, were born in the United States of America. It is the only way of life that they know. Mrs. Gilbey believes that her little family have suffered enough. They deserve the issue to be resolved quickly.
The gentleman, Paul, was a hero. He could have got out of the building. He did, but he was told by the security people that it was safe to return. He was working on the 84th floor. The second plane hit that floor. However, we have first-hand evidence from his secretary that, during the 10-minute interval, he went to the fast elevator on the 78th floor and, together with a colleague, organised that the men went down the stairs and the women and the disabled went in the elevator. As a result of helping American citizens out of the building, he lost his life.
We can all imagine how devastated Deena Gilbey was when she spoke to her husband on the mobile telephone from the building, when he had given the impression that all was well and that he was just about to see people out of the building. Mrs. Gilbey received another telephone call and heard a man's voice before the caller rang off. She thought that her husband was safe. In fact, the voice was not that of her husband, but of her husband's friend who had also been in the building. He was telephoning the home of the Gilbeys to find out if Mr. Gilbey was safe. I end with the plea from Mrs. Gilbey. She said:
"Paul's body has not been found and is unlikely to be. His grave site will always be the World Trade Centre. My children and I are experiencing a genuine longing to reach out and be close to Paul, even if the only way to do that is by visiting his grave site. I simply cannot imagine not living in the country where my husband and father of my children is buried.
I realize that nobody can give me back my husband or my children their father, but in offering me citizenship it will enable me to start to pick up the pieces of our lives."
Mrs. Gilbey also said that, for her sons to heal
"or even begin to heal, they need to be surrounded by the wonderful support system that's come out of this tragedy. People back in England keep asking, 'Why don't you just come home?' I've said I am home. I've been home for a very long time."
1.39 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), on securing this important debate. I express my thanks to him and the Minister for allowing me to contribute.
My involvement in the matter is that Deena and her late husband Paul come from Hockley, which is in my Essex constituency of Rayleigh. Although Deena Gilbey has lived in the United States for nine years, she is still a British citizen and therefore, in effect, I am her Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend has approached the case
68WH
from the viewpoint of Deena's mother—his constituent—but I am approaching it on behalf of Deena Gilbey herself.
The case was first brought to my attention last autumn by people who live in Hockley, including June and Roy Mills, and also by press coverage, not least in the local Evening Echo newspaper. I wrote to Deena Gilbey in November last year to offer any assistance that I could and we have remained in contact since. I wrote to the Prime Minister last week about her case and, not unreasonably, I am still waiting for a reply.
As we have heard, Deena's husband Paul worked in the financial markets and was murdered by terrorists on 11 September. According to several eye witnesses, he had helped to evacuate people, many of whom were American citizens, from the stricken towers before he lost his life. He left behind his widow Deena and their two sons: Max, who is aged seven, and Mason who is turning four. Both sons were born in the United States and have American citizenship. Although their parents had applied for residency under the American green card system, their application had not been finalised when Paul Gilbey was murdered. Consequently, the United States' immigration authorities argue that because Deena's husband died before the application was finalised, Deena Gilbey will have to leave the United States, even though her US-born children would be permitted to remain. It is perverse that after all the support that the United Kingdom has rightly given to the United States in the war against terror, the US authorities should place Deena Gilbey in such an invidious position six months later.
The Patriot Act, which was passed in America in the aftermath of 11 September, relates to the case. It provides for a grace period of one year for people in Deena's situation—the period expires this September. It also provides for the facility to exercise discretion in special cases to allow people to remain beyond that period. However, as things stand, officials of the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service refuse to interpret the discretionary clause in Deena Gilbey's favour.
Deena Gilbey has nothing in writing from the INS—or anyone else—to assure her that she will be allowed to remain in the United States beyond September 2002. My hon. Friend and I personally double checked that with her by telephone last night. She told me that she had been given endless warm words but that no one would give her a definitive letter to guarantee her right to remain in the United States. Moreover, even if she were given a temporary extension under the Patriot Act, she fears that the INS could revoke that at a later date because the power is discretionary.
Deena is still living in Chatham, New Jersey, and Senator John Corzine, who is a Democrat from that state, has taken up her case. He is trying to resolve the issue on Deena's behalf once and for all. He plans to introduce what is, in effect, a private Member's Bill in the US Senate to allow Deena Gilbey to be naturalised as a US citizen and, thus, to remain in the United States indefinitely without relying on the whim of the INS. That would give the additional advantage of clarifying her personal financial and tax position, which would allow her to be taxed more advantageously as a US citizen along the same lines as the other US widows of the attack.

69WH
I have been in touch with Senator Corzine's office for some time about the draft Bill. If it is to stand a chance of becoming law under US procedures, it requires the initial sponsorship of 12 Senators. It currently has five sponsors—both Democrat and Republican—including Senator Corzine and Senator Hillary Clinton from New York. Deena has strong support from local residents in Chatham, including US families who lost relatives on 11 September. The mayor and the local chamber of commerce have written to US senators in support and 500 local schoolchildren have written to President Bush asking him to help.
Deena Gilbey has done nothing wrong. Her husband was a brave man, arguably a hero, who died trying to help others—mainly US citizens—to live. As a result, she is now a widow with two small children, caught in a bureaucratic trap that is not of her making. Her husband intended to raise their children in America as US citizens and she wants to carry out his wish.
The United Kingdom has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in support of the war against terror. I therefore ask the Minister if anything can be done through diplomatic channels to support Deena Gilbey and, ideally, to back Senator Corzine's Bill to settle the matter once and for all. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West for helping to raise this crucial issue and I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
1.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his contribution. Both have a personal as well as constituency interest and they put their cases extremely forcefully. As both hon. Gentlemen know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked by the Prime Minister to oversee the co-ordination of appropriate support arrangements for the families of British victims of the terrible tragedy. She was keen to take part in this debate, but unfortunately had to fulfil a previous engagement outside London, so she asked me to respond on her behalf.
It is six months since the tragic events of 11 September that were so graphically illustrated, and we can all remember where we watched those appalling images unfold on the television—they were surreal. After the initial shock, when the numbness was beginning to wear off, we quickly moved into action, and the hon. Member for Southend, West congratulated the British Government on the action taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to the US and set up a network of support mechanisms for the families and victims. We took every possible step, which has now been recognised. Although we will never return those families to how they were before 11 September, most people acknowledge that the steps that we took were effective and provided some form of help.
On the question of Mrs. Gilbey's request for US citizenship, I have been in contact with the hon. Member for Southend, West because of the personal nature of the case and I understand that other hon. Members have also written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
70WH
and to the Prime Minister. All of the letters will receive a full reply and, in the best interests of hon. Members, copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Last night, the British consulate in New York spoke to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which offered this statement:
"Mrs Gilbey has been invited to file for permanent residence under the Patriot's Act. Filing a written application will result in the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) offering a written decision either granting or not granting her application based on the facts and evidence she produces. This has long been the agency's policy, and this is the procedure provided for by the Patriot's Act. Policy guidelines explaining the application process were faxed to Mrs Gilbey's attorney on 8th March 2002. They have also been faxed to the British Consulate-General, New York, on the 18th March 2002. The INS look forward to assisting Mrs Gilbey once she has taken the pro-active steps provided for her by the Patriot's Act".
The British embassy in Washington has worked with the White House, the State Department and Congress to ensure that Mrs. Gilbey and other British family members whose immigration or resident status in the US may have been affected by the terrorist attack are treated fairly and sympathetically. The British ambassador in Washington raised that and other cases with the chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee on 9 October 2001. Following that, the US Congress passed, and President Bush signed, antiterrorist legislation—the Patriot Act—which allows all British family members affected by 11 September to continue living and working in the US.
The US Immigration and Naturalisation Service has assured Mrs. Gilbey that she does not face deportation. The British consulate general office in New York, which is in close touch with the INS and Mrs. Gilbey, has confirmed that she has not been served with a deportation notice. However, as the statement makes clear, she has been invited to make an application for permanent residency under the Patriot Act. I understand that papers about that were forwarded to her attorney on 8 March 2002. Once she has submitted her application, it will be up to the INS to make its decision. The British consulate general continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that she and others like her do not have to suffer any further.
We will take up the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, West with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our representatives in New York. I cannot give answers to some of the points raised this afternoon, but I shall make sure that responses are made to hon. Members and put in the Library for public scrutiny. In conclusion, our sympathies are with such families, both in the US and the UK, and we will do everything that we can to make sure that their circumstances are regularised as quickly as possible.
Mr. Francois: We have heard that some further checking needs to be done now that the full facts are available. The Minister says that he will follow that up both with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our people in New York. We are grateful for that. However, does he appreciate that the best way to round off the issue and close off all the anomalies would be for Deena Gilbey to be allowed to become a US citizen?
Mr. Caborn: That may well be the resolution to the matter. As I said, I am not sure what "permanent

71WH
residency" means in its legal context, and whether it brings the security that the hon. Gentlemen have asked about. They raised questions about life policies and 60 per cent. taxation. I cannot answer those technical questions now, but I will make sure that we get answers to them. I shall also ensure that we raise the matter with the companies that had responsibility, as the hon. Gentlemen mentioned. If the case is as the hon. Gentlemen say it is, the issue of short to medium-term support should be revisited, and we will take it up with those companies.
Mr. Amess: I would like to thank the Minister for his courtesy on that matter. Perhaps he will pass on our thanks to the ambassador and all those who have worked so hard. Will he also bear in mind—he will not be aware of this—that the Patriot Act allows some leeway that, as Mrs. Gilbey explained last night, was included to deal with undesirables. She was a little concerned that, because of the personalities of those dealing with the matter, her case was being focused in an inappropriate direction.
I hope that the Minister will keep up the pressure, and that Mrs. Gilbey becomes an American citizen. Finally, I hope that Paul Gilbey is awarded a medal by the US Government.
Mr. Caborn: I am sure that those points will be taken up. I have no doubt that many people will read the Hansard report of the proceedings, will take those points and sentiments to heart, and will be able to act on them. The points made in this debate will be forwarded to the
72WH
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks to those who worked so hard in the US—they went beyond the call of duty in trying to ensure that everything was done for the families and victims in a way that is commensurate with what we expect of our diplomatic service.
Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister again for his courtesy. Time will now be spent double checking some of the things that the Minister agreed to undertake. He agreed to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and me of the outcome of his investigations. I would like to remain in touch with him because the problem will not be resolved overnight. Without wishing to become a pest on his diary, I wish to remain in touch as the situation develops, as does my hon. Friend.
Mr. Caborn: I have absolutely no problem with that. The overall policy of looking after the concerns of and facilitating support for the British families of the victims falls to my Department, but the specific issue of Mrs. Gilbey's citizenship is a question for the FCO. To be honest, when the debate was tabled, we were not sure what the hon. Gentlemen were seeking, so we took it in the round, so to speak. When the issue became specific, it became a focus for the FCO rather than the DCMS. However, if the hon. Gentlemen write to my Department we are more than willing to answer their questions, and, if we do not have the information, we shall get it from the FCO.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish First Minister regarding the prevention of illegal meat imports. [41518]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I regularly meet the First Minister. The Scottish Executive is working closely with UK Government Departments to help tackle the animal disease risk associated with illegal meat imports.

  Drugs
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what joint activities she is planning with the First Minister to intensify the campaign against drugs. [41519]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The First Minister and I are planning a number of possible combined activities against drugs misuse. These include matters related to the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency; the Scottish Communities Against Drugs initiative; and port police and Customs efforts to stop drugs entering the country from overseas.

  Life Assurance Industry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the role within the Scottish economy of the life assurance industry. [41520]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions on a range of issues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Long-term life funds under Scottish management currently total £100 billion.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the progress of her consultations on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [41521]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Over 775 copies of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament have been issued since its launch on 18 December 2001. It has also been accessed about 1,000 times on the Scotland Office website.

  As at 19 March, 85 responses have been received from both a range of organisations and individuals. I expect that considerably more will be received before the end of the consultation on 29 March.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the First Minister to discuss the operation of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. [41527]
  176W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister where we discuss a wide range of issues.

  Poverty
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Scottish Minister responsible for social services to discuss Government measures to alleviate poverty in Scotland. [41522]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I last met the Minister for Social Justice from the Scottish Executive on 21 January. We are making good progress on tackling poverty in Scotland. Details can be found in the Government's annual "Opportunity for All" Report and in the Executive's annual "Social Justice" Report.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received from the aggregates industry concerning the introduction of the aggregates levy in Scotland. [41523]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received from the British Aggregates Association on economic problems in the industry. [41529]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I met representatives of the British Aggregates Association on 21 January.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have claimed the winter fuel allowance for the 2001–02 winter. [41524]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Most people aged 60 or over do not need to claim their winter fuel payment. Payments have been made automatically this winter to eligible people receiving social security benefits (excluding housing benefit, council tax benefit and child benefit), or who made a successful claim for a winter fuel payment last winter.

  Details of the number of winter fuel payments made this winter are not yet available, but are expected to be similar to last winter when more than 980,000 people in Scotland benefited.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the winter fuel payment scheme. [41526]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Most people aged 60 or over at the qualifying date are entitled to a winter fuel payment, regardless of whether they receive a state retirement pension. Last winter, more than 980,000 people in Scotland received a winter fuel payment. Figures for this winter are not yet available, but are expected to be similar.

  Shipbuilding
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of the report of the Clyde shipbuilding taskforce. [41525]

  Mr. Foulkes
  One of the key recommendations identified by the work of the Clyde Shipyards Task Force involves the promotion of Clydeside's case in securing
  177W
  new export orders. I am taking forward this activity on two fronts. Firstly, in liaison with the MOD's Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), identifying appropriate opportunities for Scotland Office involvement in promoting active campaigns on behalf of Clydeside. Secondly, in discussion with the relevant interested parties, on developing trading opportunities, specifically relating to warship building, in key geographical markets. I will write to my hon. Friend with further details once available and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Cross-border Road Links
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on cross-border road links, with special reference to the A1. [41528]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of transport-related matters.

  The upgrading of the route to the south of Dunbar has been taken forward in the A1 Route Action Plan under the auspices of the A1 Steering Group, whose membership includes the Scottish Executive, the Highways Agency, local authorities and police from both sides of the border. The steering group meets nominally once a year and I understand the last meeting was in Newcastle on 19 February 2002.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about recent discussions with Scotland's farming industry about foot and mouth. [41530]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Animal health policy, including policy on foot and mouth disease, is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Discussions between the Scottish farming industry and the Scottish Executive are a matter for Scottish Ministers to report on.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Agriculture Ministers from the Scottish Parliament on policy on foot and mouth. [41531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Animal health policy, including policy on foot and mouth disease, is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I regularly meet Scottish Ministers to discuss matters of common interest.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations she has had with Scottish Executive Ministers and European Union officials to discuss the possibility of a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreaks in Scotland. [41534]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale on 14 March 2002,Official Report, column 1207W.

  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations she has had with Scottish Executive Ministers and European Union officials on a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreaks in Scotland. [41537]
  178W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale on 14 March 2002,Official Report, column 1207W.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she intends to meet Health Ministers from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations to discuss NHS waiting lists. [41532]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 141W.

  Tourism
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will assess the impact of UK Government policies on the tourism industry in Scotland. [41533]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government are contributing to efforts to promote the recovery of tourism in Scotland. The UK tourist industry, including the industry in Scotland, will be able to benefit from the £20 million challenge fund which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has established.

  I am sure that the hon. Member will also join me in welcoming the BTA's already very successful Royal Heritage Map, promoting over 50 attractions and places of interest around the UK, noting that two of those attractions, Glamis Castle and the Queen's View are within his constituency.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are benefiting from the working families tax credit. [41535]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At August 2001, 119,062 families in Scotland were benefiting from the working families tax credit. The average award in Scotland was £80 per week.

  Barnett Formula
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the calculation of the Barnett formula. [41536]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have discussions with Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues. The Barnett Formula provides a fair deal for Scotland. It has provided stable settlements under successive governments for over 20 years.

  The Government have no plans to scrap or to review the Barnett Formula.

  European Capital of Culture
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the European capital of culture competition 2008. [41538]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am in regular contact with colleagues on a wide range of matters, including cultural issues of relevance to Scotland and the UK. The award of the
  179W
  European City of Culture would be a boost for any of our cities and towns throughout the UK. I am very aware of the interest shown by Inverness and the Highlands in bidding to become the European City of Culture in 2008 and wish them well with their bid.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Value for Money
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what steps she has taken to promote better value for money in the execution of her duties at her Department. [41543]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I am always conscious of the need to secure value for money in my role as Advocate-General. The organisation of my office as part of the Scotland Office provides for efficient operation and contributes towards better value for money.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the progress of the court of protection pilot scheme in Preston. [41551]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The pilot was launched on 1 October 2001. It is testing whether holding Court of Protection hearings locally for contested matters and fund management benefits parties by reducing the time, cost and anxiety involved in attending court. A full evaluation report will be available by the end of April 2002, but early indications are that local hearings will prove to be more convenient to parties, their families and their legal representatives. If successful, the Lord Chancellor will consider extending the scheme to other parts of England and Wales.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of Evesham magistrates court. [41554]

  Mr. Wills
  The hon. Member will be aware that decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in the West Mercia area are for the West Mercia Magistrates' Courts Committee to determine, in consultation with the local paying authority.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures his Department uses to assess the work load in different magistrates' courts in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [43775]

  Mr. Wills
  Work load, in the form of completed cases, performed in the magistrates courts is collected by each of the 42 Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) and collated centrally. Each MCC provides the numbers of completed proceedings in one of 14 case types (as detailed 180W
  in the attached list) and agreed weightings are applied to each case type to provide an overall unitary value of case load.

  Case types:

  Indictable/triable either way

  Breaches

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  Youth (all categories)

  Section 8 orders

  Emergency Protection Orders

  Care proceedings

  All other family

  Licensing sessions

  Licensing petty

  Other applications

  Means inquiries

  Right to Representation (formerly Legal aid).

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received on the closure of magistrates courts in North Yorkshire. [43844]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has received six representations on the closure of magistrates courts in North Yorkshire. It is the Government's policy that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for each magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities.

  Auld Report
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had with the central council of the magistrates courts committees concerning the Auld report; and if he will make a statement. [41555]

  Mr. Wills
  I met with the central council of the magistrates courts committees on 31 January to discuss their views on Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts. The central council have also submitted a written response to the report which is available on our website. Their views are being considered along with the other responses received and will help inform the Government's conclusions on the report's recommendations.

  Maintenance Agreements
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the enforcement of maintenance agreements made by Scottish courts in English courts. [41556]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under Scots Law a maintenance agreement can be drawn up by means of a Minute of Agreement. (This is an agreement entered into by two or more people, usually drawn up before a solicitor). If there is a clause of consent for registration in the Books of Council and Session and sheriff court, this can then be transferred under section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
  181W
  Section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 deals with cross border judgments in the UK. In this section "judgment" can mean any document which in Scotland has been registered for execution in the Books of Council and Session or in the sheriff court books kept for any Sheriffdom. If a Minute of Agreement has been registered for execution, this can therefore be transferred to the appropriate court in England under that section.

  An individual who is in possession of a Minute of Agreement, that has not been registered, has another option. For example, if a party did not subsequently adhere to the obligations stated in the minute, the other party would be able to present the Minute of Agreement to the appropriate court in Scotland and request that a maintenance order is granted. In the event that an order was granted, it could be transferred to another part of the UK under section 16(2)(b) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950.

  An order made in a Scottish court, in relation to either spousal or child maintenance can be transferred to the appropriate court in England for registration and enforcement under section 16(2)(b) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950.

  Subject to the provisions of section 18 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, a maintenance order registered in a court in any part of the United Kingdom may be enforced in that part of the United Kingdom to which it is sent in all respects as if it had been made by that court and as if that court had had jurisdiction to make it.

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on payment of fees by the Legal Aid Board to members of the legal profession; and if she will make a statement. [41557]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In making any remuneration order for publicly funded legal work administered through the Legal Services Commission (LSC), formerly the Legal Aid Board, the Lord Chancellor is required by section 25(3) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to have regard to

  (a) the need to secure the provision of services of the description to which the order relates by a sufficient number of competent persons and bodies;

  (b) the cost to public funds; and

  (c) the need to secure value for money.

  The Lord Chancellor is required by section 25(2) to consult the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society before making any such order.

  Payments made to members of the legal profession for publicly funded work under the General Criminal or General Civil contracts are of an agreed monthly amount and are paid on a regular basis. In addition, the Lord Chancellor requires the Legal Services Commission to publish targets for bill processing and payment in their annual report. The Commission monitors performance against these targets on a monthly basis.

  Social Exclusion
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what role Community Legal Services Partnerships play in combating social exclusion. [42355]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  By planning and co-ordinating local help and advice and by developing referral systems, Community Legal Service Partnerships are improving access to good quality legal services, so bringing valuable help and assistance to many of society's most vulnerable groups and individuals. In so doing they act as a valuable mechanism with which to help combat social exclusion. Through their growing involvement in Local Strategic Partnerships, representatives from Community Legal Service Partnerships are also able to ensure that legal and advice services play a central role within local community strategies to promote neighbourhood renewal.

  Freedom of Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money was spent on advertising the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information to the public in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [43449]

  Mr. Wills
  None. Information about the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is available on the websites of the Lord Chancellor's Department (www.lcd.gov.uk) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman (www.ombudsman.org.uk).

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has conducted of the length of time Governments in other countries have taken to implement their Freedom of Information Acts; and if he will place the results of this research in the Library. [43451]

  Mr. Wills
  I have assessed the implementation of similar legislation in some other countries from various published materials. In summary, other countries have implemented their freedom of information legislation within different time scales. The Canadian federal freedom of information legislation was enacted in June 1982 and came into force in July 1983. The New Zealand Official Information Act was enacted in December 1982 and came into force in July 1983. However, these countries were able to implement their Acts over a shorter time scale than is proposed in the United Kingdom because of the more limited scope of their legislation. The Canadian Act applies only to information held by Government Departments and most Government agencies, roughly 150 bodies, while the New Zealand legislation applies only to central Government. In contrast, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply to approximately 70,000 bodies across the whole of the public sector. The Irish Act was signed into law in April 1997. It will eventually have roughly the same scope as the United Kingdom Act, although generally it is not retrospective in effect unlike the UK Act. It has been rolled out on an incremental basis from April 1998 onwards and it is likely that their implementation period will be longer than the time taken to fully implement the UK Act. The duties on public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act will come into effect in
  183W
  stages from November 2002 to January 2005 and the Act will be fully in force 11 months ahead of the statutory deadline.

  City Status (Northern Ireland)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the decision was made to award city status to a second town in Northern Ireland; and on whose recommendation it was based. [44655]

  Mr. Wills
  Decisions on the award of city status to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee were made in February 2002, when the Queen approved the recommendations of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. The decision to grant city status to both Lisburn and Newry was based on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Children Act
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she had to take up and implement the recommendations of the Children Act Sub-Committee of her Family Law Advisory Committee in its report entitled, Making Contact Work; whether(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation will be necessary to bring about change in practice; and what timetable may be expected for legislation. [43426]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government acknowledge the valuable contribution the report 'Making Contact Work' will make in addressing this difficult and sensitive area. The report makes a large number of recommendations, including some which would require legislative changes, on the facilitation and enforcement of contact between children and a parent who no longer lives with them. The Government are considering the proposals very carefully and will publish their response in due course. The Government remain committed to the principle that the welfare of the child must be paramount in any decision-making concerning a child's future, including decisions relating to contact.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish HM Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate's report of its programme of visits to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service during 2001. [44805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  HM Magistrates Courts Inspectorate (MCSI) has published its report 'Setting Up: Report of Programme of Visits to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service' today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies may be obtained from the Inspectorate.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what key performance measures and targets the Lord Chancellor has set for the Public Guardianship Office Executive Agency for 2002–03. [44806]
  184W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has set the following key performance measures (KPMs) and targets for the Public Guardianship Office for 2002–03:

  KPM1: To develop an effective system for identifying client needs.

  Target:
  To carry out an annual customer satisfaction survey of panel and lay receivers to provide quantitative feed back data on PGO services as perceived by receivers by 31 December 2002.
  To run four receiver and client focus groups in different parts of the country by 31 March 2003 to provide qualitative data to inform the Needs Assessment project of receiver needs.
  To have completed the design and development phases of the Needs Assessment project and to have commenced the implementation phase by 15 January 2003.

  KPM2: To increase the proportion of effective visits.

  Target:
  To maintain the current level of visits (6,000 per annum plus a visit to all new receivership clients).
  To achieve 75 per cent. effective visits over the year.

  KPM3: To increase the percentage of accounts collected on time and reviewed on time, as a basis for effective action to meet clients' needs.

  Target:
  To complete the review of 100 per cent. of accounts received or have requested further information within five weeks (25 working days) of receipt (to apply to both Receivership and Protection clients).
  To collect 60 per cent. of accounts within two calendar months of the accounting end date, 80 per cent. within four calendar months of the accounting end date, and 100 per cent. within six calendar months of the accounting end date referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients (applies to Protection clients only).
  To review and set appropriate targets for 2003–04 by 31 March 2003.

  KPM4: To improve investment performance.

  Target:
  To ensure that annually 85 per cent. and on a three year rolling basis 80 per cent. of measured funds perform in line with a model performance based upon the Association of Private Client Investment Managers' and Stockbrokers' (APCIMS) capital indices; or an acceptable performance is achieved, taking into account clients' overall circumstances, including the income generated.
  To establish benchmark appropriate to new investment strategies by the date those strategies are implemented.

  KPM5: To secure an improved service in:
  responding to correspondence
  payment out
  getting information to receivers once appointed to enable them to support our clients
  closing cases
  registering Enduring Power of Attorneys (EPAs)

  Target:
  Responding to correspondence: Respond to 95 per cent. of letters, faxes and e-mails within 15 working days of receipt.
  Payment out: For 95 per cent. of requests, pay out or despatch direction to external receiver allowing access to funds to use for benefit of client within 15 working days of receipt.

  185W
  Information to receivers: Despatch court orders and directions to applicants, receivers or their representatives in 95 per cent. of cases within 25 working days of their being made.
  Closing cases: For 95 per cent. of complete applications for final directions, transfer all of clients' assets to personal representatives within 25 working days.
  Registering EPAs: Registering and returning 95 per cent. of correctly lodged EPAs where there are no objections within five working days of the end of the statutory waiting period.

  KPM6: To establish protocols for working with our receivers and our partners setting out the outcomes we intend to achieve jointly for clients

  Target:
  To: review the protocols established with key partner organisations in 2001–02 to ensure they are working properly by 31 October 2002; consider the usefulness of protocols with agencies identified in phase 2 of the partner protocol work stream by 31 October 2002; develop agreed written protocols setting out the outcomes we intend to achieve jointly for clients and memorandums of understanding setting out the ways we will work together to achieve these outcomes by 31 March 2003; draft agreed plans by 31 March 2003 for the development of each protocol over the next two to three years.

  KPM7: To demonstrate our capability through a range of measures.
  percentage staff have required skills and competencies
  percentage receiving training
  an effective research programme which underpins planning to meet clients' needs
  stage reached in developing an automated case management system—the MERIS project

  Target:
  Staff skills and competencies: At least 90 per cent. of permanent staff to have a current Personal Development Plan which identifies their learning and development needs and makes specific plans to develop their skills and competencies to defined standards.
  Staff training: At least 75 per cent. of permanent staff to receive at least three days training in line with their Personal Development Plan.
  Research: To commission two research studies, one by 30 September 2002 and one by 31 March 2003 and to progress these to timetable in line with PLO's published programme of research.

  Stage reached in developing an automated case management system—the MERIS project:

  By 31 March 2003:
  system design to be reviewed and approved (against agreed contract);
  confirm specification for first phase implementation:
  first phase of implementation to be accepted, following user acceptance testing.
  Gateway 4 Review to be undertaken and provide approval to proceed;
  data to be migrated in accordance with phased implementation plan, client service trained in accordance with first phase plan and first phase to be fully implemented.

  KPM8: To demonstrate improvements in efficiency by achieving a unit cost per case target set by the Lord Chancellor.

  Target:
  To achieve a unit cost per case of not more than £480.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department has plans to(a) amend and (b) seek the repeal of the Data Protection Act 1998. [43448]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government is continuing to keep the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998 under review. At present we have no plans to amend the Act. Repeal of the Act would be inconsistent with our international obligations.

  Census (1901)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he plans to include Birmingham in the number of centres providing 1901 Census Online availability. [43450]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office has provided Birmingham City Council with the necessary technical configurations so that its library service can access the 1901 Census online. Once work on compatibility issues has been completed by the City Council, Birmingham should be ready for operation as a service centre when the 1901 online census is relaunched.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Modernisation
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the President of the Council if he will consult the voluntary, business and trade union sectors on proposals to modernise the House of Commons. [41562]

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to use electronic means of consultation on his proposals for reform of the House of Commons. [41571]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the President of the Council if he will consult the voluntary, business and trade union sectors on his proposals to modernise the House. [41568]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I understand that the Modernisation Committee has taken evidence from a number of individuals and organisations as to how Parliament might be made more topical, relevant and effective. I have been working with the National Council of Voluntary Organisations to ensure that the voluntary sector has a full input into this consultation, and am hoping to do more in the coming months.

  I know the Leader of the Commons is very keen to hear the views of as many people as possible on the contents of the memorandum he presented to the Modernisation Committee in December. To this end I understand the Modernisation Committee is exploring the possibility of an e-consultation.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the President of the Council if he will consult right hon. and hon. Members on the need for reform of conventions in the House. [41563]
  187W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend welcomes ideas for reform from all Members. Where there are outmoded or inappropriate conventions in the House, the Modernisation Committee will be happy to consider proposals for reform.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the President of the Council what consideration he has given to improving the links between young people and Parliament in his proposals for modernisation of the House. [41569]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend hopes that his proposals will make Parliament more accessible to all groups, including young people. In addition, the parliamentary education service does a great deal to inform and involve young people.

  Private Members' Bills
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council how many private Members' Bills introduced by(a) Government Back Benchers and (b) Opposition Members have been enacted in each of the last 10 years; and what proposals he has to give greater opportunity for Back-Bench legislative initiatives to become law. [41566]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Session

  Number of PMBs enacted

  Introduced by Government Back Bencher

  Introduced by Opposition Member

  1991–92

  13

  11

  2

  1992–93

  15

  12

  3

  1993–94

  16

  11

  5

  1994–95

  17

  11

  6

  1995–96

  17

  12

  5

  1996–97

  22

  18

  4

  1997–98

  10

  7

  3

  1998–99

  8

  4

  4

  1999–2000

  6

  3

  3

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals at present.

  House of Lords Reform
  David Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress on Lords reform. [41567]

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the President of the Council how many recent representations he has received calling for a wholly or substantially elected House of Lords. [41570]

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the response to the Government's White Paper on House of Lords reform. [41572]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to my hon. Friends the Members for Slough and Rhondda in the House today,Official Report, column 163.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council (1) when he will respond to the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on Lords Reform; [43818]
  188W
  (2) how many responses were received to the White Paper on Lords Reform; and if he will make a statement. [43812]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Slough and Rhondda,Official Report, column 163.

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council what recent representations he has received on the alteration of timing of questions to the Prime Minister. [41573]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations about the ability of those living in the north of England to attend Prime Minister's questions if it is brought forward significantly.

  Traffic Disruption
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the level of consultation between his office and the House authorities with other bodies to ensure that traffic disruption is kept to a minimum while the House is sitting. [41833]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  At the beginning of each Session the House issues the Sessional Order which instructs the Commissioner of Police to keep the streets around the Houses of Parliament free from obstruction so that Members and Peers have a clear passage.

  House officials liaise with the traffic authorities of Westminster city council and Transport for London. When problems, such as traffic congestion occur both bodies have been helpful in seeking to alleviate the problems.

  If the right hon. Member has a specific point of concern, I would welcome further details.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42468]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The number of staff employed by the Privy Council in each of the last 10 years is shown in the table.

  Staff in post

  1991

  32

  1992

  32

  1993

  33

  1994

  33

  1995

  38

  1996

  37

  1997

  35

  1998

  33

  1999

  32

  2000

  35

  2001

  140

  1 Four staff who worked in the Business Co-ordination Unit transferred to the Cabinet Office.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for changing sitting hours of the House. [41565]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend's proposals are contained in his memorandum to the Modernisation Committee. The Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the proposals and welcomes the views of MPs on reform.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41064]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This figure can be provided only at disproportionate costs, but the total amount would be modest as there is little requirement for travel in the Department.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39081]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 45W.

  The details of the other leasing arrangements in my Department are:

  Financial year

  Cost1 (£)

  Photocopiers

  1998–99

  13,216

  1999–2000

  16,770

  2000–01

  16,770

  2001–02

  17,455

  Drinking water coolers

  1998–99

  363

  1999–2000

  480

  2000–01

  480

  2001–02

  480

  1 Including VAT

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41019]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department does not pay relocation expenses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on referendums held since 1972 in Gibraltar on the subject of Gibraltar's relationship with(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Spain. [43489]
  190W
  Peter Hain
  There have been no referendums held in Gibraltar since 1972.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to him by Spain in respect of the future of Gibraltar. [43467]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met his Spanish counterpart under the Brussels process on 4 February 2002. I refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Secretary's statement on these talks in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 735.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to him by the Government of Gibraltar in respect of the discussions between Her Majesty's Government and Spain. [43468]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Nicholas Winterton) on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 865W.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the level of UK investment in Gibraltar has been in each of the last five years. [42405]

  Peter Hain
  No figures are available for private sector investment flows from the UK to Gibraltar. Capital investment by the Ministry of Defence in Gibraltar over the last three financial years has been as follows:

  FY

  £ million

  2001–021

  9.9

  2000–01

  7.2

  1999–2000

  3.9

  1 To date

  There was no capital investment in the previous two financial years.

  General Affairs Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2416 European Union Council of Ministers (General Affairs) meeting on 11 March; which particular suggestions or matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [44317]

  Peter Hain
  Decisions on ministerial attendance at Council meetings are taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister. I attended this meeting, representing all parts of the UK.

  It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the

  191W
  Committee and the Scottish Executive. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 11 and 12 March; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [44057]

  Peter Hain
  I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 11th March. The Council adopted the "A" points listed in document 6924/02 (with the exception of point 5, where a scrutiny reserve was introduced). It also noted the resolution, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament listed in document 5899/2. Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House. No formal votes were taken. Joint actions, a common position and council conclusions were all adopted by consensus.

  Preparation of the Barcelona European Council
  The Presidency briefed on preparations for the European Council. The Council noted a document drawing on contributions from work in various formations of the Council (ECOFIN, Employment and Social Policy, Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism and Environment Councils) on the Union's economic, social and environmental situation. The Council endorsed an updated road map, which outlines implementation plans for the sustainable development strategy agreed in Goteborg. It also adopted a framework document proposing a strategy for better integrating environmental concerns into the Union's external relations. The Council noted a Commission document on the Lisbon strategy's external dimension, which focuses on the Doha development agenda, the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development and the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  Annual Policy Strategy 2003
  The President of the Commission presented an overview of the Annual Policy Strategy for 2003. The Council noted the Commission's policy priorities and welcomed the Commission's intention to hold a comprehensive dialogue on the strategy. Discussion of the dossier will continue at the General Affairs Council in May.

  Situation in the Great Lakes Region
  The Council adopted conclusions welcoming the signing of the National Indicative Programme for the DRC on 5 February 2002. The Council adopted a common position on EU support for the implementation of the Lusaka cease-fire agreement and the DRC peace process.

  Preparation of Monterrey Conference
  The Council discussed how best to achieve success at the UN Conference on financing for development, (Montserrey, Mexico, 18–22 March). As the world's largest contributor of development aid, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling the development goals outlined in the UN Millennium accord. As agreed at Goteburg, it would seek to achieve the UN target for official development assistance (ODA) of 0.7 per cent. of GDP as soon as possible.

  External aspects of the sustainable development strategy
  The Commission's communication towards a global partnership for sustainable development was discussed and broadly welcomed by the Council. The Council agreed that work should continue so as to enable the General Affairs Council to co-ordinate the Union's position in advance of the Johannesburg World Summit in September.
  192W
  Middle East Peace Process
  The Council exchanged views on recent developments and agreed to continue working on how to best promote progress towards peace in the region. The UK supported the Presidency's idea of a statement on the MEPP at the Barcelona European Council.

  Western Balkans
  The Council welcomed a presentation by the UN Secretary General Special for Kosovo, Michael Steiner. The Council agreed with his objectives: to lay the foundation for economic progress, develop the rule of law, (including the fight against crime and violence), and to build a fair and just society. The Council welcomed the prospect of the donor's meeting for FYROM, co-hosted by the European Commission and the world bank, in Brussels on 12 March. It called on all parties and community leaders in FYROM to match the international community's determination to achieve economic recovery, inter-ethnic reconciliation and stability through the framework agreement and in the context of the stabilisation and association process.
  The Council welcomed the recent high-level talks between Belgrde and Podgorica and called on both sides to intensify their efforts and to co-operate with the High Representative to achieve early agreement on future constitutional arrangements between Serbia and Montenegro.
  The Council expressed full support for the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and noted improvement in co-operation between the countries of the region and ICTY over the last year. It underlined that co-operation with the Tribunal will be an essential element of the full realisation of the European perspectives of the countries in the region.
  The Council welcomed Special Co-ordinator for the Stability Pact, Erhard Busek, and endorsed his priority objectives for 2002 in the areas of trade and investment, infrastructure, refugee issues, cross-border co-operation, small arms and light weapons and organised crime.
  Following its conclusions of 18 February, the Council adopted a joint action establishing a European Union Police Mission (EUPM) to provide the follow-on to the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) in Bosnia-and-Herzegovina (BiH) from 1 January 2003. The Council also adopted a joint action concerning the appointment of Lord Ashdown as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.

  Zimbabwe
  The Council took stock of the latest development in the Presidential elections in Zimbabwe and agreed to monitor the situation closely over the coming days.

  Human Rights and the next UN Commission in Geneva
  The Council reaffirmed the EU's commitment to liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. It recalled the adoption of EU guidelines on human rights dialogues on 13 December 2001 and the addition of supplementary guidelines on the death penalty and torture, reflecting the overriding importance the EU attaches to this subject. It reaffirmed that the fight against terrorism must respect human rights and the rule of law.
  The Council expressed its satisfaction with the central role the Commission on Human Rights has achieved and the major role played by the EU and its member states at this forum. At the next CHR forum, the EU will present a significant number of country and thematic initiatives: on the death penalty, the rights of the child and the human rights situation in specific countries. The Council reaffirmed the EU's commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an essential means for promoting respect for humanitarian and human rights law and welcomed the fact that the ratification of the Rome statute of the ICC was advancing at a fast pace.
  The Council decided that the EU at the UN Commission on Human Rights would convey its deep concern at the serious violations of human rights in China and the lack of progress in a number of areas. The EU will urge China to take a number of specific steps to improve the situation on the ground. If a draft resolution on human rights in China is tabled at the 58th session

  193W
  of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU will study its contents carefully. If such a draft resolution is put to a vote, EU members of the Commission will consider favourably voting for its adoption.

  Minority Languages
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of scrutiny was conducted in relation to the assessment of(a) Ulster Scots, (b) Lallands, (c) Northern Irish Gaelic and (d) Cornish before considering whether each should be specified by the Government under the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [44242]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Charter does not set out what, if any, kind of scrutiny should be undertaken before specifying a language under its provisions. In the case of the UK, HMG has taken advice from the relevant Administrations of the UK on which languages to specify.

  (a) Scots has had a presence in the island of Ireland for approximately four centuries. Ulster Scots ("Ullans") is defined in the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999 as
  "the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal".
  Ministers decided that this qualified it for specification under the terms of the Charter.

  (b) The Scots language has a long history and many points of difference from standard English. In the light of these considerations, Ministers decided that it should be considered a language and thus be covered by Part II of the Charter.

  (c) Irish (Gaeilge) has been spoken throughout the island of Ireland for at least two millennia. The 1991 Census identified 142,003 people in Northern Ireland (9.4 per cent. of the population) who claimed competence in the language. Ministers decided that this qualified it for specification under the terms of the Charter.

  (d) The Government office for the south-west commissioned an independent study in order to provide a sound factual basis for informing HMG's on-going assessment of its position on Cornish in relation to the Charter.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money and what other resources the Government have allocated for debate and information about the convention on the future of Europe; what assessment he has made of the money and resources made available by other member states; and if he will make a statement. [43020]

  Peter Hain
  The Government support a national debate on the future of Europe. This will be one of the calls on the FCO European Union Command's public diplomacy budget.

  The resources made available in other member states are a matter for them.

  EU Information Campaign
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost is of his Department's EU information campaign; and if he will make a statement on its purpose. [43610]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's EU information campaign has cost a total of £236,038 to date for the financial year 2001–02. The campaign aims to help to raise awareness and understanding of the European Union and Britain's role within it.

  UK Citizens (France)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the treatment of UK citizens held in prison in France, with particular reference to(a) access to legal representation, (b) access to an interpreter and (c) time taken in proceeding to trial. [42715]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We often receive representations on behalf of UK citizens held in prison in France. We look into each case on an individual basis and discuss the details of the case with the detainee. We do not record statistics on the points raised by my hon. Friend. It would involve disproportionate cost to provide the information requested.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. [43549]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom fully supports the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in fulfilling its mandate to bring to justice persons allegedly responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, to render justice to the victims, and to contribute to the restoration of peace by promoting reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia.

  The Tribunal's Chief Prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, held discussions with the Foreign Secretary on 14 March about the Tribunal's future. Her stated aim is to complete the Tribunal's work by 2008. The UK supports her in this aim. However, this timetable is conditional upon states in the former Yugoslavia co-operating with the Tribunal and beginning to take responsibility for trying lower level war criminals in their jurisdiction. We continue to encourage the states in former Yugoslavia to take these necessary steps.

  International Criminal Court
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of the International Criminal Court. [43550]

  Mr. MacShane
  Good progress is being made towards the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The UK ratified in October 2001. 55 states have ratified to date.
  195W
  The court will enter into force upon the 60th ratification of the Rome Statute. We expect the deposit of the 60th ratification this summer with the court entering into force by the end of this year. The United Kingdom is urging other states, in our bilateral contacts and with EU partners and associated states (in pursuance of the EU common position on the ICC) to ratify the Rome Statute.

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1997 he has made representations to his Croatian counterpart regarding the killing of Private Simon Jeans in Split, Croatia, in September 1996. [43303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised Private Jean's case with the Croatian Defence Minister when he visited the UK in 2000. The then Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), also raised the case on several occasions. The case has been officially raised at various levels on numerous other occasions. Our consular staff in London and Zagreb continue to offer full support and assistance to Private Jean's family.

  Holocaust Denial
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Italian Government concerning the conference on Holocaust denial to be held in Trieste at the end of March; and if he will make a statement. [43479]

  Peter Hain
  None. We have not been informed of the Trieste meeting. The Government deplore Holocaust denial—as do all our EU partners. The Government are working at many levels to promote Holocaust education, remembrance and research, both at home, through for example the national curriculum and the annual Holocaust Memorial Day; and overseas through its membership of the International Task Force on post-Holocaust issues.

  Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. [43548]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Counter-Terrorism Committee was established to monitor implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), which imposed mandatory obligations on all states to prevent and suppress terrorist financing and deny terrorists safe havens. The British Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, is its chairman.

  As of 11 March 2002, the Counter Terrorism Committee had received reports from 135 of the UN's 189 member states. This is an unprecedented response rate, demonstrating the importance the entire international community attaches to fighting terrorism.

  The Counter-Terrorism Committee is now in the process of analysing these reports, and seeking further information from states where necessary. The picture
  196W
  being built up should help the committee and states concerned to identify and address areas in which existing counter-terrorism structures need to be improved.

  Sub-Continent
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his efforts to encourage the Governments of India and Pakistan to sign up to the(a)
  non-proliferation and (b) test ban treaties. [43808]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have regular contacts with both India and Pakistan on the full range of disarmament and non-proliferation issues. We are currently encouraging both countries to reduce nuclear tension in the region by engaging in a dialogue on confidence building measures. We also emphasise that our long-term goal is for India and Pakistan to abide by their obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1172, including accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapons states and signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

  Iraq
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions his Department has taken to secure the reinstatement of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. [43530]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have continuously urged Iraq to co-operate with the UN, particularly on weapons inspections. Security Council Resolution 1284—a UK initiative—offered for the first time the suspension of UN sanctions as an interim step pending the complete elimination of Iraq's WMD, which would in turn lead to the full lifting of sanctions. We support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to persuade Iraq to co-operate with the UN through renewed dialogue, while making clear that there can be no watering down of Iraq's obligations under UN resolutions.

  Middle East
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to stop the violence between the Palestinians and Israelis; and if he will make a statement. [43221]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are profoundly concerned at the continuing violence in the middle east. We believe United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397 is a clear expression of the international desire to end the violence. In this context we welcome the return of US envoy General Zinni to the region, and the Saudi Arabian initiative. We urge both parties to support Zinni's efforts to broker a ceasefire and implement the Tenet security workplan and Mitchell Committee recommendations.

  UK-Sudan Relations
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK-Sudan relations. [39551]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have a full bilateral relationship with Sudan. Our focus there remains the search for peace and, in this respect, my right hon. Friend the Foreign
  197W
  Secretary recently announced the appointment of Alan Goulty as the UK Special Representative for Sudan. Mr. Goulty will continue our policy of engagement with all parties to the conflict in an attempt to bring an end to the suffering caused by so many years of war. We continue to support the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process, and, accordingly, the IGAD Declaration of Principles, which includes the right of self-determination for southerners. We also continue to promote democracy and human rights in Sudan.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39102]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office conducted a publicity campaign in the UK in 1998 to reduce the number of ticketless fans travelling to France for the World Cup Finals and to explain what consular services were available. The Department also provides information on Britain and the EU for the British public. The aim is to increase knowledge of UK membership of the EU. Tables 1 and 2 give figures for expenditure and numbers of staff involved.

  Table 1: consular publicity campaign

  Cost to public funds (£)

  Staff

  1998–99

  1,000,000

  3

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  2001–02

  0

  0

  Note:

  Methods of evaluation included a face-to-face omnibus survey, before and after the campaign, on a targeted audience of football fans aged between 18 and 40.

  Table 2: information on the EU

  Cost to public funds (£)

  Staff

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  102,574

  5

  2000–01

  258,000

  8

  2001–02

  1236,038

  9

  1 To date

  Note:

  Methods of evaluation have included hit counters on websites and an opinion poll in 2001.

  Information on publicity or advertising campaigns organised by UK missions overseas could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42421]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO has 44 people job-sharing (0.78 per cent. of FCO staff), two people term working (0.03 per cent. of FCO staff) and 130 people engaged in 198W
  other forms of flexible working ie part-time, home working and compressed hours (2.3 per cent. of FCO staff).

  Other arrangement include staggered hours, flexi-time and home working.

  The FCO is actively exploring the scope to offer increased flexibility to staff in order to meet the growing demand for a healthy work/life balance and to improve our record on diversity. This has the personal support of the Secretary of State.

  Diplomatic Guidelines
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 63W, what guidelines there are to inform diplomats on how to assess whether representations will benefit the UK; and if he will make a statement. [42914]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39112]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows for this Department:

  Council Directive (89/552/EEC) of 3 October 1989 on the "Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities", as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 June 1997.

  Directive 2001/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 amending Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state.

  Cost information in the form requested in part (b) of the question is not held in this Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departments are required to produce regulatory impact assessments for proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs on business, charities or voluntary organisations. Copies of these are available in the Commons and Lords Libraries.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the provision of financial support for international sporting events in the UK. [43439]
  199W
  Mr. Caborn
  The benefits to the United Kingdom of hosting international sporting events are enormous. As well as encouraging economic investment and tourism, such events leave legacies of sporting development.

  The provision of financial support for major events bids is a matter for the Sports Councils to determine against their clear and robust funding criteria. UK Sport currently makes available approximately £1.6 million per year in Lottery funding to assist with the bidding processes for, and the staging of, major sporting events in the UK. Sport England considers funding applications for these purposes against its general funding criteria.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many organisations in receipt of Lottery grants in 2000–01 were subject to special investigations arising from concerns about how the money was used; and if she will make a statement. [43810]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held centrally. The National Lottery distributing bodies make decisions independently of the Government on the award and monitoring of Lottery grants.

  The distributing bodies are required by the financial directions issued to them under section 26 (3), (3A) and (4) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998) to attach conditions to any National Lottery grant award. These conditions must include the provision that the grant must be used for the purpose set out in the application made by the recipient, and the condition that the grant may have to be repaid in full or in part if any of the grant conditions are breached.

  The financial directions issued to each distributing body also require the body to maintain effective controls to prevent and detect fraud and have systems in place to deal effectively with cases of fraud, however they might have been identified. Distributors are expected to ensure that their procedures address the risks identified in a manual on lottery fraud issued by my Department.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter of 12 December from the hon. Member for Totnes concerning Mr. C. Kelland of Dartmouth, Devon and digital television. [43139]

  Dr. Howells
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman on 17 January 2002 and I have sent him another copy of my reply.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the public service agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43257]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officer's Departmental Report for 2001–02 to 2003–04 was published in March 2001. The departmental report reported performance against 200W
  PSA targets agreed in the 1998 comprehensive Spending Review and set out the new targets agreed as a result of the SR2000 Spending Review. Since their publication in the departmental report, there have been no changes to these PSA targets.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Attorney-General expects to make a decision regarding a new inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988; and if she will make a statement. [43441]

  The Solicitor-General
  The applicant for the Attorney-General's consent to an application to the High Court for a fresh inquest under section 13(1)(b) Coroner's Act 1988 into the death of Ronald Maddison at Porton Down in 1953 is Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon. He has asked that his application is not considered until the evidence of a recently discovered witness is made available to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General will consider the application when that evidence is received.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many chartered engineers there are in her Department; and what grades they hold. [43583]

  Clare Short
  There are a total of 34 chartered engineers working for DFID as permanent and pensionable staff, of which two are at the SCS level, 16 are at the A1 level and 16 are at the A2 level.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what use her Department makes of engineers to alleviate world poverty; and if she will make a statement. [43581]

  Clare Short
  Infrastructure services play a key role in both directly addressing poverty (access to safe water, the provision of clean energy, transport, etc.) and, more indirectly, in contributing to longer term sustainable poverty elimination. Effective services supported by adequate physical infrastructure are essential if we are to promote the rates of economic growth in our partner countries necessary to meet the millennium development goals.

  DFID's engineering staff are employed both in our infrastructure and urban development department in London (where they are responsible for developing innovative approaches to meeting infrastructure service needs and managing a wide ranging knowledge and research programme) and in our country and regional offices (where they are working with our partner Governments to help them take forward programmes which draw on the innovation and knowledge programmes developed in the centre).

  I see our professional engineering staff, and the programmes they help to develop and implement, as a very important part of DFID's contribution to our poverty

  201W
  elimination agenda. I will shortly be publishing a strategy paper highlighting the importance of infrastructure services to the achievement of the millennium development goals and setting out the approach proposed by DFID to maximising the poverty elimination potential of work in the infrastructure sector.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last had discussions with officials from CDC Capital Partners regarding their investment strategy; and when she next plans to do so. [43659]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the CDC investment policy and related issues with the chairman and chief executive in November last year. Her next meeting with CDC will be in April 2002.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries in which CDC Capital Partners has closed its offices in the last three years. [43656]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 1999 CDC has closed offices in Peru, Trinidad, Jamaica, Uganda, Malawi, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Fiji. CDC continues to manage existing investments and look for new investment opportunities in these countries from neighbouring regional offices.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if it is her policy to compensate those from whom investment has been withdrawn by CDC Capital Partners. [43658]

  Hilary Benn
  No. CDC has sold some investments to other owners, well placed to develop these businesses further. These disposals have been done in a socially responsible manner.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects from which CDC Capital Partners has withdrawn its investment in the last three years. [43657]

  Hilary Benn
  CDC Capital Partners sold its investments in the following enterprises:

  Enterprise

  Country

  1999

  Rusitu Valley Development Co. (pvt) Ltd.

  Zimbabwe

  Corporacion Privada de Inversiones de Centroamerica

  Costa Rica

  Textiles Rio Lindo SA de CV

  Honduras

  Alliance Credit International

  India

  Apollo Tyres Ltd.

  India

  Credit Capital Venture Fund (India) Ltd.

  India

  DSQ Software Ltd.

  India

  Modi Mirlees Blackstone Ltd.

  India

  Wipro Financial Services

  India

  Blantyre Netting Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Vanik Inc. Ltd.

  Sri Lanka

  Neopac (Swaziland) Ltd.

  Swaziland

  Trinidad Cement Ltd.

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2000

  Industrial Credit Co. Zambia

  Zambia

  Safety, Security and Justice Management (pty)

  South Africa

  Clovergem Celtel Ltd.

  Uganda

  Zimbabwe Development Bank

  Zimbabwe

  Tip Top Industrial Co. Ltd.

  Nicaragua

  PT Semens Andalas Indonesia

  Indonesia

  202W

  Enterprise

  Country

  2001

  Kawalazi Estate Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  Sable Farming Co. Ltd.

  Malawi

  East Umbara Tea Co.

  Tanzania

  Rwenzori Tea Investments

  Uganda

  Chilanga Cement

  Zambia

  Mbeya Cement

  Tanzania

  Portland Cement

  Malawi

  Capital Developments Ltd.

  Malawi

  National Seed Cotton Milling

  Malawi

  Home Finance Co. Ltd.

  Fiji

  Tropik Wood Industries Ltd.

  Fiji

  Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

  India

  India Access Fund

  India

  ABC Holdings Ltd.

  Botswana

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contingency plans she has made to deal with the consequences of the elections in Zimbabwe. [43664]

  Hilary Benn
  We are very concerned about the future for ordinary Zimbabweans. The election outcome is likely to accelerate poverty and hunger. The UK is working with key stakeholders and the international community to urge policy changes on the part of the Zimbabwe Government to halt the catastrophic decline in agriculture, the economy, and social services. In parallel, we continue to provide humanitarian assistance for the vulnerable, and to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects one in three adults in Zimbabwe.

  Burundi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much overseas aid is provided to the Congolese Banyamulenge community in Burundi. [43665]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not provide any aid that is targeted specifically at the Congolese Banyamulenge community in Burundi. DFID has provided £350,000 to the British Red Cross to assist Congolese refugees in Tanzania, which include some Banyamulenge. We have also provided about £1 million in general humanitarian assistance to programmes in Burundi itself during this financial year. The UK continues to support the full implementation of the Arusha and Lusaka Peace Accords to achieve a lasting peace in the region.

  Indigenous Peoples
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the rights of indigenous peoples in her Department's development policy. [43663]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID' s aim is the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. Discrimination and marginalisation is frequently a cause of poverty, and we are seeking to ensure that poor people are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them and are aware of their rights. By adopting such an approach, we aim to promote social justice, including tackling discrimination against indigenous people and ethnic minorities.

  Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's overall aid programme in Africa is provided specifically to help rural development. [43666]

  Hilary Benn
  Around £840 million in new commitments was made to Africa last year. Of this approximately 27 per cent. was allocated to projects in support of sustainable rural livelihoods.

  Kalahari Bushmen
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to UNESCO regarding the fate of the Kalahari. [43660]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has not made any representations to UNESCO about the Kalahari. UNESCO has a strong interest in supporting San communities across Southern Africa, and DFID has co-operated with UNESCO in supporting the South African San institute.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much overseas aid is provided to the Kalahari bushmen. [43661]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK provides no assistance directly to the Kalahari bushmen. In the financial year 2000–01 the Department for International Development provided about £2 million to Botswana, for activities in education, governance, health and livelihoods creation.

  Botswana
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the value of(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid provided to the Government of Botswana for the development of game parks and national reserves in each of the last five years. [43662]

  Hilary Benn
  In 1996–7 the UK provided £425,000 for a capacity building programme in the Government of Botswana's Department of Wildlife and National Parks. The project lasted one year. The European Union is the only multilateral donor assisting in this area, and has committed over 20 million euro to wildlife conservation since 1997.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the companies from which her Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43409]

  Hilary Benn
  The companies that have provided timber and wood products over the last five years are listed. The amounts given are in some cases estimated, as the companies supply a range of products, not all of which are timber and wood, and a precise breakdown is not available.
  204W

  Company

  Amount £

  Kinnarps

  905,423

  J.S. Seating and Desking

  294,660

  Optimum Business Furniture

  226,196

  Kellys Interiors

  63,283

  Ensemble Corporation

  51,605

  Desking Systems

  55,679

  Ness

  16,092

  Guilberts

  7,108

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he consulted(a) the EBRD and (b) the World Bank before signing the letter to the Romanian Prime Minister about the SIDEX steel plant. [43770]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has not written to the Romanian Prime Minister about the Sidex steel plant.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the Office of the Prime Minister regarding future loan applications from Mr. Lakshmi Mittal to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [43772]

  Hilary Benn
  None.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from Mr. Lakshmi Mittal regarding future loan applications to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [43771]

  Hilary Benn
  None.

DEFENCE

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates Ministers in his Department have visited United States Government military bases and establishment on United Kingdom territory since 1 January 1999; which Ministers were involved; and what facilities were visited. [43476]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 January 1999, Ministers from the Ministry of Defence have visited bases made available to the United States visiting forces in the United Kingdom on a number of occasions. The most recent visit was by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to RAF Menwith Hill on 5 July 2001. Prior to this, RAF Menwith Hill was visited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, on 24 January 2000, and my noble Lord (Lord Gilbert) the then Minister for Defence Procurement, visited RAF Fairford on 3 June 1999. A number of Ministers have also visited RAF Fairford during the Royal International Air Tattoo.

  Efficiency Measures
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have accrued from the replacement of five
  205W
  contracts supporting a guided missile system with a single incentivised contract streamlined stockholdings and overheads, as noted in his Department's performance report 2000–01. [44219]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The reference in the report relates to a support contract for the Rapier FSB2 guided weapon system. This contract has been in place since April 2000. Savings of approximately £134,000 were achieved in the first year and similar levels of savings are expected throughout the remainder of the contract. Of equal importance is the increase in availability of the equipment system as a result of this contract.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have accrued to his Department from the use of incentives in the MOD's food supply contract that require the contractor to seek improved value for money on behalf of the Department. [44217]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The decision to contractorise Ministry of Defence food supply is estimated to be saving £13 million per year compared to previous arrangements. This is as a direct result of employing the contractor's commercial buying power to secure best value for money in the marketplace. The contractor does not profit from the cost of food supplied to the MOD and prices are subject to regular, independent, benchmarking. In addition to these savings the contractor's operating costs, on which the contractor does earn profit, are constrained through the use of a contracted Target Cost Incentive arrangement, under which annualised cost under-runs are shared. We are currently in negotiation over the precise amount accrued.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which sections of his budget received extra resources as a result of money gained from efficiency savings in each of the last three years; and how much was given to each. [43217]

  Mr. Ingram
  The allocation of resources within the Ministry of Defence is carried out in accordance with agreed priorities and objectives. We take into account many issues, including predicted efficiency savings. These are not managed separately and we therefore do not track how they are reinvested.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how the efficiency savings in each of the last three years were achieved; [43218]

  (2) which single efficiency measures have resulted in annual savings of over (a) £500,000, (b) £1 million and (c) £5 million. [44223]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Efficiency savings are achieved by each area of the Ministry of Defence and of the services reviewing its business and identifying ways in which it might operate more efficiently and effectively. This can involve, for example, internal restructuring, use of public private partnerships and wider markets and increased use of IT.

  The MOD does not maintain a central list of efficiency measures and the information requested on individual measures could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on financially significant efficiency measures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 was, however, provided to the House of Commons Defence Committee, and was
  206W
  published on 9 May 2001 as part of the Committee's 8th Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Examples of efficiency measures taken in 2000–01 are set out in the Departmental Performance Report 2000–01 (Cm 5290), copies of which are also available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual target is for efficiency savings to be made in his Department's spending; and how much was saved in each of the past five years. [44216]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Ministry of Defence's achievement against the efficiency target agreed in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review is set out in the Departmental Performance Report 2000–01 (Cm 5290), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The cumulative achievement is:

  £ million

  Target

  Achievement

  1998–99

  505

  594

  1999–2000

  998

  1,126

  2000–01

  1,499

  1,462

  Information on efficiency achievement in 1996–97 and 1997–98 has been archived. I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Cancelled Projects
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of(a) Lion Sun 15/99, (b) Tradewinds 01, (c) Hairspring 00, (d) Winter Deployment 00 and (e) Aswex 00 was before they were cancelled. [44663]

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

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Defence Logistics Organisation Information Technology projects have been cancelled since 1997; and what has been the total spending to date on these projects. [44215]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Defence Logistics Organisation was launched on 3 April 2000, since when none of the IT related projects or programmes that it has initiated have been cancelled.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons work has been stopped on the Defence Stores Management Solution system; and what assessment he has made of the effect this will have on the efforts of the Defence Logistics Organisation to achieve cost reductions in the delivery of its services. [44214]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Defence Stores Management Solution aims to improve inventory management by introducing new processes to provide better visibility across the entire supply chain. Work in industry on the development of a possible means of meeting this requirement has been suspended pending the outcome of the annual review of the forward defence

  207W
  programme. We are taking this opportunity to conduct a reappraisal of the options for meeting the requirement to ensure that the most effective solution is chosen to provide all the benefits, including cost reductions, that are required.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been of administering the war pension scheme in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [44020]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of administering the War Pensions Scheme is published in the Annual Report and Accounts of the War Pensions Agency; copies of which are held in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the changes his Department is considering in the Review of Armed Forces Pension Scheme will require primary legislation to effect the changes required; what the timescale is for implementing the review; and if he will make a statement. [44018]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence legal advisers are currently considering whether extant legislation for the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) could be amended or if primary legislation would be the most effective means of implementing a new scheme. The timescale for implementation is expected to be determined by factors such as the introduction of a new joint personnel administration system which would provide the IT framework for the pension scheme and for the closely associated systems for personnel data. This system is scheduled for introduction from late 2004 onwards, and we are hoping to introduce the new pension scheme around 2005–06, subject to IT and legislative requirements.

  Green Howards Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rank is held by former Privates Wayne King, Thomas Myers, Marc Hunter and Lance Corporal David White who were with the Green Howards regiment stationed at Warminster in June 2000. [43714]

  Mr. Ingram
  Former Privates Wayne King and Thomas Myers are no longer serving in the Army. Private Marc Hunter and Lance Corporal David White maintain the same ranks they held while stationed at Warminster in June 2000.

  Warship Maintenance Modernisation Programme
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Warship Maintenance Modernisation Programme. [44037]

  Mr. Ingram
  The way ahead on the Warship Support Modernisation Initiative is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is anticipated that an announcement will be made in the near future.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the investigation led by 208W
  Colonel Zemary Fazil into the death of a man and injury of his pregnant wife in Kabul on the weekend of 16 and 17 February; what statements were issued contemporaneously by the Army press office and other agencies given responsibility for press relations; what subsequent clarifications have been issued; what explanation for the incident has been given to partners in the International Security Assistance Force; how many rounds were fired by each of the members of the Parachute Regiment involved in the incident; what ranks these soldiers were; how many spent rounds were recovered in the vicinity; in whose custody scene of crime evidence has been retained; how many soldiers have been withdrawn from the area of operation; if disciplinary charges are pending; what attempts have been made by senior officers to contact the family of the deceased; and what representations have been received from the Afghan authorities. [41096]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Early on the morning of 16 February, an Observation Post manned by members of 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, reported coming under fire from as-yet-unidentified gunmen. The soldiers returned fire. At first light, a joint patrol with the Afghan Interim Authority Police was despatched to the area for follow-up action. In the vicinity of the incident, they discovered a car that had suffered damage from gunfire. On further investigation, they found in a nearby house one dead and four injured people and a new-born baby. The injured were taken to hospital. Their injuries were not life threatening.

  The Afghan Interim Authority Police are investigating this incident, with support from members of the Royal Military Police (RMP). The Afghan police have retained any evidence that they wish to and the RMP have retained other items, including the car that had been fired upon. Before the investigation is complete it would not be appropriate to comment further on details of the incident.

  The press were briefed at the time in Kabul and have been updated as necessary by the Ministry of Defence press office. Other troop-contributing nations of ISAF were informed of the incident along the same lines as the press.

  In accordance with standard procedure, the two soldiers involved in the incident were withdrawn from the area of operations. Until the RMP investigation is completed, the question of disciplinary proceedings does not arise.

  ISAF have held informal meetings with the family of the deceased man who understand that the investigation is continuing.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from his US counterpart regarding an increase in the numbers of international peacekeepers in Kabul and Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [41889]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  International Security Assistance Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the United Kingdom will cease to be the lead nation for the International Security Assistance Force
  209W
  for Kabul and its surrounding area under the terms of Annex 1 to the Bonn agreement; and if he will make a statement. [41895]

  Mr. Hoon
  Negotiations continue with Turkey in pursuit of our aim to hand over our lead nation status of the International Security Assistance Force by 30 April.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to his Turkish counterpart regarding the takeover of the ISAF command in Kabul; and if he will make a statement. [41893]

  Mr. Hoon
  Official are in close talks with their Turkish counterparts to secure Turkish agreement to take over our status as Lead Nation of the International Security Assistance Force. A joint Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth office team visited Ankara last week for further discussions with Turkish officials. I will be seeing my Turkish counterpart this week.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has made in the last two months to his European counterparts regarding the extension of the ISAF's mandate; and if he will make a statement; [41891]

  (2) what representations he has received from his European counterparts regarding the extension of the ISAF's mandate; and if he will make a statement. [41892]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have discussed a number of issues regarding the International Security Assistance Force with the defence ministers of several European countries with military personnel deployed with ISAF.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the British forces' commitment to participating in the ISAF after 30 April; [41897]

  (2) what support the British troops deployed in Kabul will give to a lead nation after 30 April. [41898]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom will remain a significant contributor to the International Security Assistance Force although we plan to reduce the level of our commitment once we relinquish the leadership of the force.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for ISAF troops to be deployed outside Kabul; and if he will make a statement. [41890]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)'s area of responsibility (AOR) is limited to Kabul and its environs, as stipulated by the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 and the Military Technical Agreement signed between the Commander ISAF and the Afghan Interim Administration on 4 January 2002. There are no plans to change this.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 947W, on Northern Ireland, if he will provide (a) the information requested up to the end of 2001 and (b) the information on injuries and fatalities to include incidents of Army use of firearms outside Army property. [42539]
  210W
  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Army were(a) royal engineers and (b) royal electrical and mechanical engineers in (i) 1997, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1987 and (iv) 1982. [43590]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures are the percentage of Royal Engineers and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers as a proportion of UK trained Army personnel.

  Percentage

  Date

  Royal Engineers

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  April 19971

  9.0

  10.3

  April 19921

  9.7

  10.0

  April 19871

  9.4

  9.7

  April 19822

  9.2

  9.7

  1 The figures are taken from a DASA-held database of officers' and soldiers' records of service.

  2 Computerised figures are not held before 1986 so these data are taken from manual records.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support is given to engineers in the armed services seeking to attain chartered status. [43588]

  Mr. Ingram
  Engineers play a vital role within the armed forces. Training is accredited where appropriate with the relevant national awarding bodies. The successful Royal Navy engineering sponsorship scheme at Southampton university is shortly to be expanded to other universities and, to maintain the high quality of our technical officer intake across Defence as a whole, will include Army and RAF officers as well. A proportion of engineering graduates are selected each year to undertake a MSc; the number depends on the operational requirement. The holders of such higher degrees can apply for chartered status. Registration costs and the first year's membership fee are granted on a case by case basis to those whose posts require such status. However, the Engineering Technology Board, which recently superseded the Engineering Council, has revised the guidance for registration. As a result, for the majority of engineering posts in the armed forces, incorporated engineer status is more appropriate than chartered engineer.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female chartered engineers, excluding reservists, there are in(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army, (c) the Royal Air Force and (d) the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; and what the corresponding numbers were for years (i) 1997, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1987 and (iv) 1982. [43587]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of female chartered engineers is set out in the table.

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  1 February 2002

  2

  2

  7

  1 April 1997

  2

  1

  3

  1 April 1992

  0

  0

  2

  211W
  There are currently no female chartered engineers in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and there have been none in the previous years.

  There were no female chartered engineers in the armed forces in 1987 and 1982.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence fellowships have been awarded to officers for the study of engineering matters since 1997. [43589]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's Defence Fellowship scheme provided an opportunity for one or two Ministry of Defence personnel a year (regular officers and MOD civilians) to pursue a chosen subject of study or research of benefit to the Department, for one year at an advanced level in a British university of their choice. The scheme has now finished. In the period since 1997 none of the fellowships concerned engineering matters.

  We provide a wide range of engineering training opportunities and I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  MOX Nuclear Reprocessing Plant (Terrorism)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the need for stronger civil defence precautions in Northern Ireland to safeguard against the effects of a terrorist attack on the new MOX nuclear reprocessing plant in Sellafield. [35340]

  Dr. John Reid
  Since the attacks of 11 September on the United States, the British Government have been reviewing their contingency planning arrangements. Much work has been done, and continues to be done, to strengthen our national resilience. This includes an examination of all key sites, of which Sellafield is one.

  This work deals both with the counter-terrorism aspect, improving intelligence against the enemy we face and strengthening our defences, and the civil contingencies aspect, ensuring that the necessary resources are in place to minimise the consequences of a successful attack.

  It is not possible, for security reasons, to divulge the details of the measures being put in place. However, the Government will do whatever is necessary, at Sellafield and throughout the UK, to maximise our resilience to any threat.

TREASURY

  Government Audit and Accountability
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the bodies which will be consulted about his proposed extension of audit and accountability in central Government. [44312]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Consultation will involve bodies and individuals affected by the proposed extension of audit and access powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  212W
  Consulted bodies will include those non-departmental public bodies whose auditors are currently appointed by the Government, the auditors of those bodies and bodies, or their representative organisations, that will be covered by the statutory access orders to be made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. These include bodies in receipt of grant from central Government, train operating companies, registered social landlords, Government contractors and their sub-contractors.

  The Government will also be consulting the Comptroller and Auditor General about the powers, as required by the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the consultation on proposed improvements to audit and accountability in central Government will begin; and how long it will last. [44319]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following publication of the Government's response to Lord Sharman's report "Holding to Account", consultation papers will now be prepared and issued as soon as possible. The normal consultation period is three months.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 28 November 2001 concerning Mr. Mike Atkinson of Denbury, Devon and civil service pay. [43141]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman on 11 December 2001, and am sending him a copy of my letter.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the inquiry by Lord Penrose into Equitable Life will be completed in 2002. [44654]

  Ruth Kelly
  No firm date has been specified for the completion of the Penrose Inquiry. Lord Penrose is keen to ensure that the inquiry proceeds as quickly as possible consistent with producing the thorough and authoritative account required.

  Roberts Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the Roberts report into the supply of scientists and engineers; and if he will make a statement. [43574]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir Gareth Roberts is in the process of completing his final report, and arrangements are being made for it to be published after Easter. The Government look forward to receiving Sir Gareth's final report.

  Data Series
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new data series broken down by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. [42916]
  213W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 14 march 2002]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [42919]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Report
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the component sub-units of each unit listed on pages 10 and 11 of HM Treasury's departmental report; and if he will make a statement. [44381]

  Ruth Kelly
  The teams listed on pages 10 and 11 of HM Treasury's departmental report show the lowest formal units of organisation in the Department.

  VAT
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to implement the changes to VAT for small business announced in his March 2001 Budget speech. [44370]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report on 27 November 2001, the measures not already in place will be introduced as part of Budget 2002.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to introduce to help reduce smuggling of alcohol into the United Kingdom. [43938]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 27 November the Government announced as part of the pre-Budget report that Customs activity tackling cross-channel passenger smuggling of alcohol and tobacco has had a dramatic impact. Revenue losses in 2001 from this form of smuggling have reduced by 76 per cent. compared to 2000, with cross-channel passenger smuggling of beer almost eliminated and wine and spirits more than halved.

  Building on these successes, and those of its wider efforts to tackle tobacco smuggling, the Government published alongside the PBR a paper "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud". It sets out the strategic principles that underlie the Government's approach to tackling fraud and outlines the steps being taken to tackle other forms of fraud and smuggling in the alcohol sector.

  Economic Deprivation (UK)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the areas within the UK that suffer from economic deprivation. [43922]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of the most deprived areas in England are published in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' Indices of Deprivation 2000, which are available at http://214W
  www.regeneration.dtlr.gov.uk/research/id2000/index.htm and in the Library. The Indices of Deprivation 2000 are measures of deprivation for every ward and local authority area in England. They combine a number of indicators which cover a range of domains (income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education, skills and training, housing and geographical access to services) into a single deprivation score for each area. Responsibility for measuring deprivation in Scotland and Wales is devolved to the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales respectively.

  Ministerial Answers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average length of time taken to answer letters to Ministers has been in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [43947]

  Mr. Boateng
  Within all the Chancellor's Departments the average time taken to reply to letters in 2001 was 22 working days. This compares to 24 days in 2000 and 31 days in 1999.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many answers to parliamentary questions are more than(a) two weeks and (b) three months outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [43928]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at 18 March, 3,340 of the 3,453 written questions tabled to the Treasury in the present Session had been answered substantively. 2,612 of the questions tabled (75.6 per cent.) had received replies on or before the due date for answering. Of the 113 questions which had not been answered, 28 were more than two weeks overdue, four were more than three months late, and in 52 cases the dates by which answers were due had not yet been reached.

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43678]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Wishart) on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1433W.

  Electronic Tendering Service
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the result of the electronic tendering service pilot. [45055]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Further to my answer of 17 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire Official Report column 26W, the Office of Government Commerce has now completed its e-tendering pilot scheme, run to assess the possible future establishment of an approved e-tendering system for use across government.
  215W
  Tested across ten central government departments, the information gathered from the e-tendering pilot scheme has provided valuable experience and knowledge. In the light of the fact that the pilot did not fully meet all its operational objectives, the Government will not roll out the scheme.
  216W
  The knowledge gained from the pilot will, along with feedback from other e-procurement pilots now underway, allow government to make a full assessment of the technological options that will work best and ensure value for money. Plans for adopting this technology will be announced later this year.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if he has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44063]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The DTLR does not keep a centralised record of those members of staff who are members of the Territorial forces.

  My Department supports staff who wish to be members of the Territorial forces and provides special leave in order for staff to undertake appropriate training. It will also consider releasing staff who are asked to volunteer for a period of mobilised service.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria he adopts in determining whether(a) to monitor and (b) to research the effects of changing departmental policies. [43354]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Almost all policy development work will involve elements of appraising the evidence base, assessing the likely impact and evaluating the outcome. The Department also has in place a formal programme of policy evaluation, focusing on areas where:
  the achievement of objectives may entail significant costs;
  the objectives are of particular importance to the Department;
  the scientific and technical basis is uncertain or shifting rapidly, and the risks involved are perceived to be substantial.

  Individual projects are brought together in a five-year rolling programme which will meet the Department's service delivery agreement (SDA) target to deliver a programme of policy evaluation covering all the Department's major policies by March 2004.

  The Department will also play a full role in meeting the Government's manifesto commitment to review the working and impact of major pieces of regulation within three years of implementation.

  Press Office
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people his Department's press office employs; and how many press officers have left his Department since 7 June 2001. [40212]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) [ref 40104].

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees in his Department's press office (i) there were in June 2001 and (ii) there are at present; [40104]
  218W
  (2) how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time employees there were in the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions' press office in May (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001; [40105]

  (3) how many people have been hired by his Department's press office since June 2001, on a (a) part-time and (b) full-time basis; [40102]

  (4) what impact the departmental restructuring following the 2001 general election had on numbers in DETR/DTLR's press office; [40106]

  (5) how many individuals have left through (a) resignation and (b) dismissal from his Department's press office since June 2001. [40103]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: At the creation of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in June 2001 the press office employed: 27 full-time press officers; and two part-time press officers. Currently there are: 28 full-time press officers; and one part-time press officer.

  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in departmental press offices during the financial year 1997–98 were provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on the Government Information and Communication Service (HC770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Since 7 June 2001, the number of press officers recruited on a permanent basis were nine full-time and one part-time. In addition, two press officers have also been employed on a short-term contract basis.

  Eight press officers (all full-time permanent staff) were transferred to the newly created DEFRA following the Machinery of Government changes that led to the creation of DTLR in June 2001.

  Other Machinery of Government changes involving the creation of DTLR, and affecting press officer staffing, were negligible in resource terms and did not involve any staff transfers.

  The majority of people leaving the DTLR press office have transferred to other Government Departments or agencies in order to gain wider experience to progress their career. It is not Government policy to comment upon the reasons for the departures of individuals.

  These figures do not include administrative staff who provide a pooled support service to the Directorate of Communication (of which the press office is only a part).

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the tax-raising powers that elected regional assemblies will have. [43853]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The forthcoming Regional Governance White Paper will set out our policy for elected regional assemblies, including their funding.

  Local Government
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of local government in the north-west. [44045]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The recently published Local Government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services", sets out the future of local government in England.

  In addition, the forthcoming Regional Governance White Paper will set out how we plan to take forward our manifesto commitment that:
  "provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established".

  Local Government Finance
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what types of premises are zero-rated for local taxation. [43937]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is as follows:

  Non-Domestic Rates

  The Local Government Finance Act 1988, schedule 5, exempts the following types of non-domestic property from business rating:

  Agricultural land and buildings;

  Fish farms;

  Places of religious worship;

  Lighthouses and related property used by Trinity House;

  Sewers;

  Land and structures used by drainage authorities;

  Public parks;

  Property used for the training of the disabled, and the provision of welfare services to them;

  Air raid protection works;

  Swinging moorings for boats and ships, i.e. moorings which are not connected to the river bank or shore, but to the river or sea bed;

  Road crossings over water courses;

  Property used for road user charging schemes;

  Property in enterprise zones; and

  Property occupied by visiting armed forces, such as air force bases.

  Under section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act, empty non-domestic properties are exempt from rates for the first three months. After that period 50 per cent. of the full rates are levied on the property, unless it falls within a prescribed type, in which case it continues to be entirely exempt from rates while unoccupied. The most significant type that remains exempt after three months is industrial property such as factories, warehouses, and mineral workings. Other types of property which remain exempt are: listed buildings; buildings with rateable values of less than £1,900; buildings which the owners are prohibited by law from occupying or which are kept vacant by the actions of a public body; and buildings whose owners are either bankrupts, or are insolvent companies which are being wound up.
  220W
  Diplomatic non-domestic property is exempt from rates by virtue of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. However, premises occupied by diplomatic missions and visiting armed forces pay a contribution in lieu of a proportion of the rates due on the property, to reflect the use they make of local authority services, currently 6 per cent. of the full rate liability.

  Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 various reliefs are available to ratepayers. In some cases, local authorities have discretion to give relief up to 100 per cent., so their occupiers pay no rates. In some of these cases this is a top-up on a lower level of mandatory relief. 100 per cent. relief is available, at local authority discretion, to charities, small businesses in designated rural settlements, and new small-scale farm diversification enterprises, ratepayers suffering hardship and non-profit making bodies engaged in philanthropic, cultural, sporting and other activities.

  Council Tax

  Certain classes of domestic property are exempt from the council tax. These are set out in the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992. They are:
  Class A: Empty and substantially unfurnished dwellings where works are required, underway or recently completed (valid for up to 12 months);
  Class B: Empty dwellings owned by charities (valid for up to six months);
  Class C: Dwellings left empty and substantially unfurnished (valid for up to six months);
  Class D: Dwellings left empty by prisoners;
  Class E: Dwellings left empty by patients in hospitals and care homes;
  Class F: Dwellings left empty by deceased persons;
  Class G: Dwellings where occupation is prohibited by public law;
  Class H: Empty clergy dwellings;
  Class I: Dwellings left empty by people receiving care;
  Class J: Dwellings left empty by people providing care;
  Class K: Dwellings left empty by students;
  Class L: Repossessed dwellings;
  Class M: Student halls of residence;
  Class N: Dwellings occupied only by students or school leavers;
  Class O: Armed forces' accommodation;
  Class P: Visiting armed forces' accommodation;
  Class Q: Dwellings left empty by bankrupts;
  Class R: Empty caravan pitches and boat moorings;
  Class S: Dwellings occupied by minors only;
  Class T: Empty annexes which cannot be let separately;
  Class U: Dwellings occupied only by persons who are severely mentally impaired;
  Class V: Dwellings occupied by persons with diplomatic privilege or immunity;
  Class W: Annexes occupied by dependent relatives.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) actual and (b) percentage change expressed in real terms was in total external support for Westminster city council in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03. [43504]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Westminster city council have reported the following total central Government support for revenue expenditure. Total figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.
  221W

  Westminster city council total central Government support for revenue expenditure1

  Total (cash terms) £ million

  Total at 2001–02 prices2 £ million

  Percentage change (real terms)2

  Outturn

  1990–91

  158.9

  217.0

  —

  1991–92

  187.3

  241.2

  11.1

  1992–93

  224.2

  279.5

  15.9

  1993–94

  195.4

  237.8

  -14.9

  1994–95

  198.3

  238.2

  0.2

  1995–96

  202.9

  237.0

  -0.5

  1996–97

  200.2

  226.6

  -4.4

  1997–98

  208.9

  229.4

  1.3

  1998–99

  205.7

  219.8

  -4.2

  1999–2000

  214.9

  224.2

  2.0

  2000–01

  224.0

  229.6

  2.4

  Budget

  2001–02

  235.6

  235.6

  2.6

  1 This comprises of aggregate external finance (AEF). AEF is central Government support towards total standard spending. It comprises revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates, and certain specific, supplementary and special grants. For Westminster city council these include SSA reduction grant (1994–95 onwards) and central support protection grant (1999–2000 onwards).

  2 Real terms at 2001–02 prices calculated using the GDP deflator.

  Sources:

  Information for Newcastle upon Tyne

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  Number of dwellings on the valuation list as at 16 October 2001

  73,187

  17,198

  16,451

  7,194

  3,535

  1,648

  1,295

  114

  120,622

  Exemption Class M—A hall of residence provided predominantly for the accommodation of students.

  375

  507

  138

  8

  1

  1

  0

  14

  1,044

  Exemption Class N—A dwelling which is occupied only by students, the foreign spouses of students, or school and college leavers.

  1,577

  794

  422

  186

  84

  10

  4

  0

  3,077

  Total for Exemption Classes M and N

  1,952

  1,301

  560

  194

  85

  11

  4

  14

  4,121

  Number of dwellings classed as empty or second homes as at 1 November 2001.

  2,535

  481

  360

  207

  102

  70

  58

  19

  3,832

  Spring Supplementary Estimates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the Spring Supplementary Estimates were revised; and if he will list the differences between the original and revised Spring Supplementary Estimates. [41609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Spring Supplementary Estimates were revised in order to allow provision for short-term financial support of up to £30 million to the National Air Traffic Services, as referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 807W.

  As a consequence the revised Spring Supplementary Estimates differ from the Spring Supplementary Estimates as follows: the introduction includes a new sub-paragraph xlvi; the ambit of RfR2 has been revised; the total capital expenditure figure at Part II has been increased; column 7 of RfR2 section C has been increased with consequent changes to the totals in the revised subhead detail section, the resource to cash reconciliation table and the forecast cash flow statement; and a note has been added recording that the expenditure rests on the sole authority of the Appropriation Act.
  222W
  1990–91–2000–01 revenue summary (RS) and revenue grant (RG) returns. 2001–02 general fund revenue accounts budget estimate return (RA) and RA(SG) (income from specific, special and supplementary grants).

  Council Tax (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many properties there are in each council tax band in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne; and how many in each band are(a) empty and (b) exempt because all residents are students. [43598]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the number of properties in each council tax band in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne as at 16 October 2001. Information is also provided as at 1 November 2001 on the number of dwellings that were exempt from council tax because they were halls of residence provided predominantly for the accommodation of students, and those dwellings that were exempt because they were only occupied by students or school leavers.

  These types of dwellings are prescribed in legislation as falling into exemption classes M and N respectively. In addition, the table shows the number of dwellings that were classed as either empty or second homes on 1 November 2001. A split between the number of empty dwellings and second homes is not available for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Ring-fenced Grants
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been given to local authorities in Government ring-fenced grants, broken down by local authority and service area, since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [42843]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government have made clear in the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" that it will restrict ring-fencing to cases which are genuine high priorities for Government and where we cannot achieve our policy goal by securing output or outcome targets. We will be keeping all ring-fencing under review with the aim of removing it as soon as possible to do so.

  Housing Transfer Programme 2002
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the 2002 Housing Transfer Programme. [45053]
  223W
  Ms Keeble
  I am announcing today the names of 24 authorities in England which, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, should be able to proceed with proposals to carry out 26 transfers of all or part of their stock to registered social landlords. I have today placed 15 proposals on the transfer programme while holding a place open for a further 11 transfers. Together the programme could involve over 180,000 dwellings in large scale voluntary transfers over two years.

  Authorities on the 2002 Programme have decided, with their tenants, to pursue housing stock transfer as their vehicle for reaching by 2010 the Government's Decent Homes Target. They will have made this decision after considering the various options for reaching the target. Housing transfer enables the new landlords to obtain increased investment from private sources to carry out any backlog of repairs and subsequent improvements more quickly than if the properties had remained in local authority ownership. Housing transfer can also bring about higher levels of tenant involvement, ensuring housing services meet tenants' needs and preferences. It can also provide a significant boost to the wide-scale regeneration of the surrounding area. Over time, tenants' rents will be similar to what they would pay to their local authority, due to the Government's policy of bringing greater fairness and coherence to the structure of social rents.

  Housing transfers are voluntary and may only take place if tenants are in favour. The consent of the Secretary of State is also required before a transfer can proceed and that will only be granted if it appears that a majority of tenants wish the transfer to proceed.

  Proposals submitted for the 2002 Programme have been of high quality. However some are not as advanced as we would wish to secure a place immediately. Therefore Copeland, Teignbridge, Middlesbrough and the London boroughs of Hackney (Kings Crescent) and Islington (Tollington Estates) have been asked to develop their transfer proposals further. I am also holding open places on the programme for Cannock Chase, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Sheffield, Southwark (Tabard Gardens Estate), Solihull, and Worcester pending the agreement of valuations with them.

  The authorities that have successfully gained places on the programme, together with the intended recipient RSL, are as follows:

  (a) a disposal by Amber Valley borough council of not more than 7,120 dwelling-houses to Amber Valley Housing Limited;

  (b) a disposal by Bromsgrove district council of not more than 3,239 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (c) a disposal by Cherwell district council of not more than 3,800 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (d) a disposal by Forest of Dean district council of not more than 3,754 dwelling-houses to Forest of Dean Housing;

  224W

  (e) two disposals by the Liverpool city council of not more than 2,260 dwelling-houses on the Walton Estate to a registered social landlord and not more than 295 dwelling-houses on the Kensington Estate to Community 7;

  (f) A disposal by Maidstone borough council of not more than 6,487 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (g) a disposal by the Manchester city council of not more than 106 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (h) a disposal by North Hertfordshire district council of not more than 8,570 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (i) two disposals by Oldham metropolitan borough council of not more than 1,281 dwelling-houses on the Fitton Hill Estate to a registered social landlord and not more than 645 dwellings on the Limeside (The Avenue)/Hollins Estate to a registered social landlord;

  (j) a disposal by Ruschliffe borough council of not more than 3,559 dwelling-houses to Metropolitan Housing;

  (k) a disposal by Scarborough borough council of not more than 5,000 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (l) a disposal by South Norfolk council of not more than 4,417 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (m) a disposal by Stockport borough council of not more than 13,301 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord.

  Parish Councillors
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what procedure can be adopted in cases where a complaint against a parish councillor for non-declaration of interest is made, when neither the parish council nor the borough council have either a code of practice or a monitoring officer. [43298]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Parish councillors are currently expected to observe a National Code of Local Government Conduct, issued in 1990. The code is for guidance, although Section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a person should fail to declare a pecuniary interest they may be liable to prosecution and, if convicted, fined up to £200 for each offence.

  Pre-School Nursery Premises
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make dedicated pre-school nursery premises zero-rated for local taxation. [43936]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no plans to do so. Almost all non-domestic premises are liable for rates, and this includes all nurseries and schools, in the public and private sectors.

  Rates are used to fund local authority services. Any relief or exemption from rates would reduce the amount collected and available to local authorities.

  Post Offices
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve post offices in deprived urban areas with special reference to how the money allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2000 will be spent; and what definition he uses to identify a deprived urban area. [43344]
  225W
  Ms Keeble
  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit is developing a fund to help sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas. £15 million was allocated for this Fund in Spending Review 2000, and this sum remains committed for this purpose. The development of this fund has taken longer than we hoped, as there are some complex legal issues that we must resolve in order to launch the fund on a firm footing.

  However, we hope to be in a position to announce the details of the scheme in spring or early summer this year.

  Cornish Language
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many meetings with outside bodies he has held to consider the recommendations of his Department's commissioned study on the Cornish language in respect of the case for introduction via the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [44244]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government Office for the South West acting on behalf of the Department commissioned an independent academic study to establish the position on the use and currency of the Cornish language historically and today. The purpose of the study was to provide a sound factual basis for informing the Government's assessment of its position on Cornish in relation to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The study report made no recommendations on this issue and I have, therefore, had no meetings with outside bodies to consider any.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department expects to complete its assessment of the case for specifying the Cornish language within the provision of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [44241]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Ms Keeble) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 216W. The report of the Government Office for the South West to Ministers is expected imminently.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for how long his Department has been assessing the case for specifying the Cornish language under the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [44243]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department has been responsible for coordinating advice on the Government's policy on Cornish in relation to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages since 31 March 1999 through the Government Office for the South West (GOSW).

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002, ref. 42923, on rescues by the Fire Service, if he will state from where this information can be obtained; [44616]

  (2) what was the total cost to the taxpayer of rescues by the Fire Service from (a) road traffic accidents and (b) for other rescues in each of the last three years. [44617]
  226W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Chief Fire Officers may be able to provide this information relative to their own brigades.

  Firefighters (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average number of days lost through sickness absence was per firefighter at each station in Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years; and how many firefighters based in Buckinghamshire were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years. [43292]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The average number of days lost through sickness is not available for each station. For the brigade the figures are given in the table with those for long-term absence.

  Average number of days lost due to sickness

  Individuals on long term sick

  1996–97

  7.4

  15

  1997–98

  7.9

  20

  1998–99

  8.0

  24

  1999–2000

  7.6

  15

  2000–01

  9.5

  27

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many retained firefighters there were at each fire station in Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years. [43293]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Figures by station are only available for the last year. Total figures are given for earlier years. The figures relate to individuals in post. Where these are "0" the station is day crew only and does not have a retained complement.

  Station

  Staff in post 2002

  Amersham

  11

  Aylesbury

  18

  Beaconsfield

  7

  Bletchley

  13

  Brill

  7

  Broughton

  13

  Buckingham

  11

  Chesham

  9

  Gerrards Cross

  01

  Great Holm

  10

  Great Missenden

  10

  Haddenham

  8

  High Wycombe

  13

  Marlow

  13

  Newport Pagnell

  01

  Olney

  11

  Princes Risborough

  9

  Stockenchurch

  10

  Waddesdon

  10

  Winslow

  11

  Total

  194

  Earlier years

  1997

  214

  1998

  199

  1999

  187

  2000

  193

  2001

  200

  1 Station is day crew only and does not have a retained complement.

  False Alarm Emergency Calls
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) genuine and (b) malicious false alarm emergency calls were received in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997. [43289]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of(a) genuine and (b) malicious false alarm emergency calls received in Buckinghamshire were as follows:

  False alarm emergency calls

  All calls

  Malicious

  Good intent

  Due to apparatus

  1997

  9,164

  879

  1,466

  2,087

  1998

  7,754

  402

  1,251

  2,089

  1999

  8,641

  505

  1,306

  2,154

  20001

  8,941

  500

  1,514

  2,311

  1 Data for 2000 are provisional.

  False fire alarms are categorised thus:

  (i) Malicious: the call was made with the intention of getting the brigade to attend a non-existent fire-related event. This includes 'deliberate' and 'suspected malicious' intentions.

  (ii) Good intention: the call was made in good faith in the belief that the brigade really would attend a fire.

  (iii) Due to apparatus: the call was initiated by fire alarm and firefighting equipment operating (including accidental initiation of alarm apparatus by person).

  A21
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many accidents occurred on the A21 between(a) Lamberhurst and Flimwell and (b) Tonbridge and Pembury in (i) May to December 1997, (ii) January to December 1998, (iii) January to December 1999, (iv) January to December 2000, (v) January to June 2001, and (vi) July to December 2001. [43128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Injury accidents on the A21: GB 1997–2001

  Year of accident

  Location

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Lamberhurst—

  Flimwell2

  8

  6

  14

  15

  —

  Tonbridge—Pembury1

  15

  25

  22

  26

  —

  1 Figures relate to May to December.

  2 Figures relate to accidents on the A21 between the junction with the B2169 near Scotney Castle and the north end of the dual carriageway at Flimwell.

  3 Figures relate to accidents on the A21 between the junction with the A26 at Quarry Hill and the junction with the A264.

  Note:

  Statistics are not yet available for 2001.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce a decision on the Central Railway project; and if the proposal will use the hybrid Bill route. [41399]
  228W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1276W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what studies he has commissioned into reopening sections of the Great Central railway line. [41737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. However, the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan includes proposals to reopen to passenger services part of the Great Central alignment north of Aylesbury. The Government are also considering proposals by Central Railway plc. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1276W.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the date when bids will close for Railtrack in administration. [44239]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: This is a matter for the administrator.

  Railway Fencing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the state of fences alongside railway lines running into Romford. [42971]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack advise that appropriate repairs are carried out as part of the company's on-going maintenance programme.

  London Underground
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the expected annual investment spending this year is by London Underground; and what the figure was in 1996–97. [41293]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is currently forecasting that it will deliver investment expenditure of £422 million in 2001–02, against a Government target of at least £410 million. The equivalent investment figure for investment in the core underground network in 1996–97 at cash prices was £397 million.

  Capital renewals accounted for £198 million of the £397 million expenditure in 1996–97. The estimated investment expenditure for 2001–02 reflects London Underground Ltd.'s adoption in 1999 of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15, which requires that such expenditure must now either be charged to cost of operations, or capitalised as an addition to fixed assets.

  Seamen's Certificate Requirements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has proposed changes in the international seamen's certificate requirements to the relevant international organisations; and if he will make a statement. [43914]
  229W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No such changes in requirements have been proposed. The modernisation of seafarer identity documentation is being considered within the International Labour Organisation, to which reference was made during the intersessional meeting in February of the International Maritime Organisation on maritime security.

  Harbour Authorities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what statutory provisions a competent harbour authority is required to ensure the safe provision of a pilotage service. [43973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A competent harbour authority has a duty under section 2 of the Pilotage Act 1987 to keep under consideration whether any and, if so, what pilotage services need to be provided to secure the safety of ships navigating in or in the approaches to its harbour.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legislative authority the Port Marine Safety Code carries. [43974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The legislative authority of the code comprises the legal duties and powers of harbour authorities relating to marine safety. It was agreed with the representative bodies with whom the code was developed that it did not need to create new legal duties for harbour authorities, and it has been implemented without the Government having to take—or confer on harbour authorities—any new powers for that purpose.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review the Pilotage Act 1987. [43952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has already undertaken a review of the Pilotage Act, which was published in July 1998.

  Sangatte
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on freight transport movements of the closure of the facilities at Sangatte over the weekend of 8 to 10 March. [43054]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Sangatte centre did not close, nor did the nearby rail freight terminal at Fréthun operated by SNCF (the French railway company). Rail freight services to the UK through the channel tunnel are however currently severely disrupted as a result of the actions of would-be illegal immigrants trying to board the trains at Fréthun. SNCF are currently not accepting new traffic bound for the UK through the tunnel, while the backlog of trains in transit is cleared.

  We are continuing to press the French Government at the highest levels to ensure that sufficient police resources are made available as soon as possible to enable the normal level of freight services to resume, free from disruption.

  Single European Sky
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the Single European Sky. [41756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are a strong supporter of the Single European Sky as we consider that it offers the best route to overcoming delays and congestion caused by the structural problems in Europe's Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. It should also improve safety, and provide the necessary framework for future air traffic growth.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it was the intention of the Transport Bill of 2000 to make an air traffic controller personally responsible for accidents resulting from misreading the alpha-numeric data on the display screens. [43066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The position of an air traffic controller is unaffected by the enactment of the Transport Act 2000.

  Airports (Security)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what standards airport operators in the United Kingdom are required to meet regarding waiting time for passengers to pass through(a) security and (b) ticket checks, broken down by (i) airport and (ii) airport operator. [43862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no statutory requirements for airport operators with regard to waiting times for passengers passing through security and ticket checks. 20 UK airports and 10 UK airlines have, however, signed up to the Voluntary Commitments on Air Passenger Rights, which were launched at a Council of Europe ceremony in Strasbourg on 14 February. These contain non-legally binding commitments to deliver defined standards of service to air travellers, and waiting times and measures to speed up check-in are included within them.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will meet representatives of UK registered airlines to discuss the reduction of air flow by pilots in aircraft cabins. [43683]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The issue of the reduction of airflow by pilots in aircraft cabins will be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting of the Aviation Health Working Group, when representatives of UK registered airlines will be present.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of a significant reduction in cabin air pressure on the health of airline passengers; [43686]
  231W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the reductions of air flow in cabins on the health of airline passengers. [43685]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001 the Government commissioned the Building Research Establishment Ltd. to undertake a review of the current state of research in a number of key areas of the aircraft cabin environment. BRE reported that some research has been carried out into the effects of cabin air ventilation rates on the health of passengers, but the report identified a number of areas where further research was needed. The inter-departmental Aviation Health Working Group is expected shortly to finalise a proposal for some of this work to be carried out.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will undertake an assessment of the extent to which pilots reduce air flow in passenger aircraft cabins and the reasons for doing so; and if he will issue guidelines on this issue. [43684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is normal for air conditioning packs to be in operation during a flight. This is reflected in the manufacturers' instructions to crews and repeated in operators' manuals. On many aircraft it is possible to reduce the flow to a low setting, which is about 80 per cent. of the normal flow rate. However, there would be clear guidance in the operating manual that this setting should only be used when the aircraft is carrying significantly fewer passengers than the maximum. Figures would be specified.

  In the event of a problem with an air conditioning pack in flight, the problem pack can be switched off. The remaining pack(s) have the capacity to maintain cabin pressure and adequate conditioned air.

  In these circumstances the issuance of guidelines is not necessary.

  UK Airlines
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on what emergency aid schemes have been authorised to compensate UK airlines for losses caused by the closure of airspace between 11 and 14 September 2001. [43975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 13 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of up to £40 million in financial assistance designed to compensate UK airlines for the closure of US, Israeli and central London airspace in the period immediately following the terrorist attacks. Twelve claims for assistance under this scheme have been received and these are currently being examined. The European Commission authorised this scheme on 12 March and we expect to make payments shortly.

  NATS
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department had after 18 January concerning whether Swanwick should be taken into operation on 27 January. [43063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such discussions were held.
  232W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the letter dated 8 January from HM Inspector of the Health and Safety Executive to the General Manager, NATS(En-Route)Ltd., concerning breaches of the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992. [43060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE cannot publish this letter because of the restrictions placed on it by Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of the compliance of the new en-route centre at Swanwick with the(a) Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992 and (b) BSEN 29241–3/ISO 9241–3. [43057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE inspectors and HSE's expert on display screen equipment visited the new en-route centre at Swanwick on 18 January. The purpose of this visit was to begin assessing NATS (En-Route) Limited's compliance with the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992. Since the visit NATS have provided HSE with further information about the display screen equipment in use at the Swanwick centre and this has been used to complete HSE's assessment of compliance. HSE's expert took BSEN 29241–3/ISO 9241–3 into account in making the assessment.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the Health and Safety Executive considered issuing an enforcement order in respect of the equipment at the new en-route centre at Swanwick; for what reason the order was withdrawn; and what is being done to resolve these outstanding issues and improve safety at Swanwick. [43064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE's inspectors considered the working conditions at Swanwick against the Health and Safety Commission's expectations for enforcement and did not consider it appropriate to serve an enforcement notice. Therefore there is no question of a notice being withdrawn.

  HSE wrote to NATS on the 18 January summarising its concerns. HSE's expert on display screen equipment is finalising a detailed report on his findings. HSE will present that report to the management and employees' representatives at NATS shortly, and will require an action plan to address any matters which are outstanding at that time within an appropriate timescale.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government intend to charge NATS public private partnership interest on tax proceeds from the Airland Group deferred sale; and if he will make a statement. [43067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the PPP, the Government received £35 million of deferred sales proceeds by way of a loan note from NATS. Interest has accrued, and will continue to accrue, on these notes since the date of sale. No tax is outstanding on which interest could be claimed.
  233W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the CAA commissioned a formal ergonomic evaluation of the display screen equipment at the new en-route centre at Swanwick prior to granting approval for the equipment; [43056]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 1808W, for what reason the CAA gave NATS its final approval to take Swanwick into operation; [43061]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the implications for air safety of the display screen equipment at the en-route centre at Swanwick. [43058]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for the CAA as the independent aviation safety regulator.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the promised capacity gains will be delivered by the Swanwick centre; [43065]

  (2) for what purpose a further meeting was convened involving senior management staff from NATS, CAA and the Health and Safety Executive; [43062]

  (3) if he will require NATS Ltd. to publish the management reports relating to the display screen equipment at the new en-route centre at Swanwick. [43059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for NATS.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money has been paid to NATS since it became a PPP. [41295]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer right the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Jamieson), on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 741W to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Of the £23 million referred to since the creation of the Public Private Partnership, on 26 July 2001, the residual balance of £200,000 has been paid to National Air Traffic Services.

  Special Purpose Vehicle
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake work in connection with the South Coast upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the(a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42836]

  (2) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the West Anglia Route Modernisation; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42826]
  234W
  (3) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Brighton Main Line upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42835]

  (4) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the TransPennine upgrade (stations and new trains); if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42825]

  (5) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Hurst Green to Uckfield electrification; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42833]

  (6) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Connex South Eastern platform extensions; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42821]

  (7) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Chiltern upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42823]

  (8) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the South Central upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42831]

  (9) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with Gatwick Station; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42817]

  (10) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the South West Trains upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42837]

  (11) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Thameslink 2000; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42827]

  (12) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the West Coast upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42819]

  (13) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Felixstowe to Nuneaton upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42829]
  235W
  (14) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Arun Valley upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42834]

  (15) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the East London Line extension; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42824]

  (16) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Ashford to Hastings electrification; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42832]

  (17) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Midland Main Line upgrade (stations and new trains); if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42818]

  (18) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the Southampton to West Midlands upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42828]

  (19) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the CrossCountry upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what the (a) status of, (b) start date of and (c) expected completion date for such works is; [42820]

  (20) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to provide new trains for Connex South Eastern; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works; [42822]

  (21) what plans he has for the creation of a special purpose vehicle to undertake works in connection with the East Coast Main Line upgrade; if he will place them in the Library; and what is (a) the status of, (b) the start date of and (c) the expected completion date for such works. [42830]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to answers given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 4 February 2002, Official Report, columns 728–29W. Special purpose vehicles are a potential option for taking forward projects involving new or enhanced rail infrastructure. Their use will be a matter for commercial negotiation between interested parties.

  Wembley Park Underground
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he plans to respond to the London Development Agency/London Underground report on the options for increasing capacity at Wembley Park underground station. [43231]
  236W
  Mr. Byers
  I welcome this report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. It demonstrates that it should be possible to make real improvements to capacity and access—particularly for disabled people—without the need to rebuild Wembley Park Station.

  While the report's proposals are significantly less expensive than rebuilding the station, they cannot be accommodated within the £20 million which the Government have already agreed to make available for infrastructure improvements. In the light of this new evidence, I have now decided that if the stadium development proceeds, I should make available additionally up to £7 million from my transport provision. This would make it easier for people travelling to the new stadium, as well as those living and working in the area. I understand that the Mayor of London has also agreed to make available a similar sum.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in the drafting of legislation for the regulation of HMOs. [42229]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are committed to introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and we consulted on our proposals in 1999. We remain committed to legislating for this at the earliest possible opportunity.

  The Government are also currently supporting the Home Energy Conservation Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). This Bill would introduce reforms to the current discretionary HMO registration regime, most notably by making it mandatory and providing for a revised definition of an HMO.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002, ref. 37622, on reputational externalities, what is the size of the adjustment made for reputational externalities in the calculations underlying the final assessment report; and if he will make a statement. [41396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 83W.

  Public Bodies
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42150]

  Ms Keeble
  Ministers in this Department have appointed or reappointed(a) 116 people in the year April 2000 to March 2001 (i) 82 of whom are men and (ii) 34 women and (b) 100 people since 31 March 2001 (i) 58 of whom are men and (ii) 42 women.

  Transport and Telecommunications Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming Transport and Telecommunications European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 25–26 March; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42690]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for a Minister from the Scottish Executive to be a member of the UK delegation to the Transport and Telecommunications Council on 25–26 March.

  In developing the UK position, there is regular contact between Ministers and officials of the Department and the Scottish Executive on those issues in which there is a Scottish interest, as required by the memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations. The then Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive attended the Transport Council on 28 June 2001 as part of the UK delegation.

  Councils
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of(a) district, (b) county and (c) Metropolitan councils he estimates will be judged as coasting. [42628]

  Mr. Byers
  No such estimate exists. The categorisation will be for the Audit Commission.

  Continuous Registration
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to move to a system of continuous registration of all motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [42558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A proposal to introduce continuous registration—under which the keeper of a vehicle would retain a statutory responsibility to license it until DVLA was notified of a change of keeper—was one of a number of proposals set out by the Government in its consultation document on abandoned vehicles in October 2001. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation shortly.

  National Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42301]

  Number of fire stations in England and Wales at 1 January 1997–2002

  Fire authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Cheshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Cleveland

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  238W
  Dr Whitehead
  [holding answer: Monday 11 March 2002]: The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has fully supported the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in making suitable arrangements for Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. Details of those events may be found on the Golden Jubilee website at www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk.

  My Department has no specific arrangements to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day or St. Andrew's Day. My Department did not specifically celebrate St. David's Day.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the dates and minutes of meetings of the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour Steering Group since its inception. [42357]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Shoreham Maritime Regeneration Strategy was set up in May 1998 to foster the regeneration of Shoreham Harbour. The Shoreham Maritime Steering Group is seeking to implement this strategy and has since been holding regular meetings. Although the Government Office for the South East is a partner of the Steering Group, it is not within the remit of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to publish the dates and minutes of these meetings.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what feasibility study he has carried out into the provision of a road link between the A259 at Shoreham Harbour with the A27; and when he plans to publish the findings; [42390]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Shoreham Port Authority about the provision of a link road between the A259 at Shoreham Harbour and the A27. [42356]

  Ms Keeble
  No discussions have been held with Shoreham Port Authority regarding the provision of a link road between the A259 and the A27. There is no Government-led study into such a link road but there is a wider local authority study currently taking place. This work includes a variety of separate work streams looking at the regeneration potential for the port area, and the feasibility of facilitating much of the future potential for local and port development.

  Fire Stations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many functioning fire stations there were, broken down by fire brigade area, in each year since 1997. [42235]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of fire stations in each fire authority area in England and Wales as at 1 January from 1997 to 2002 is in the table:
  239W

  Number of fire stations in England and Wales at 1 January 1997–2002

  Fire authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cornwall

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  County Durham and Darlington

  16

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Cumbria

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Derbyshire

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Devon

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  Dorset

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  30

  East Sussex

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Essex

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  Gloucestershire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Greater Manchester

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  Hampshire

  54

  54

  54

  54

  52

  52

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  27

  Hertfordshire

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  Humberside

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  32

  Isle of Wight

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Kent and Medway Towns

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  Lancashire

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Lincolnshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  38

  38

  London

  113

  113

  113

  113

  112

  112

  Merseyside

  27

  27

  27

  26

  26

  26

  Mid and West Wales

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  Norfolk

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  North Wales

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  North Yorkshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  Northamptonshire

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Northumberland

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Oxfordshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Royal Berkshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Shropshire

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Somerset

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  South Wales

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  South Yorkshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Suffolk

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Surrey

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Tyne and Wear

  18

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Warwickshire

  20

  20

  20

  19

  19

  19

  West Midlands

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  West Sussex

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  West Yorkshire

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Source:

  DTLR calendar year returns.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reorganise his Department. [44722]

  Mr. Darling
  The Department for Work and Pensions was set up last year to bring together the Government's Welfare to Work programme and to ensure a far better focus on the people we serve. As part of this programme of reform, I am setting up two new executive agencies in April: Jobcentre Plus, which will deliver an integrated, work-focused service to benefit claimants of working age and to employers; and The Pension Service, which will deliver a service dedicated to today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  In consequence of these changes, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service will close on 31 March. The Department's other executive agencies (the Child
  240W
  Support Agency and The Appeals Service) will continue. Disability and carer benefits will be delivered by a distinct business—the Disability and Carers Service—which will work closely with both Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service. The Child Benefit Centre will form a separate business until its transfer to the Inland Revenue in April 2003.

  The targets I have set Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service for 2002–03 are given below.

  Further information on Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service plans for 2002–03 is contained in their business plans, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  I am also publishing today a departmental framework which sets out the main roles and accountabilities of each part of the Department, including its executive agencies, and the shared values and ways of working which ensure that the Department delivers a common agenda of reform. The framework incorporates the roles of each of the Department's executive agencies and replaces traditional free-standing agency framework documents.
  241W
  Targets

  Jobcentre Plus

  Jobcentre Plus performance will be measured against the following targets1Job outcomes: To achieve a total points score of 6,656,000, based on job entry outcomes Jobcentre Plus achieves.
  Business delivery: To ensure that specified key Jobcentre Plus business processes are delivered efficiently, accurately and to specified standards in 93.4 per cent. of cases checked (with a Jobcentre Plus management objective that no district will fall below 85 per cent. by the end of the year).
  Fraud and error: By March 2003 to reduce losses from fraud and error in working age income support and jobseeker's allowance to no more than 7 per cent. of the monetary value of these benefits paid during the year.
  Employer outcomes: At least 85 per cent. of employers placing their vacancies with Jobcentre Plus will have a positive outcome.
  Customer service: To achieve a 79 per cent. customer service level in the delivery of the standards set out in the customers and employers charters (with a Jobcentre Plus management objective that individual regions will achieve specified levels by the end of the year).

  The Pension Service

  The Pension Service's performance will be measured against the following targets:
  Customer service: To improve customer service in line with the standards set out in The Pension Service customer charter2.
  Accuracy: To achieve an accuracy rate of 94 per cent. on awards of MIG and of 98 per cent. on awards of retirement pension.
  MIG claims processing:
  To complete processing of MIG claims on average within 10 working days from the date the necessary evidence is received.
  Fraud and error: To make progress in reducing the value of MIG fraud and customer error towards an overall reduction of 20 per cent. by 2004.
  Winter fuel payments: To issue winter fuel payments for 2002–03 (all automatic payments and successful claims received before 20 September 2002) by Christmas 2002.
  Retirement pension forecasts: To provide 95 per cent. of retirement pension forecasts within 40 days of receipt of the request.
  Performance levels: To establish a baseline of performance across The Pension Service, to enable the setting of performance variation targets in 2003–04.
  Sickness absence: To reduce the average sickness absence rate to 9.4 days by December 2002.
  1 A full explanation of the Jobcentre Plus targets is contained in the performance agreement, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  2 The Pension Service customer charter will be published in April, to coincide with the launch of The Pension Service.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many couples getting divorced have applied to the courts to share their pension rights between them since December 2000. [44089]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on applications for pension sharing is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department has, however, been monitoring pension sharing orders made by the courts and our records show that 217 such orders have been made in England and Wales since December 2000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the exclusion of retail businesses from the small firms loan guarantee scheme. [39813]

  Ms Hewitt
  Retailing was originally included in the small firms loan guarantee scheme. Along with a number of other local service sectors it was excluded in April 1993. This followed an external evaluation report on the scheme that showed support for firms in these sectors was largely at the expense of displacing business from other local firms.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Small Business Service's pilot scheme. [43125]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government does not want to see viable companies with good long-term potential being wound up because of temporary financial difficulties.

  The pilot project is about determining the most effective means of rescuing such companies. Business survival rates for companies in the scheme will be monitored. Assessment of the impact of the pilot will take place and a full analysis in September 2002.

  Trade Partners UK
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) functions, (b) staffing and (c) funding at Trade Partners UK. [44472]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK brings together the joint work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry in support of British trade and investment overseas. Details of its functions, staffing and funding are set out in "British Trade International, The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02", Cm 5123, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for assistance were received by Trade Partners UK in the first six months of 2001; how many were refused; and what the grounds were for refusal. [44475]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK provides advice, information and support to over 20,000 businesses each year through a variety of schemes and through a network of offices which spans the English regions, overseas diplomatic posts and a range of partner organisations. Information on requests for assistance which are refused is not available.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria must be satisfied for an individual or company to receive assistance from Trade Partners UK. [44471]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK provides a range of information, advice and support to business. Detailed eligibility criteria vary according to the nature of specific
  243W
  schemes. The general factors to be taken into account were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his reply to the hon. Member on 14 February 2002, Official Report, column 611W.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the functions of Trade Partners UK include(a) assistance to individuals or companies attempting to make acquisitions overseas and (b) scrutiny to ensure that the acquisition is in the interests of the UK. [44474]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK's public service agreement performance target is 'enhanced competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas sales and investments'. It therefore supports overseas investment by companies in the UK where there is a benefit to the UK in doing so. Each case is considered on its own merits and Trade Partners UK has access to a range of information and advice through the DTI, FCO and other Departments, as appropriate, in doing so.

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council (Scottish representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 1 March; which particular matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42689]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The composition of the UK delegation to specific Council of Ministers meetings is decided in accordance with the Concordat on the Co-ordination of EU Policy Issues.

  A report on the Council and matters on which I spoke is set out in my answer, of 13 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1075–76W. Post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament is a matter for that Parliament and for the Scottish Executive. Reports of Council meetings are available to Scottish Executive officials and my officials stand ready to provide other information in line with the provisions of the Concordat.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to ensure that the Patent Office acts in a fair and impartial way. [42753]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Patent Office is an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Agency Framework Document sets out the functions, aims and objectives of the Patent Office. It also lists the legislation under which the Patent Office has specific responsibility for the administration of domestic and international law on intellectual property. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry determines the policy framework within which the Patent Office operates, sets out key financial and performance targets and approves the Agency's Corporate Plan. Day to 244W
  day management of the Patent Office is delegated to the Chief Executive of the Agency. The decisions of the Patent Office are subject to statutory routes of appeal.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with Patent Office officials regarding a campaign by the charity ActionAid. [42752]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  DTI officials were contacted by the Patent Office at the beginning of February, about the campaign by the charity ActionAid. Patent Office staff dealt with subsequent media inquiries regarding the campaign.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) other companies were declared insolvent in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001, in (A) north-west England, (B) north-east England, (C) the west midlands, (D) London, (E) south-east England, (F) Scotland and (G) Wales. [43372]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Official insolvency statistics are not able to identify the size of the company involved.

  Company compulsory liquidations can be identified by location and are recorded under the official receiver's office and not by Government office regions. For example, insolvencies in Wales will be recorded under official receiver's offices in Cardiff and Swansea (South West) and Chester (North West).

  The table gives the company compulsory liquidations by region in each of the years 1997 to 2001.

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Anglia

  591

  704

  719

  672

  708

  London

  1,060

  1,487

  1,161

  951

  911

  Midlands

  602

  589

  605

  664

  553

  North East

  608

  531

  599

  546

  504

  North West

  556

  537

  714

  597

  586

  Public Interest Unit

  0

  0

  37

  94

  150

  South East

  770

  781

  768

  769

  715

  South West

  548

  587

  606

  632

  548

  Scotland

  254

  338

  364

  344

  378

  Total (England & Wales)

  4,735

  5,216

  5,209

  4,925

  4,675

  Total for GB

  4,989

  5,554

  5,573

  5,269

  5,053

  Stop Now Orders
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many stop now orders were obtained up to 28 February; and what the subject matters were of those orders. [43026]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No stop now orders have been made to date. Three cases have reached the courts.

  These cases involve infringements under various regulations including the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
  245W
  In addition two local authorities have secured written undertakings under the Regulations, and other cases are under consideration.

  Imperial Measures
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of the recent prosecution of vendors using the imperial standard of measurement; and if she will make a statement on the public interest involved in the prosecution. [40756]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The enforcement of weights and measures legislation is an independent statutory responsibility for local authorities. In the prosecutions before the High Court recently, the vendors unsuccessfully sought to challenge the enforcement of the metric legislation made in 1994.

  Beer Orders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs prior to the decision to revoke the beer orders. [43341]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the beer orders no longer have any effect, it was not necessary to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact that the revocation of the beer orders will have on Britain's micro-breweries; and whether a regulatory impact assessment has been produced. [43340]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following careful consideration of the Director-General of Fair Trading's review of the beer orders and taking into account the views of all interested parties, including those of micro-breweries, I decided that the beer orders are no longer relevant to the industry as it is currently structured. The provision on guest beers applied only to large brewers with tied estates. No such brewer now exists. Revocation will impose no costs on business and is deregulatory, so a regulatory impact assessment is unnecessary.

  Wind Turbines
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has received the findings of the study undertaken by her Department on interference to radar and navigational aid from wind turbines. [44458]

  Mr. Wilson
  QinetiQ are undertaking a study with the objective of determining the effects of wind turbines sited adjacent to primary and secondary air traffic control and air defence radars. The study will also provide information needed for the generation of guidance notes for developers. The study is due for completion towards the end of 2002.

  TRIPS
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she and her fellow WTO 246W
  Ministers have made towards lifting the restrictions within the TRIPS agreement on poorer countries' access to affordable medicines. [43532]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted at the WTO Ministerial in Doha in November last year, agreed that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent WTO Members from taking measures to protect public health.

  However, the Declaration recognised that WTO Members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement and instructed the TRIPS Council to find an expeditious solution to this problem before the end of 2002.

  The Government are keen to see a solution to this issue. Discussions in the TRIPS Council are ongoing.

  Post Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation she has made of the feasibility of(a) auctioning and (b) charging a fee for licences for new post operators. [43628]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under the Postal Services Act 2000 the licensing of postal operators is a matter for the Postal Services Commission (known as Postcomm).

  The legislation says that Postcomm has the power to require an application for a licence to be accompanied by such reasonable application fee as it may determine. Postcomm does not have the power under the Postal Services Act to charge a fee for licences or to auction them.

  Urban Postal Services
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place a copy of the agreement negotiated between the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, regarding the future of the urban network, in the Library. [43337]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an operational matter for Consignia. As such, any provisional terms, negotiated between Consignia and the National Federation of Sub Postmasters on the future of the urban post office network, are commercially confidential.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1071 W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement. [41510]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: There are no cases of theft where criminal proceedings were undertaken by the Department. Where appropriate the

  247W
  police would have been informed of the theft but the Department has no record of the outcome of police investigations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Computers (Pornographic Material)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 5 February 2002, (ref 31830), what the normal disciplinary procedures are that head teachers should take when(a) a member of staff and (b) a student is discovered to have used school computers for viewing pornographic material. [34599]

  John Healey
  In the case of(a), the procedure that would apply would be the staff disciplinary procedure of the school in question. In general, misusing a school computer in this way would constitute very serious or gross misconduct, and could possibly result in dismissal. Where applicable the school's procedure may be deferred pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.

  In the case of (b) the normal disciplinary procedure would be for the head teacher to consider all the relevant facts and such evidence as may be available to support the allegation made, allowing the student to give his or her version of events. If the head teacher is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the student did what he or she is alleged to have done, he or she may exclude the student for a fixed period or permanently. Misuse of computers by students to view pornographic material is a very serious matter and exclusion for a fixed period or permanently would be an appropriate response to such behaviour.

  We are, however, also determined to help schools ensure that teachers and pupils do not access unsuitable material while accessing the wealth of educationally valuable material on the internet. We have produced detailed guidance for schools about the wide range of measures they can adopt. These include use of walled gardens and filtering software, monitoring and tracking pupil access, and providing 'user contracts' for pupils, spelling out how they should behave.

  Capita Contracts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money the Capita-administered schemes within the Department have paid out. [38370]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Capita has administered three schemes on behalf of my Department and its predecessors: teachers' pensions, Connexions card and individual learning accounts. Since 1996 approximately £19 billion of public money has been paid out under these schemes, largely in pensions-related payments to former teachers.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people took advantage 248W
  of individual learning accounts in (a) the UK, (b) the north-east, (c) south Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency. [40626]

  John Healey
  Prior to the closure of the programme, some 2.6 million individuals opened individual learning accounts in England. Of these 1.4 million had booked learning. The table sets out the number of individuals in the north-east and Jarrow who took advantage of the help available through the individual learning accounts programme. It has not been possible to provide this for south Tyneside.

  Area

  Number of active accounts

  North-east1

  56,501

  Jarrow2

  1,502

  1 North-east figure based on Government office north-east area.

  2 Jarrow figure based on post codes NE31, 32, 35 and 36.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations have been received by her Department in relation to disposal of school playing fields in the London borough of Haringey. [40716]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Since the introduction, in October 1998, of legislation to protect school playing fields, the Department has not received any representations in relation to the disposal of school playing fields in the London borough of Haringey.

  Education Funding (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) capital and (b) revenue funding has been made available to schools and colleges in Liverpool in each year since 1997. [41124]

  John Healey
  Nationally, capital investment in school buildings has more than tripled from less than £700 million in 1996–97 to over £2.2 billion in 2001–02, and will rise to over £3.5 billion a year by 2003–04, totalling £8.5 billion from 2001–02 to 2003–04. Table A shows the total capital investment of over £168 million in school buildings in Liverpool from 1997–98 to 2001–02, including £74.3 million of PFI credits.

  For revenue funding, between 1997–98 and 2001–02, Liverpool has seen a significant increase in its Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) and grants, as set out in Table B.

  The overall settlement for 2002–03 is a good one, and Liverpool's pupils will further benefit. Its Education SSA will increase by £11.33 million or 4.48 per cent. over 2001–02. Liverpool will also benefit from an overall increase in Standards Fund grant of over £160 million; and an increase of 2.75 per cent. in the direct grant for schools. In addition, Liverpool will receive £8.04 million extra in revenue support grant (RSG) from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to bring its overall increase in RSG up to 4 per cent.

  The Learning and Skills Council will write to the hon. Member about resources provided to colleges, and a copy of its letter will be placed in the Library.
  249W

  Table A Schools Capital Allocations By Central Government Liverpool Local Education Authority

  Year

  Capital Allocation £ million

  1997–98

  15.306

  1998–99

  20.104

  1999–2000

  13.967

  2000–01

  97.961

  2001–02

  20.785

  Total

  168.123

  Notes:

  1. Allocations comprise capital grant and credit approvals including PFI credits for school buildings

  2. The figure for 2000–01 includes £74.3 million of PFI credits

  Table B Grants and SSA Liverpool Local Education Authority

  £ million

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  1997–98

  210.173

  8.092

  218.265

  1998–99

  229.914

  2.798

  232.712

  1999–2000

  238.304

  7.773

  246.077

  2000–01

  248.414

  26.076

  274.490

  2001–02

  252.286

  44.743

  297.029

  Change1

  42.113

  36.651

  78.764

  1 Change since 1997–98

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect all sub-blocks of the Education SSA plus all revenue grants in DfES's Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to pupils aged 4–19. The Private Voluntary Independent element of the SSA that replaced Nursery Education Grant funding is not included in the funding figures.

  2. Grant figures exclude funds that include ages before 4 years old, Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant and Education Maintenance Allowance.

  University Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to link funding for universities to the socio-economic background of students admitted to those universities; and if she will make a statement. [40798]

  All Schools Number (headcount) of Pupils By Type of School January 2001

  Nursery

  LEA Mntd

  Direct Grant

  Total

  maintained Primary

  of which middle deemed

  Maintained Secondary

  of which middle deemed

  South West

  2,003

  0

  2,003

  399,918

  6,420

  314,652

  14,763

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  12,924

  0

  12,273

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  0

  11,449

  0

  9,770

  0

  Bristol, City of

  1,658

  0

  1,658

  31,597

  0

  17,907

  0

  Cornwall

  117

  0

  117

  41,146

  0

  32,011

  0

  Devon

  77

  0

  77

  56,503

  2,690

  39,832

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  25,374

  0

  29,319

  8,096

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  46,407

  0

  38,165

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  140

  0

  124

  0

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  14,927

  0

  12,269

  0

  Plymouth

  151

  0

  151

  21,285

  0

  18,829

  0

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  11,250

  3,730

  8,197

  673

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  38,894

  0

  31,214

  4,782

  250W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The Government is promoting wider access to universities. As part of this, the Higher Education Funding Council for England provides funding to higher education institutions to reflect the additional costs of recruiting students from low participation postcodes.

  School Buildings
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of capital investment in school buildings in(a) coalfield areas and (b) England has been since 1997. [41789]

  John Healey
  We do not hold information on the level of capital investment in school buildings in coalfield areas. The Department allocates most capital funding for schools to Local Education Authorities (LEAs), based on needs related formulae, and it is for the Authorities to assess and prioritise the capital needs of their school buildings in line with their local Asset Management Plans (AMPs). Individual LEAs will, therefore, hold information on how much capital investment has been allocated to schools within coalfield areas.

  The table below shows the level of central government support for capital investment in school buildings in England for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2003–04.

  Year

  Capital allocation £000s

  1997–98

  755

  1998–99

  1,088

  1999–2000

  1,400

  2000–01

  2,100

  2001–02

  2,200

  2002–03

  2,800

  2003–04

  3,500

  Total

  13,843

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils there are in each local education authority in the South West of England. [41871]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the table below.
  251W

  All Schools Number (headcount) of Pupils By Type of School January 2001

  Nursery

  LEA Mntd

  Direct Grant

  Total

  maintained Primary

  of which middle deemed

  Maintained Secondary

  of which middle deemed

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  23,462

  0

  16,442

  0

  Swindon

  0

  0

  0

  17,901

  0

  11,561

  0

  Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  10,328

  0

  8,708

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  36,331

  0

  28,031

  1,212

  Special1

  LEA Mntd

  Non-Mntd

  Total

  Pupil Referral Units2

  Independent

  City Technology Colleges

  All Schools

  South West

  7,364

  508

  7,872

  620

  61,494

  1,017

  787,576

  Bath and North East Somerset

  317

  0

  317

  0

  4,264

  0

  29,778

  Bournemouth

  235

  0

  235

  0

  1,550

  0

  23,004

  Bristol, City of

  804

  0

  804

  3

  7,855

  0

  59,824

  Cornwall

  414

  0

  414

  0

  2,567

  0

  76,255

  Devon

  773

  304

  1,077

  23

  8,913

  0

  106,425

  Dorset

  523

  0

  523

  10

  5,830

  0

  61,056

  Gloucestershire

  1,055

  68

  1,123

  60

  8,339

  0

  94,094

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  272

  North Somerset

  242

  0

  242

  56

  1,273

  0

  28,767

  Plymouth

  742

  0

  742

  86

  1,550

  0

  42,643

  Poole

  248

  102

  350

  24

  1,134

  0

  20,955

  Somerset

  599

  0

  599

  75

  9,532

  0

  80,314

  South Gloucestershire

  322

  0

  322

  119

  793

  1,017

  42,155

  Swindon

  411

  0

  411

  29

  28

  0

  29,930

  Torbay

  311

  0

  311

  25

  930

  0

  20,302

  Wiltshire

  368

  34

  402

  110

  6,928

  0

  71,802

  1 Excludes pupils who are also registered at a mainstream school.

  2 Excludes pupils who are also registered at a mainstream or special school.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  School Land Sales
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 231W, on school land sales, what rules govern whether a local education authority has to obtain permission to sell school land to developers; and if she will make a statement. [41912]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires local authorities to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before selling any playing fields which:

  (a) are used by a maintained school for the purposes of the school, or

  (b) have been used at any time within the last 10 years.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are assessed against the following criteria:

  i. schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school making the disposal, and at other schools in the local area, will be met;

  ii. community needs: that community use of a school's playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary;

  iii. finance: that any sale proceeds are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or are used to help to raise standards by providing better educational facilities.

  Only those applications that meet the criteria are approved. Since July 2001, all applications have been scrutinised by the Independent School Playing Fields
  252W
  Advisory Panel to make sure that they comply with the published criteria. The Panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  Woodmancote Primary School
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with Gloucestershire County Council about proposals to sell land of Woodmancote Primary School to developers; and if she will make a statement. [41913]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Department has not had any discussions with Gloucestershire County Council about proposals to sell land at Woodmancote Primary School.

  Wired Communities Projects
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to continue the wired communities projects. [42658]

  John Healey
  The Wired Up Communities initiative is currently being piloted in seven areas across the country. A final evaluation report is now due in November 2002.
  253W
  After carefully considering this report, decisions will be made on any extension of the scheme to other communities.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evaluation she has undertaken on the wired communities projects; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [42665]

  John Healey
  An interim evaluation report collecting baseline information from the phase 1 wired up communities pilot in Kensington (Liverpool) was produced in September 2001. Further data collection activities in the six phase 2 projects are currently taking place. The final evaluation report was due to have been published in April 2002 but delays in some projects becoming operational has put the expected publication back to November 2002. A copy of the final report will be placed in the Library.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the gender breakdown is of those involved in(a) IT for All and (b) wired communities projects. [42667]

  John Healey
  The IT for All scheme was a DTI initiative which ended in 2000. I have no information on the gender breakdown of those involved.

  At this stage we do not have evaluation details from the six phase 2 wired up communities projects, but the phase 1 project located in Kensington (Liverpool) shows a 54 per cent. female: 46 per cent. male split within the representative sample. Data are currently being collected from the phase 2 projects and these will be available in April 2002.

  Drinking Water
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the number of schools which make provision for access to drinking water throughout the school day. [42694]

  John Healey
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 require all schools to have a wholesome supply of drinking water. The Department for Education and Skills does not collect information about pupils' access to drinking water throughout the school day.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has issued in respect of access throughout the school day to drinking water. [42677]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) produced guidance in April 2001, to assist school caterers to implement nutritional standards for school lunches. This guidance states that the Secretary of State expects that drinking water should be available to all pupils, every day, free of charge.

  The DfES circular, 0029/2000 (Standards for School Premises), gives advice on health and safety matters that schools should consider when positioning drinking water outlets. It also recommends that the pattern of demand for drinking water outlets should be considered by local education authorities, governing bodies and others when deciding how drinking water should be provided on school premises.
  254W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding there is to meet the costs of the installation of drinking water supply to schools in Stoke on Trent, North; and if she will make a statement. [42695]

  John Healey
  All schools are required to have a wholesome supply of drinking water. As this is a fundamental requirement for all school premises and should be installed when they are built, there is no specific capital funding available. We expect governing bodies and local education authorities to secure a continuing wholesome water supply to all schools as part of their duty to secure the health and safety of staff and pupils, and are sure that this is an important consideration for local education authorities in considering how to distribute capital funding.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what surveys she has conducted into the access to, and availability of, drinking water in schools. [42696]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills has not conducted any surveys of access to, and availability of, drinking water in schools. It is for local education authorities, governors and schools to decide how and when drinking water should be made available to pupils.

  Learning Support Units
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning support units there are. [42890]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are approximately 1,090 learning support units in schools in England. We plan to increase this total further as independent evaluation of LSUs shows that they improve behaviour and cut exclusions. Phase 3 of Excellence in Cities and the Excellence Cluster programme should provide another 140 LSUs and up to 50 more outside the Excellence in Cities programme will be set up shortly.

  Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 236–37W on secondments, to which appointments the staff from (a) Ernst and Young and (b) PricewaterhouseCoopers were seconded. [42928]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The seven secondees were appointed to provide policy advice, in the areas of the Department set out in the table.

  Parent organisation

  Area of work

  Number

  Ernst and Young

  School leadership

  2

  Teachers pay and pensions

  2

  Transforming secondary education delivery unit

  2

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Surestart unit

  1

  Computers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 633W, what the total cost was of the Computers Within Reach pilot scheme; how

  255W
  much funding remains; what evaluation has been made of the success of the scheme; and how this will inform future policy on the computers within reach concept. [43326]

  John Healey
  To date, the Computers Within Reach scheme has cost just under £5.5 million, leaving £9.5 million of Capital Modernisation Funding (CMF) for a further phase or alternative scheme.

  An external research evaluation has been carried out and the final report was received recently. This indicates the scheme successfully reached target groups and contributed positively to increased use of ICT among recipients and their families.

  This report has contributed to our overall evaluation of the scheme and future policy will take this into consideration as well as the value for money of recycled computers compared with new ones and the technical and logistical issues that affect the recycled computer market.

  IT Contracts
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to encourage competition(a) for departmental IT contracts and (b) for local education authority IT contracts. [44198]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department follows EC Directives and UK Regulations in letting contracts, including those for IT goods and services. The Department works with the Office of Government Commerce to achieve enhanced competition in all market sectors.

  Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1999 requires Best Value authorities to carry out reviews of the services they provide. This applies to local education authorities' IT requirements and, where they take on the role, for provision of IT requirements on behalf of the schools within their area.

  The Department through BECTa has established a pilot procurement advisory service to advise schools on IT procurement. BECTa are running a competition to accredit ICT suppliers for education.

  The Government has made it clear that the future for public service provision is one where there is real variety in the way services are delivered and genuine plurality among service providers. The objective is to not favour one supplier against another but to encourage diversity, innovation and the competitiveness of the supply base.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if commemorative items will be distributed to school children in celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [44593]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 131–132W.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken to educate and prepare school children for the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [44592]
  256W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has encouraged school children to play an active role in the Jubilee celebrations through its support of a range of projects, including a National Poetry Competition, the Commonwealth Games Spirit of Friendship Festival and the Millennium Children's Tapestry of Hope. Information about these projects and others, as well as helpful links to many useful resources for schools, are available on my Department's website at www.dfes/gov.uk/jubilee. I welcome the exciting and imaginative contributions school children are already making to the celebrations.

  Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) selection criteria for the engineering specialist schools, (b) time scale for selection of the schools and (c) schools selected to become engineering specialists. [43573]

  Mr. Timms
  The criteria against which engineering colleges are selected are set out in the booklet "Specialist Schools Programme: Engineering Colleges Applications: A Guide for Schools" a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The closing date for the first engineering college applications was 15 March and we expect to announce the names of successful applicants in July.

  Technology Skills
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what instruction on the acquisition of technological and information technology skills are given to primary school teachers in their training. [43585]

  John Healey
  Before any trainee teacher, including trainee primary school teachers, can be awarded qualified teacher status they must demonstrate that they are competent in the use of ICT, both to teach their subject and to support their wider professional role.

  Serving teachers in maintained schools have, since 1998, had an entitlement to undertake ICT training funded by the New Opportunities Fund. This is designed to bring them to the same level of competence and confidence in the use of ICT in the classroom as their counterparts now entering the profession.

  The Government are now drawing up plans for further training in the use of ICT to support teachers' continuing professional development. A pilot scheme will be run in selected schools from April 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) the French Government concerning beef exports to France; and if she will make a statement. [43034]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: I made representations to both Commissioner Byrne and the then French Agriculture Minister during recent Agricultural Councils, making it clear that we expect

  257W
  France to lift its ban as soon as possible. I also raised this issue with the new French Agriculture Minister during the Agricultural Council on 18 and 19 March.

  We are confident the Commission will take the appropriate legal measures against the French if they continue to refuse to comply with the European Court of Justice Judgment.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 936W, on how many occasions, and when, members of the State Veterinary Service participated in exercises organised by Crawley borough council in respect of identifying illegal meat imports. [44229]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Since April last year, members of the State Veterinary Service have participated in four exercises with the Crawley borough council in respect of identifying illegal meat imports. The dates of which are 10 April 2001, 25 April 2001, 30 April 2001 and 8 March 2002.

  BSE (Sheep)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if there have been confirmed cases of BSE in sheep since 1996 in the UK. [43854]

  Mr. Morley
  To date, no cases of BSE have been found in the national sheep flock. The numbers tested are still relatively low because there is no validated, rapid method for differentiating between BSE and scrapie. We have to use a number of different tests, including where possible, bioassay in mice. Of course the Government have in place a comprehensive risk management strategy, should the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep become a real one. This includes: the National Scrapie Plan, aiming to reduce, and eventually eliminate, scrapie in the national sheep flock; a contingency plan, drawn up in conjunction with industry and other stakeholders; a major ongoing sheep TSE research programme, which is kept under review; and removal of specified risk material from the food chain. Independent advice from the Food Standards Agency remains unchanged: the risk of BSE in sheep is still entirely theoretical and the agency is not advising against the consumption of sheep or lamb.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2002, ref. 37621, if she will list(a) the 160 sites where ash has been removed and (b) those sites where foot and mouth carcases and ash were deposited in 2001, where deposits are planned to be moved. [41843]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The following is a listing by county in England and Wales of (a) the sites from which ash has been removed and (b) sites where ash is programmed to be moved or which are undergoing site specific risk assessment to assess whether or not the removal of ash is required. The list is by county, since the Department is constrained by the
  258W
  provisions of the Data Protection Act from providing full addresses of all the sites. There are no current plans to exhume carcases at any sites.

  County in England and Wales

  (a) Sites from where ash has been removed

  County Durham

  10

  Cumbria

  59

  Devon

  16

  Gloucestershire

  23

  Gwent

  1

  Herefordshire

  2

  Monmouthshire

  3

  Northumberland

  9

  Powys

  16

  Shropshire

  7

  Staffordshire

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  Wiltshire

  1

  Worcestershire

  2

  (b) Sites planned for ash removal

  County Durham

  4

  Worcestershire

  3

  Northumberland

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  Powys

  2

  Agricultural Produce (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the balance of trade was in agricultural produce between the United Kingdom and(a) the EU, (b) the USA and (c) the rest of the world in each of the last five years. [43037]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The tables show the balance of trade in food, feed and drink between the United Kingdom and (a) the EU (b) the USA and (c) all other countries in each of the last five years.

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with EU countries (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  1997

  Meat and meat preparations

  767

  1,713

  -946

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  469

  987

  -518

  Fish and fish preparations

  551

  250

  302

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  994

  1,007

  -13

  Vegetables and fruit

  340

  2,622

  -2,282

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  191

  235

  -44

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  370

  584

  -214

  Feeding stuff for animals

  323

  361

  -38

  Miscellaneous edible products

  315

  792

  -477

  Beverages

  1,267

  1,830

  -563

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  50

  105

  -55

  Oils and fats

  173

  380

  -207

  Grand total

  5,810

  10,865

  -5,055

  1998

  Meat and meat preparations

  641

  1,567

  -926

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  524

  990

  -466

  Fish and fish preparations

  657

  279

  378

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  1,011

  912

  99

  Vegetables and fruit

  315

  2,747

  -2,432

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  189

  242

  -53

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  369

  580

  -210

  Feeding stuff for animals

  267

  320

  -23

  Miscellaneous edible products

  319

  806

  -486

  Beverages

  1,281

  1,945

  -664

  259W

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with EU countries (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  50

  77

  -27

  Oils and fats

  151

  376

  -225

  Grand total

  5,805

  10,841

  -5,036

  1999

  Meat and meat preparations

  562

  1,693

  -1,131

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  515

  1,034

  -518

  Fish and fish preparations

  622

  297

  325

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  907

  881

  26

  Vegetables and fruit

  343

  2,622

  -2,279

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  168

  245

  -77

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  366

  589

  -223

  Feeding stuff for animals

  254

  298

  -44

  Miscellaneous edible products

  336

  839

  -503

  Beverages

  1,346

  2,065

  -719

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  39

  46

  -7

  Oils and fats

  117

  387

  -270

  Grand total

  5,577

  10,997

  -5,420

  2000

  Meat and meat preparations

  551

  1,872

  -1,322

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  483

  1,053

  -570

  Fish and fish preparations

  574

  311

  263

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  888

  855

  33

  Vegetables and fruit

  294

  2,567

  -2,273

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  159

  257

  -98

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  352

  571

  -219

  Feeding stuff for animals

  236

  334

  -98

  Miscellaneous edible products

  330

  681

  -351

  Beverages

  1,311

  1,832

  -521

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  18

  57

  -39

  Oils and fats

  87

  334

  -247

  Grand total

  5,283

  10,725

  -5,442

  2001

  Meat and meat preparations

  373

  2,124

  -1,751

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  446

  1,122

  -676

  Fish and fish preparations

  610

  338

  272

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  770

  972

  -202

  Vegetables and fruit

  301

  2,614

  -2,312

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  166

  291

  -125

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  362

  550

  -188

  Feeding stuff for animals

  214

  341

  -127

  Miscellaneous edible products

  372

  671

  -298

  Beverages

  1,359

  1,876

  -517

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  10

  91

  -81

  Oils and fats

  99

  347

  -248

  Grand total

  5,082

  11,335

  -6,253

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with USA (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  1997

  Meat and meat preparations

  9

  13

  -5

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  11

  4

  6

  Fish and fish preparations

  17

  65

  -48

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  29

  63

  -34

  Vegetables and fruit

  9

  226

  -217

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  59

  10

  49

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  42

  12

  30

  Feeding stuff for animals

  6

  173

  -167

  Miscellaneous edible products

  23

  37

  -15

  Beverages

  511

  132

  379

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  0

  111

  -111

  Oils and fats

  14

  19

  -4

  Grand total

  729

  866

  -137

  1998

  Meat and meat preparations

  9

  10

  -1

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  14

  5

  9

  Fish and fish preparations

  21

  67

  -46

  260W

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with USA (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  33

  81

  -48

  Vegetables and fruit

  7

  222

  -215

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  57

  13

  44

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  51

  12

  39

  Feeding stuff for animals

  10

  136

  -126

  Miscellaneous edible products

  22

  46

  -23

  Beverages

  482

  169

  312

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  0

  92

  -92

  Oils and fats

  17

  17

  -1

  Grand total

  724

  870

  -147

  1999

  Meat and meat preparations

  7

  8

  0

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  18

  8

  10

  Fish and fish preparations

  42

  64

  -22

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  32

  68

  -36

  Vegetables and fruit

  7

  201

  -194

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  74

  13

  61

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  52

  12

  40

  Feeding stuff for animals

  9

  119

  -110

  Miscellaneous edible products

  34

  54

  -20

  Beverages

  515

  161

  355

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  0

  38

  -38

  Oils and fats

  7

  14

  -7

  Grand total

  798

  758

  39

  2000

  Meat and meat preparations

  7

  8

  -1

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  15

  12

  4

  Fish and fish preparations

  36

  55

  -19

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  34

  67

  -33

  Vegetables and fruit

  8

  172

  -165

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  77

  10

  67

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  56

  13

  44

  Feeding stuff for animals

  9

  113

  -104

  Miscellaneous edible products

  21

  68

  -47

  Beverages

  561

  178

  383

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  0

  70

  -70

  Oils and fats

  8

  16

  -8

  Grand total

  832

  783

  49

  2001

  Meat and meat preparations

  2

  5

  -4

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  21

  14

  7

  Fish and fish preparations

  25

  79

  -54

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  36

  71

  -35

  Vegetables and fruit

  7

  172

  -165

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  63

  9

  54

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  64

  17

  47

  Feeding stuff for animals

  8

  120

  -112

  Miscellaneous edible products

  17

  72

  -54

  Beverages

  547

  216

  331

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  0

  52

  -52

  Oils and fats

  9

  27

  -18

  Grand total

  799

  854

  -56

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with all other countries (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  1997

  Meat and meat preparations

  123

  565

  -442

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  262

  139

  123

  Fish and fish preparations

  96

  858

  -762

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  370

  173

  196

  Vegetables and fruit

  96

  1,183

  -1,086

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  208

  555

  -347

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  265

  665

  -399

  Feeding stuff for animals

  64

  278

  -214

  Miscellaneous edible products

  187

  66

  121

  Beverages

  1,531

  456

  1,075

  261W

  UK trade in food, feed and drink with all other countries (1997–2001)

  £ million

  Description

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance of trade

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  12

  165

  -153

  Oils and fats

  75

  243

  -168

  Grand total

  3,288

  5,345

  -2,056

  1998

  Meat and meat preparations

  89

  474

  -386

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  204

  150

  53

  Fish and fish preparations

  79

  952

  -873

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  288

  160

  128

  Vegetables and fruit

  80

  1,202

  -1,123

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  224

  522

  -298

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  247

  709

  -462

  Feeding stuff for animals

  61

  245

  -184

  Miscellaneous edible products

  182

  64

  118

  Beverages

  1,134

  509

  625

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  8

  149

  -141

  Oils and fats

  73

  207

  -134

  Grand total

  2,669

  5,344

  -2,675

  1999

  Meat and meal preparations

  80

  494

  -414

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  153

  146

  7

  Fish and fish preparations

  83

  942

  -859

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  270

  185

  85

  Vegetables and fruit

  83

  1,311

  -1,227

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  133

  484

  -350

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  172

  634

  -463

  Feeding stuff for animals

  74

  233

  -158

  Miscellaneous edible products

  193

  71

  123

  Beverages

  1,170

  628

  542

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  22

  117

  -95

  Oils and fats

  72

  214

  -143

  Grand total

  2,506

  5,459

  -2,953

  2000

  Meat and meat preparations

  69

  526

  -457

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  156

  125

  32

  Fish and fish preparations

  88

  971

  -883

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  340

  176

  163

  Vegetables and fruit

  82

  1,240

  -1,148

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  125

  445

  -320

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  177

  520

  -343

  Feeding stuff for animals

  79

  257

  -178

  Miscellaneous edible products

  196

  80

  116

  Beverages

  1,207

  697

  510

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  1

  98

  -97

  Oils and fats

  58

  184

  -127

  Grand total

  2,588

  5,321

  -2,733

  2001

  Meat and meat preparations

  38

  600

  -562

  Dairy products and birds'eggs

  137

  124

  13

  Fish and fish preparations

  98

  1,030

  -932

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  270

  194

  76

  Vegetables and fruit

  81

  1,331

  -1,251

  Sugars, sugar preparations and honey

  128

  485

  -357

  Coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

  170

  517

  -347

  Feeding stuff for animals

  61

  320

  -259

  Miscellaneous edible products

  214

  79

  135

  Beverages

  1,341

  809

  532

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  1

  163

  -162

  Oils and fats

  32

  181

  -149

  Grand total

  2,569

  5,832

  -3,262

  Note:

  Above data do not include estimates for below-threshold trade.

  Rural Enterprise/Vocational Training Schemes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 732W, if she will list the schemes which attracted (a) rural
  262W
  enterprise scheme funding and (b) vocational training scheme funding indicating the (i) nature of the project and (ii) total funding for each project. [43323]

  Alun Michael
  I am writing to the hon. Member today with a list of the projects referred to in the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 732W, and a description of the nature of the project. The size of individual awards is commercially confidential.

  Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which of the options contained in the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme has now been applied across England; [43114]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme; [43115]

  (3) what the final cost to public funds is of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme; [43116]

  (4) if she will make a statement on financial penalties for breach of agreements between farmers and her Department in respect of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme. [43122]

  Mr. Morley
  The Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme opened in 1998 and closed to new applications in 2000, but some individual agreements under the scheme will run until July 2006. The total amount paid to farmers over the period 1998–2006 will be approximately £7.5 million.

  In the third year of the pilot, ecological and economic evaluations of the scheme options were undertaken. Following this evaluation, seven new options were incorporated into the Countryside Stewardship Scheme from January 2002. The options are:

  overwintered stubble followed by a spring crop;

  overwintered stubble followed by a low-input spring cereal;

  overwintered stubble followed by a spring/summer fallow;

  conservation headlands with restricted insecticide and herbicide use;

  conservation headlands with no fertiliser and restricted insecticide and herbicide use;

  wild bird seed mixtures;

  pollen and nectar mixtures.

  Financial penalties for breaches of agreement under the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme are the same as those for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Payments made may be withheld or reclaimed with interest. In addition, a 10 per cent. penalty may be imposed where appropriate. In certain circumstances, the agreement may also be terminated and the agreement holder banned from entering a new agreement under any Rural Development Regulation scheme for up to two years.

  Water Industry
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's Review of competition in the water industry in England and Wales. [44725]

  Mr. Meacher
  I informed the House on 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 832W, that the Government had decided to boost the opportunities for competition in

  263W
  public water services in England and Wales. We proposed that the incumbent companies would remain vertically integrated statutory undertakers, while new entrants would be licensed for production and retail activities. Since then, DEFRA has undertaken further detailed work on the future framework, in close collaboration with other Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales, and the three principal regulators of the water industry; Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency.

  Competition can deliver benefits for customer through keener prices, more innovation and improved service quality. But competition must be consistent with the Government's wider policy objectives for the water industry. It is important for the framework and scope of any further competitive activity to be tailored to the particular circumstances of the industry and the needs of its customers.

  After thorough consideration, we propose to extend competition for non-household customers that use large quantities of water. Market entrants will be authorised to enter into common carriage agreements with statutory undertakers to supply premises which use more than a specified threshold of water per year. We propose that this should be set initially at 50 megalitres, based on the evidence currently available. Work is under way to assess the likely effects of lower threshold levels, both in terms of increasing competitive opportunity and the Government's wider policy objectives for the water industry. Views will be invited on the threshold in a forthcoming consultation paper. This further analysis, the views received in response to consultation, and consideration of the implications for all customers, will inform any final decisions on the initial threshold to be introduced in England and Wales.

  Any subsequent lowering of the initial threshold will be considered once we have the benefit of practical experience to draw on. We would consult publicly on any proposed change and the same considerations would apply as in the case of the initial threshold. From the outset, new entrants to the industry will be expected to co-operate with the statutory undertakers in preparing and implementing water resource, security and emergency planning.

  We have considered very carefully whether to introduce competition now for household customers. We have concluded that extending competition to the domestic water sector, while at the same time seeking to ensure that the Government's public health, social and environmental objectives continued to be met, would require a complex and costly regulatory regime, which would still leave substantial uncertainties. The added complexity would militate against effective competition and the extra costs would have to be borne mainly by customers. In our view, these drawbacks are likely to outweigh the potential benefits.

  Household and other customers can continue to rely on the present system of comparative competition operated by Ofwat, to encourage water companies to improve efficiency and their services. Average household customers are now paying 13 per cent. less than in 1999, a reduction of £33 in real terms.
  264W
  We shall be publishing a consultation paper with further details of our proposals later this year. As previously announced, our intention is to introduce a Water Bill to bring these changes into effect. The draft Bill also contains proposals to put customers at the heart of the regulatory process, including setting up an independent consumer body to be the voice of consumers.

  EU Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department expects the EU Water Framework Directive to come into force in the United Kingdom. [43600]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Water Framework Directive came into force in all European Community member states on 22 December 2000. Article 24 of the Directive requires member states to bring into force the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 22 December 2003.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure the protection of sites designated as special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive; and if she will make a statement. [43213]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Special areas of conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive, special protection areas (SPA) under the Birds Directive and sites listed tinder the Ramsar Convention are accorded the highest level of protection available.

  Article 6 of the Habitats Directive as transposed into UK law through the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 requires that any new development proposal likely to have a significant impact on a SAC or SPA is assessed for its implications on that site. If that assessment concludes that the project would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site it can only proceed, in the absence of alternatives, in the overriding public interest.

  Guidance to local planning authorities and other public bodies on how that protection should be delivered is given in the current Planning Policy Guidance on Nature Conservation (PPG9). In addition the Government Statement of May 1998 on the Birds and Habitats Directives gave extensive guidance on the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and relevant factors to be weighed when making judgments about overriding public interest.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42489]

  Mr. Morley
  The Parental Leave Directive which introduced parental leave entitlements (along with increased maternity benefits and time-off to care for dependants) was introduced into UK law by the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Act has had a neutral financial effect and limited benefit on this Department and the Pesticides Safety Directorate,
  265W
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Rural Payments Agencies, because the leave is without pay and because prior to the introduction of the legislation the Department already had in place contractual terms which were generally more favourable to staff though they did not specifically cover unpaid time-off for parental leave. As part of its overall 'family friendly' provisions this Department continues to establish arrangements which allow staff to establish a proper work/life balance. The statutory rights which have now been incorporated into staff terms and conditions provide staff with basic entitlements in the event that they fall outside the contractual entitlements. So far there have been few requests for unpaid parental leave.

  Responsibility for such matters within the Central Science Laboratory Agency, the Veterinary Laboratory Agency and the Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency has been delegated to Agency Chief Executives and I have asked them to reply direct.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42432]

  Mr. Morley
  Of those employed in my Department, 83 are job sharing (1.03 per cent.) and 14 are block ("term") working (0.17 per cent.). A total of 724 work part-time (8.96 per cent.) and 80 are on unpaid leave (0.99 per cent.).

  The Department also operates a flexible working hours scheme. This allows an individual to play a full part at work while enabling them to arrange their working hours to fit in with social and domestic arrangements. It also allows line managers to deal sympathetically with any requests for time off if the individual has particular needs.

  Energy expenditure by Government Departments—as published in Green Ministers reports

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  MAFF

  1,607,392

  1,196,306

  1,270,719

  1,155,485

  MAFF Labs

  1,195,120

  2,010,656

  1,877,991

  1,880,441

  Cabinet Office

  723,587

  693,234

  717,622

  767,895

  DCMS

  82,888

  121,916

  106,634

  122,991

  HM Customs and Excise

  3,476,954

  2,414,356

  2,370,071

  2,431,032

  DfEE

  1,337,963

  1,347,403

  1,056,810

  1,111,660

  Employment Service

  5,341,147

  4,848,133

  4,946,793

  4,960,622

  DETR

  4,095,629

  4,099,099

  3,993,520

  3,473,024

  Health and Safety Executive

  667,458

  668,883

  582,679

  570,336

  QE2 Conference Centre

  291,715

  347,200

  324,614

  305,739

  FCO

  920,989

  990,362

  921,380

  1,033,203

  DoH

  722,641

  738,355

  786,383

  758,908

  Home Office

  2,051,873

  1,792,543

  1,911,139

  2,378,335

  HM Prison Service

  24,257,826

  23,868,557

  20,016,907

  22,310,050

  Inland Revenue

  8,256,246

  8,192,613

  8,138,451

  8,772,679

  DfID

  212,935

  225,513

  209,602

  183,574

  Lord Chancellors Department

  5,301,610

  5,258,187

  5,282,774

  5,021,175

  DSS

  15,684,969

  13,805,000

  11,474,213

  11,327,417

  DTI

  2,250,288

  2,312,915

  1,847,819

  2,117,249

  HM Treasury

  612,651

  336,547

  316,314

  337,396

  Note:

  In a few cases figures were revised from one report to another. The figures here are the latest published.
  266W
  It is departmental policy, as an equal opportunity employer, to meet requests for all types of flexible working wherever the nature of the work allows. This includes: maternity, paternity and parental leave (over and above legal requirements); flexible working hours; part-time work and job sharing; leave to care for sick children/carer's leave; home-working; term-time contracts; annual hours contracts; child care allowances; career break schemes; paid/unpaid leave. The flexibility of the working pattern is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individual's need and the needs of their work. Managers are encouraged to welcome applications from people working different patterns, where the nature of work allows.

  The Department sees flexible working arrangements as important in the promotion of diversity and equal opportunities policies, in the recruitment and retention of staff and for the creation of a better work/life balance.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42439]

  Alun Michael
  Information for the each of the last 10 years is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition, the Machinery of Government changes do not allow for easy comparison. However, information on energy costs for DEFRA's predecessor and other Government Departments for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 is available in the Green Ministers reports which can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/greening/minister/grmin.htm. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  For your convenience these data, without the footnotes, for English Government Departments is reproduced.

  Energy costs for 2000–01 will be published in the next Green Ministers report in autumn 2002.

  Rio Earth Summit (Implementation)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to coastal zone issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44348]

  Mr. Meacher
  Among the actions contributing to sustainable development and relating to coastal zone management are work on species and habitat action plans under the Biodiversity Convention, and work within OSPAR on the strategies on hazardous substances and biodiversity.

  Our policy on promoting sustainable development of the marine environment, including the coastal zone will shortly be set out in the forthcoming Marine Stewardship Report.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out for each Civil Service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39177]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie) on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1073W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff left the service of her Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many her Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37553]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie) on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1072W.

  For part (c), in the year ended 31 March 2001 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies assumed responsibility for making payments until retirement age (60) for 11 of these staff.

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many chartered engineers there are in her Department; and what grades they hold. [43582]

  Mr. Morley
  The specific information requested is not held centrally by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Action Plan (Organic Sector)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will start work on the development of the Government action plan for the organic sector announced in October. [44098]

  Mr. Morley
  An announcement about the Organic Food and Farming action plan will be made soon.

  Objective 1 (Funding)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January, if she will ensure that the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly objective 1 funds will be fully restored. [35292]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14 February 2002, Official Report, column 653W.

  Flood Defence
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds have been allocated to coastal communities for flood defence work per capita in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [39400]

  Mr. Morley
  The table details DEFRA grant to the Environment Agency (EA) and local authorities (LAs) for capital works to provide tidal river and sea defences and protection against coastal erosion in each of the last 10 financial years.

  £ million

  EA Sea/Tidal River

  LA Sea/Tidal River

  LA Coast Protection

  1991–92

  24.6

  0.1

  19.5

  1992–93

  29.6

  0.5

  12.2

  1993–94

  26.7

  0.4

  18.6

  1994–95

  30.6

  0.1

  24.2

  1995–96

  38.1

  0.2

  31.3

  1996–97

  41.2

  0.7

  34.7

  1997–98

  34.0

  0.8

  24.2

  1998–99

  27.4

  0.1

  24.1

  1999–2000

  21.3

  0.9

  24.7

  2000–011

  17.5

  1.2

  12.0

  1 In 2000–01 Las under-achieved on coast protection works compared to their plans. They have recognised the need to improve project planning and the reliability of their forecasts.

  Further funds are spent by the EA and LAs to cover non grant aided works, such as maintenance and flood warning. I regret I am unable to provide the above figures on a per capita basis without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to act upon the results of the consultation on reducing the number of abandoned vehicles; and if she will make a statement. [43501]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Recycling
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for 2002 have been decided; and if she will make a statement. [45054]

  Mr. Meacher
  New business recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste in 2002 under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) have been agreed by the Government. Subject to the approval of Parliament, these are as follows:Recovery 59 per cent.
  Material-specific recycling 19 per cent.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 were made to enable the UK to meet its obligations under the EC Directive on Packaging Waste, in particular the recovery and recycling targets in Article 6 of that Directive. The first targets that we and other member states had to achieve, in 2001, under the Packaging Waste Directive were that at least 50 per cent. of packaging waste be recovered, at least 25 per cent. recycled and 15 per cent. of each packaging material recycled.

  On the assumption that the UK met these targets last year (and final figures are not yet ready), the targets I am proposing today should allow almost five million tonnes of packaging waste to be recovered in 2002.

  My Department has, as was indicated in the recent consultation paper on targets for 2002, reviewed the figures that were used to develop the targets for 2002 in that paper and in light of the changes in the amount of packaging data reported by businesses obligated under the packaging Regulations, and the estimates for the tonnages expected to be obligated in 2002, the Government have decided on a recovery target of 59 per cent. and a material-specific target of 19 per cent.

  As in previous years, the national targets for next year need to be seen as leading on to higher targets and the ones proposed by the Government should allow the UK to plan a smooth upward curve towards higher recovery and recycling targets over the next few years.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures have been introduced to encourage businesses to recycle waste. [43042]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: We have introduced or are planning to introduce a range of measures to encourage businesses to recycle by both regulatory and voluntary producer responsibility schemes.

  The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste—94/62/EC—was implemented in Great Britain by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended). In order to comply with the requirements in the Directive, recovery and recycling targets for 2001 under the packaging Regulations were 56 per cent. for recovery and 18 per cent. for material specific recycling of packaging waste.

  The Regulations place obligations on certain businesses to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste. Their obligation is calculated by using three factors: the amount of packaging handled by the business, the national business recovery and recycling targets for
  270W
  the year and the "activity obligation" associated with the activity the business carries out on packaging. Businesses can also reduce their obligation by using less and reusing packaging whenever possible. By increasing the amount reused, producers are able to reduce the tonnages of packaging waste they are required to recover and so lessen their costs of compliance.

  We are transposing the EC Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles and the proposed Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment is expected to be adopted by the EC later this year.

  A voluntary agreement is in place with the Newspaper Publishers Association to increase the recycled content of newsprint to target levels over a period of years up to 2006 and we are currently talking to the producers of direct mail and promotions with the aim of agreeing recycling targets for this material.

  Hazardous Waste (Shoreham Harbour)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what hazardous waste has been handled through Shoreham Harbour in the last two years; and what licences were issued. [43791]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Shipments of hazardous waste enter the UK under a system of prior written notification and consent rather than licensing. These controls are set out by Council Regulation (EEC) No.259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of hazardous waste. The UK does not designate specific ports of import for hazardous waste. The Environment Agency, which controls the import of waste, would not, therefore, necessarily know which port is being used for a shipment.

  However, the Environment Agency area office believes that there has been one shipment of 60 tonnes of redundant pesticides and agrochemicals imported via Shoreham in the last two years. This arrived in 2002.

  Hazardous Emissions (Shoreham Harbour)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action has been taken to monitor dust emissions from HGVs using Shoreham Harbour on port related business. [43705]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Local authorities have a duty under part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to assess air quality against objectives set out in the Air Quality Regulations 2000, including an objective in respect of particulate matter (PM10). If the air quality objectives are likely to be exceeded by relevant deadline in areas where the public are likely to be exposed, then local authorities have to declare an air quality management area.

  Adur District Council has produced a stage III local air quality management review and assessment report. This report refers to the fugitive dust emissions from Shoreham Harbour, and is available from the Housing and Environmental Services Department at Adur District Council.

  An air quality modelling exercise was carried out that indicates that concentrations of PM10 from these fugitive dust sources is unlikely to exceed either the annual mean or 24-hour mean air quality objectives at locations where

  271W
  the public are likely to be exposed. The modelling results have been compared to a limited period of monitoring in the Port area. The local authority's report states that it was not possible to undertake extensive monitoring of PM10 in the area of the Port. In September 2000 a cascade impactor was installed for four weeks. The overall conclusion of the report was that no exceedence of the PM10 objective would occur within Adur's District Council boundaries, and this conclusion has been accepted

  Local authorities will be required to produce a further review and assessment report in the second phase of local air quality management by end of 2003.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 March, ref. 42321, when she expects the Environment Agency to publish its research on the "Human Health Review of Incineration and Combustion Techniques". [44228]

  Margaret Beckett
  The "Human Health Review of Incineration and Combustion Techniques" research is expected to be published in August 2002.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she is considering to strengthen the powers of(a) local authorities and (b) the Environment Agency in dealing with fly tipping; and if she will make a statement. [42556]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local Authorities and the Environment Agency already have wide powers to tackle fly tipping under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under this Act, local authorities and the Environment Agency have the power to remove fly tipped waste and recover the cost of collection on those who committed the offence. They also have the power to prosecute the perpetrator, and successful prosecution can lead to heavy penalties including an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.

  As part of the local public service agreement initiative, some local authorities have argued that to assist their ability to combat fly tipping, they should be given the power that the Environment Agency has to require companies and individuals to provide the Agency with copies of the duty of care paperwork which these companies and individuals are required to maintain. The Government have asked the fly tipping stakeholders' forum to consider this issue and make recommendations. We are currently awaiting the forum's views.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what matters in respect of the future management and repatriation of German radioactive waste arising from reprocessing at Sellafield were discussed with her counterpart in Germany on her recent visit. [32288]

  Margaret Beckett
  None.

  Ilsham Valley Pumping Station
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will determine the outcome of the inquiry into the compulsory purchase order of Ilsham Valley pumping station, Torquay. [43140]

  Mr. Meacher
  After considering the inspector's report resulting from the public inquiry, the Secretary of State decided that the order should be confirmed. The Department wrote to the parties concerned on 8 March 2002 informing them of the decision. The order as confirmed is subject to special parliamentary procedure and will be laid before both Houses.

  Aquatic Pursuits
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 77W, if she will introduce new performance indicators to help judge the success of efforts to improve access for canoeists by the Environment Agency's Angling and Canoe Liaison Group. [42386]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have no plans to introduce performance indicators, but will continue to encourage the Environment Agency's Angling and Canoe Liaison Group to look for ways of improving access to the water for recreational use.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 77W, if she will make Environment Agency funding dependent on improving access to water for canoeists. [42385]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have no plans to make any Agency funding dependent on improving access to water for canoeists, but will continue to encourage the Environment Agency to look for ways of improving access to the water and land it manages for recreational use, as appropriate.

  Navigation Rights
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make Government grants to landowners who own navigation rights on fast moving inland water dependent on their granting navigation rights for non-powered craft. [43328]

  Alun Michael
  We recently published the findings of research about water-based sport and recreation. One possibility raised in the report was for the introduction of revised funding arrangements for riparian owners in targeted locations to allow public access to their waterspace.

  Officials recently met the other sponsors of the research (British Waterways, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and Sport England) and other interested Government Departments to consider what action to take in the light of the report's findings. I shall be considering the outcome of the meeting with my ministerial colleagues. I shall also be interested to hear the hon. Member's views when we meet later this month.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the NFU. [7729]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the NFU on Thursday 14 February 2002.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union. [35878]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will next meet representatives of the NFU on Thursday 21 March 2002.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in her Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38154]

  (2) if she will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in her Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38190]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken since 1 March 2001 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

  The additional detailed information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Beekeepers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many beekeepers were known to the National Bee Unit in(a) Essex and (b) England in each of the last four years. [42376]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of beekeepers in Essex and England identified on the National Bee Unit's (NBU) database in each of the last four years is as follows.
  274W

  Essex

  England

  1998

  824

  19,346

  1999

  832

  19,607

  2000

  787

  19,068

  2001

  540

  17,884

  The database is used to maintain records of statutory inspection programmes. It is not a definitive register of beekeepers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 834-5W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41507]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 February 2002]: For the year 1997–98, detailed records are not available of the action taken for equipment stolen.

  For the three years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 in all cases but one the culprit was not identified. In the one single case the culprit was dismissed without prosecution and the amount of the loss was recovered (£100).

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42107]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information on the contracts agreed with the Home Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997 are as follows:

  Company/contracts

  Ernst & Young—Total: £1,952,828

  corporate planning facilitation

  project feasibility study

  youth inclusion programme

  Departmental review

  study of National Agency for confiscation of criminal assets

  Pricewaterhousecoopers—Total: £7,572,321

  quantum

  preparation of in house bid

  immigration & nationality directorate consultancy

  support of preparation of in house bid

  development of prisons cost model

  wider markets review

  advertising costs to recruit the Director of Police Standards Unit

  technology review for Criminal Records Bureau

  development of Police Standards Unit programme of work

  recruitment of Director General of Resources and Performance

  development of resource accounting

  275W
  Deloitte & Touche—Total: £145,800

  consulting on VAT and tax implications for the new police training organisation

  productivity review

  KPMG—Total £382,729

  bench marking of court escorts

  implementations of National Audit Office recommendations

  review of involvement in inspection of prisons

  development of financial systems

  Note:

  The Home Office has not awarded any contracts to Anderson for the period in question.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40451]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 8 of the Civil Service Management code requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  Home Office staff below Senior Executive Officer level are normally required to travel standard class on rail journeys. The details, including exceptions to the general policy, are contained in the Departmental Travel and Subsistence Manual. The policy is to encourage staff to use public transport rather than cars, in accordance with the Government's policy on "Green Transport".

  Senior staff are entitled to travel first class on official journeys where facilities are available to enable working on official papers on route. The policy is kept under review, but there are no current plans to change the arrangements. A new contract from 1 April will ensure additional discounts are available.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38378]

  Angela Eagle
  I can confirm that the Home Department has current contracts with Capita which are valued at £403 million. This includes a 10 year contract with the Criminal Records Bureau which is estimated to be worth £400 million over the term of the contract.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 844W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37891]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not have the desegregated information available and could obtain this only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-departmental Government Bodies
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-departmental Government bodies were operating in each of the last 10 years. [42801]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The number of Home Office non-departmental public bodies operating over the last ten years are set out in the table.

  Executive

  Advisory

  Tribunal

  Other

  1992

  11

  14

  10

  1

  1993

  11

  14

  10

  1

  1994

  11

  14

  11

  1

  1995

  11

  14

  10

  1

  1996

  9

  12

  11

  1

  1997

  11

  11

  11

  1

  1998

  12

  10

  10

  1

  1999

  13

  10

  12

  1

  2000

  13

  12

  12

  1

  2001

  9

  9

  9

  1

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list non-governmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from his Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39185]

  Angela Eagle
  In this reply, "non-governmental organisation" means an organisation working within the voluntary or charity sector. The available information is set out in the table.

  The Home Office does not generally record this information by region. It is therefore possible that other organisations in the south-west region, which are not listed, have received support from the Home Office.

  In addition, funding awarded to national organisations may have been used to support work in the south-west region. It would be a matter for the organisation concerned how they chose to allocate such resources and the Home Office would not hold that information.

  £

  Organisation

  Payment in financial year 2000–01

  Awaz Utaoh (Bristol)

  40,825

  Barnardo's South West

  18,313

  Barne Barton Community

  10,500

  Barne Barton Estate Project (Plymouth)

  15,000

  Black Development Agency

  58,000

  Black Development Agency—"Three in One Project'

  30,000

  Bournemouth CVS—Resource Link

  42,000

  Bristol Racial Equality Council

  40,150

  Community Projects Trust—South West

  30,000

  Conduit Street Community Centre (Gloucester)

  193,891

  Crime Concern1

  700,975

  Eastbourne Community Network

  199,154

  Fairbridge

  17,684

  Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens

  50,000

  Home-Start Bournemouth

  61,863

  Honicknowle Commnet Ltd

  2,800

  Include

  11,227

  Jamaican Community Centre (Gloucester)

  32,142

  Kerrier Phoenix Project

  150,000

  KHAAS (Bristol)

  19,105

  Mediation UK

  90,000

  277W

  £

  Organisation

  Payment in financial year 2000–01

  National Playbus Association

  30,230

  Plymouth and District Racial Equality Council

  25,120

  Portsmouth Community Safety

  55,600

  Portsmouth Community Services Project

  25,125

  Quest Trust

  20,000

  Social Software

  7,050

  Somerset Youth Voluntary Network

  125,000

  Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA)

  16,267

  Swindon Business Education Partnership

  78,900

  The South West Forum

  58,000

  The Xcentre (Exeter)

  196,500

  Youth Action Scheme

  11,038

  Youth Support Services

  20,355

  Voluntary First (Bath and north-east Somerset)

  122,491

  Womanise Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (mid and north Cornwall)

  77,444

  1 Crime Concern have their national headquarters in Wiltshire (in the south-west region). This payment includes £33,000 given to Crime Concern for the roll-out of 'Driving the Action' seminars to a number of regions including the south-west region.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crime and disorder partnerships there are in England. [41364]

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2001 by police force area/Magistrates Courts committees (MCC)

  Police force area/MCC

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 20002

  From 1 January 2001 to 30 September 2001

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  3

  16

  28

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  1

  2

  8

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  4

  5

  10

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Derbyshire

  3

  7

  2

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  0

  9

  10

  Dorset

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Durham

  0

  4

  6

  10

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  3

  4

  Greater Manchester

  10

  2

  12

  24

  Hampshire

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  7

  9

  Humberside

  0

  9

  2

  11

  Kent

  0

  3

  12

  15

  Lancashire

  5

  5

  6

  16

  Leicestershire

  1

  4

  0

  5

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Merseyside

  8

  3

  6

  17

  Metropolitan Police3/Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority

  9

  19

  12

  40

  Norfolk

  6

  0

  11

  17

  Northamptonshire

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Northumbria

  8

  5

  2

  15

  North Yorkshire

  4

  0

  6

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  4

  11

  16

  South Yorkshire

  3

  1

  2

  6

  Staffordshire

  0

  4

  6

  10

  Suffolk

  3

  0

  2

  5

  Surrey

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Sussex

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  5

  7

  Warwickshire

  0

  1

  2

  3

  West Mercia

  5

  7

  35

  47

  West Midlands

  11

  23

  31

  65

  West Yorkshire

  4

  2

  9

  15

  278W
  Mr. Denham
  There are 376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England and Wales, 354 of these are in England and 22 in Wales.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued, broken down by local authority areas, in each calendar year since their introduction. [42369]

  Mr. Denham
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are community-based civil orders, which can be applied for by the police or local authority in consultation with each other, against an individual or several individuals whose behaviour is antisocial. Applications are currently made to the magistrates court acting in its civil capacity. ASBOs were introduced from 1 April 1999.

  Data on the total number of ASBOs issued between 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 was collected by police force area only.

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) which from 1 April 2001 were all aligned with police force areas. These returns are not presently designed to give figures below MCC level. Available information, up to 30 September 2001, by police force/MCC area is given in the table.
  279W

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2001 by police force area/Magistrates Courts Committees (MCC)

  Police force area/MCC

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 20002

  From 1 January 2001 to 30 September 2001

  Total

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North Wales

  0

  1

  0

  1

  South Wales

  0

  1

  1

  2

  England and Wales

  104

  129

  233

  466

  1 Total figures only available from police force areas for period 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000.

  2 As from 1 June 2000 data collected centrally by Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area by quarter.

  3 Including City of London

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce guidance to authorities which successfully apply for ASBOs for individuals, on other rehabilitative measures which should be implemented at the same time. [41365]

  Mr. Denham
  Revised guidance on Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) will be issued once the legislative changes introduced into the Police Reform Bill are available. The revised guidance will include information on agencies providing rehabilitative measures.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which authority is responsible for meeting the cost of apply ing for anti-social behaviour orders. [38329]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The cost of an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is usually met by the lead agency making the application—this will either be the local authority or the local police force. In some areas there are local arrangements where the costs are divided between the two agencies.

  Independent Schools Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to respond to requests made in September 2000 by the Independent Schools Council about the visa regime for students from Commonwealth countries who take up temporary employment in independent schools. [41870]

  Angela Eagle
  The Joint Entry Clearance Unit of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied to the Independent Schools Council (ISC) on 21 September 2000 outlining the routes open to independent schools seeking to engage teaching assistants from outside the European Economic Area.

  The ISC has expressed an interest in the planned amendment, to reflect the National Minimum Wage Act, of a concession, outside the immigration rules, which facilitates the entry of voluntary workers from overseas. The ISC will be advised of the details of the amendment shortly.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what psychiatric aftercare is given to victims of miscarriages of justice. [38361]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: In order to obtain psychiatric aftercare, a victim of a miscarriage of justice will first need to contact their own
  280W
  GP for an assessment of their individual requirements. Having due regard to their patient's current needs, and previous medical history, the GP will then refer the case for any appropriate specialist treatment.

  A working group was set up to look at the support and assistance that may be needed for prisoners who have successfully appealed against conviction. The group has not yet concluded its work but expects to put recommendations to Ministers shortly.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training psychologists, who have been charged to treat the problems of the victims of miscarriages of justice, are given. [38362]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Individuals who have suffered from a miscarriage of justice, and have a need for psychological support, will first need to approach their own GP for a referral. In making such a referral, the GP will have regard to both relevant experience and training before selecting an appropriate psychologist.

  A working group was set up to look at the support and assistance that may be needed for prisoners who have successfully appealed against conviction. The group has not yet concluded its work but expects to put recommendations to Ministers shortly.

  Visas (Romania)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish visa requirements for visiting students from Romania; what discussions he has had with that country's Government on the abolition of the requirement for UK students to have visas when visiting Romania; and if he will make a statement. [41914]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: A visa regime will normally be imposed where there is evidence of sustained abuse of our controls. All visa regimes are kept under review, and are only maintained where they contribute to effective immigration control. There continue to be large numbers of Romanian nationals seeking asylum or being found here illegally. In the circumstances there are no plans to lift the visa requirement for Romanian nationals. United Kingdom citizens do not require visas to visit Romania, but any who wish to study there will need to fulfil the requirement of the Romanian immigration regulations. We have had no discussions with the Romanian government on the conditions they attach to United Kingdom students studying in Romania.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will begin the local consultations on the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [41934]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Home Office officials are currently in the process of holding meetings with local authorities in all eight locations. Those meetings will include making arrangements for a consultation exercise in each area.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he had on the insurance arrangements in case of riot at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre at the time of the making of the contract between Group Four and his Department for the operation of the Centre; and if he will make a statement. [38783]

  Angela Eagle
  The contract with Group 4 Amey Immigration Limited requires the Contractor to effect and maintain or procure in full force and effect insurance in the joint names of the contractor and the Crown in respect of a full range of insurance.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether persons suspected of arson and attempted arson were transferred to Yarl's Wood detention centre prior to the major fire there; and if he will make a statement. [39524]

  Angela Eagle
  There is at present no specific evidence that such persons were held at Yarl's Wood removal centre. However, it must be remembered that the overseas background of an individual—including any criminal activities—will not usually be known at the time of their detention.

  Individuals detained under Immigration Act powers who are known or assessed to present a serious control or security risk, or those who have served a prison sentence of more than 12 months, would normally be held in prison rather than a removal centre pending the resolution of their immigration status or, if appropriate, deportation. The Immigration Service has taken steps to identify high risk individuals held in removal centres and have made arrangements for them to be transferred to prison.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training personnel received for managing Yarl's Wood removal centre; and if he will make a statement. [41150]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 155 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires that custodial functions at removal centres be performed by certified Detainee Custody Officers. A certificate of authorisation to act as a Detainee Custody Officer will not be issued unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is (a) a fit and proper person to perform the functions to be authorised and (b) has received training to such standard as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the performance of those functions. In addition to these statutory requirements, contracts to operate removal centres require the contractor to implement a full training programme for all staff, supervisors and managers in a range of appropriate skills and procedures.

  European Excellence Model
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the European Excellence Model scores were for each of the probation areas, including the National Probation Service, during the recent evaluation; and if he will make a statement. [41153]

  Beverley Hughes
  A table containing the scores achieved by the local probation areas and by the National Directorate is set out in the table. The scores across the 42 operational areas ranged from 150 to 330 and the average was 243. The National Directorate score was 100. This was to be expected from an organisation that was only created on 1 April 2001 and is still building its capacity and introducing first time business processes. The maximum achievable score is 1,000. In order to achieve an excellence award an organisation would need to score 600–700.

  Region/area

  Total

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  285

  Warwickshire

  270

  West Mercia

  275

  West Midlands

  290

  Regional average

  280

  North East

  County Durham

  180

  Northumbria

  200

  Teeside

  240

  Regional average

  207

  East

  Bedfordshire

  255

  Cambridgeshire

  320

  Essex

  220

  Hertfordshire

  205

  Norfolk

  205

  Suffolk

  290

  Regional average

  249

  North West

  Cheshire

  190

  Cumbria

  210

  Greater Manchester

  230

  Lancashire

  185

  Merseyside

  234

  Regional average

  210

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  302

  Leicestershire

  235

  Lincolnshire

  230

  Northampton

  220

  Nottingham

  282

  Regional average

  254

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  254

  South Yorkshire

  225

  North Yorkshire

  270

  West Yorkshire

  285

  Regional average

  259

  South East

  Hampshire

  190

  Kent

  225

  Surrey

  170

  Sussex

  175

  Thames Valley

  150

  Regional average

  182

  283W

  Region/area

  Total

  South West

  Avon and Somerset

  215

  Devon and Cornwall

  275

  Dorset

  294

  Gloucestershire

  275

  Wiltshire

  320

  Regional average

  276

  London

  211

  Wales

  North Wales

  285

  Gwent

  330

  Dyfed-Powys

  230

  South Wales

  290

  Regional average

  284

  England and Wales average

  243

  National Directorate

  100

  Assisted Prison Visits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether eligibility for the Assisted Prison Visits scheme includes the travel costs of foreign nationals to visit relatives held in prison in the United Kingdom from overseas. [28367]

  Beverley Hughes
  Applicants for assistance under the Assisted Prison Visits scheme for England and Wales are required to demonstrate that they meet the scheme's low income criterion. Relatives who are living overseas will not meet the criterion as this is based on United Kingdom awards. These are income support and job seeker's allowance (income based); a health certificate two or three issued by the Department of Health; working families tax credit or disabled person's tax credit where the amount of credit withdrawn is £70 or less.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members his Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if he will make a statement. [42935]

  Angela Eagle
  Home Office departmental responsibility for regulatory impacts is located in the Performance, Delivery and Strategy Unit which employs one person to co-ordinate the work on regulatory impacts across the Department.

  He works closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within the Home Office and with the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources are made available to receiving authorities for known sex offenders who are allocated to areas other than those of their known offending. [42191]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Sex offenders are subject to statutory supervision by the National Probation Service until any supervision period
  284W
  expires. In some cases the length of sentence or the provisions of earlier legislation mean that a period of supervision in the community does not apply.

  Statutory supervision enables the National Probation Service to exercise a control over the location of an offender. The needs and wishes of the victim and/or the requirements of specialist accommodation may lead to a placement out of area which will be negotiated with the receiving area.

  In all circumstances, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the police and probation services have a joint responsibility to assess risk and to formulate a management plan for those who pose a high risk of harm. This is discharged through multi-agency public protection panels (MAPPPs).

  A convicted sex offender not or no longer subject to supervision is free to choose his location but in most cases will be subject to the requirements of the Sex Offender Act 1997. This means he will be required to register his home address with the police, and notify them of any change. The police will make every effort to monitor the whereabouts of those assessed as very high risk and to notify the receiving police area of the offender's movement. Where the police and other agencies have concerns about the offender's behaviour, they may apply for a sex offender order, restraining him from specified activities on pain of imprisonment.

  General budgets for police and probation include provision for risk management activities; funds do not normally follow specific offenders.

  The Government will be bringing forward proposals to strengthen further the protection afforded from sex offenders. The Halliday report on the structure of the sentencing framework includes proposals for a new special sentence for sexual and violent offenders that will bring increased supervision. We are also looking to strengthen the MAPPP process, including by bringing in a lay element at an appropriate level.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many eviction notices against groups of travellers have been served in each of the last five years; what assessment he has made of the proportion of evictions that have arisen from real and sustained nuisance; what representations on this subject he has received; and if he will make a statement. [41101]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Figures for the number of eviction notices served on travellers are not collated centrally.

  The Home Office receives representations regularly on issues relating to travellers, particularly about unauthorised camping and disorder. We continue to keep the current powers to deal with problems associated with unauthorised encampments under review.

  Agricultural Workers
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the review of the seasonal agricultural workers' scheme will take into account Cornish agricultural workers. [41808]
  285W
  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper, 'Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain', explains current routes of entry to the United Kingdom for work purposes and our proposals to augment and complement these routes in the light of the United Kingdom's economic needs.

  In reviewing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' scheme to see how it may better meet the needs of the agricultural sector, account will certainly be taken of the availability and skills of, and employment opportunities for, the existing workforce.

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road accidents involved police investigations which led to criminal proceedings in each of the last five years. [42183]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The police investigate every accident which they attend, and they attend in the vast majority of cases where there is some level of injury. There were 233,729 such accidents in 2000. The police also attend and investigate many accidents involving damage to vehicles or property where there is no injury to people. Information about these is not recorded centrally.

  Records of proceedings for road traffic offences do not describe the circumstances in which the offences were committed. It is therefore not possible to identify separately those proceedings which resulted from the investigation of an accident.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department has given to police authorities in the last two years in relation to the nature of investigations into road accidents resulting in serious injury or death. [40785]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers issued a manual of guidance to all forces in November 2001 recommending best practice in the investigation of fatal crashes, so as to promote a consistent approach across forces. The manual reflects the need to investigate road deaths so as to serve the needs of justice and to provide support for victims fairly, impartially and without prejudice. So far, trainers from about two thirds of police forces have taken part in training related to the guidance manual.

  Wheelclamping
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the proposed authority set up to control wheelclamping on private land will have under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to control the towing away of vehicles parked on private land. [11218]

  £

  London forces

  Provincial

  Constable (a)

  Constable (b)

  Constable (a)

  Constable (b)

  Salary from September 2001 scales

  19,842

  25,095

  19,842

  25,095

  London weighting

  1,773

  1,773

  0

  0

  London Allowance

  4,338

  1,011

  0

  0

  Housing/rent allowance

  0

  5,864

  0

  3,648

  Earning Related National Insurance Contributions (ERNIC)

  1,845

  2,606

  1,303

  2,080

  286W
  Mr. Denham
  Wheelclamping is one of the activities to be regulated by the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. These activities are, however, limited to the immobilisation of a vehicle by the attachment of an immobilising device, and do not extend to the towing away of motor vehicles. The Security Industry Authority established by the Act will not, therefore, have any powers in this area. The Government are currently considering whether any action is required to deal with this issue.

  Criminal Justice and Police Act
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 paragraph (g) as amended by section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. [39806]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Prosecutions are not brought under these statutes.

  Section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act sets out those offences for which powers of arrest without warrant apply, and section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 simply adds two further offences to this section. They are kerb crawling and failure to stop and report an accident (in which personal injury is caused).

  There were 812 persons proceeded against for kerb crawling in England and Wales in 2000, 6,165 persons for failing to stop after an accident and 1,907 for failing to report an accident within 24 hours. In the case of the latter figures, it is not known centrally, however, whether the offences involved personal injury or only damage to a vehicle, an animal or other property.

  "Policing A New Century"
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses have been received to "Policing a New Century". [45000]

  Mr. Denham
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a report which summaries the responses to the White Paper. Copies of the responses from organisations had already been placed in the Library in time for the Committee stage of the Police Reform Bill.

  Police
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost was of employing a police constable for a year in(a) a provincial police force and (b) London in the last 12 months. [32735]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The pay related and notional pensions costs are set out in the table.
  287W

  £

  London forces

  Provincial

  Constable (a)

  Constable (b)

  Constable (a)

  Constable (b)

  Notional pension costs (30 per cent. of salary)

  5,953

  7,529

  5,953

  7,529

  Free travel

  120

  120

  0

  0

  South East Allowance

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  Total

  33,871

  43,998

  27,098

  38,352

  1 Figures do not include the South East Allowance paid since 1 April 2001 to officers appointed on or after 1 September 1994 who are not in receipt of a housing allowance. The allowance, including national insurance contributions, is £2,180 for officers in Thames Valley, Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire and Surrey and £1,090 for officers in Beds, Hants and Sussex.

  Notes:

  1. (a) new recruit (b) Constable: average cost, including rent allowance, after eight years service.

  2. On commencing service, a constable's pay from 1 September 2001 was £17,733. The direct pay element for new police recruits increases after successful completion of 31 weeks' initial training to £19,842. The latter figure is included in (a) above.

  3. The figures for the Metropolitan police and City of London police include London weighting and London Allowance and the cost of free travel.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commit money that has been made available for providing civilians with conferred police powers in a manner that recognises the imbalance in funding between different police authorities. [37905]

  Mr. Denham
  No financial provision for operational work is made in advance of statutory approval. Police grant funding mechanisms take into account the relative needs of different police authorities.

  Police Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the impact on police forces of the payment of pensions to retired officers out of operational budgets; and what plans he has to change the present arrangements. [41688]

  Mr. Denham
  During the consultation period for the 2002–03 funding settlement that was announced on 30 January 2002, seven police authorities referred to pensions in their letters of representation. We are aware of police authorities' concern over the increasing burden of the funding of pensions. We have increased revenue funding from 12.9 per cent. in 1997–98 to 14.5 per cent. since 1999–2000. It will remain at this level in 2002–03.

  As we made clear in our recently published White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform", we are also aware of the need of police authorities and chief officers for a system which brings greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police forces. The Home Office and Treasury are reviewing the options for a revised system of funding which would bring this about.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the approved number of officers in the Metropolitan police force is; and when that level was last reviewed. [39972]
  288W
  Mr. Denham
  The number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police service is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority within the budget set by the Greater London Authority (GLA).

  The budget set by the GLA for 2002–03 provides for an increase in Metropolitan police strength of 1,000 officers.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, (b) business associates of those members and (c) companies in which such members have an interest have been in paid employment by the Metropolitan police service. [42740]

  Mr. Denham
  I am advised by the Clerk to the Metropolitan Police Authority that the Register of Members' Interests for members of the Metropolitan Police Authority is a public document available for inspection through the Clerk to the Authority.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has set improvement targets for individual Metropolitan police basic command units; and if he will make a statement. [41612]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: The Government have required all police authorities, including the Metropolitan Police Authority, to set targets for reductions in domestic burglary, vehicle crime and, in our major cities, robbery. Targets at basic command unit level are not set centrally.

  The Police Standards Unit will monitor performance at basic command unit level in all forces and will work with basic command units to improve performance where appropriate.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the level of crime in London; and if he will make a statement. [41616]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: I have regular bilateral meetings with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where current issues about the policing of London are discussed.
  289W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the decrease in street robberies in the Metropolitan police force area. [41611]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: The Metropolitan Police Service's target is to reduce street crime (covering robbery and theft from the person, irrespective of location) by 15 per cent. by March 2005 from a baseline of 1999–2000.

  Police force

  September 1997

  September 1998

  September 1999

  September 2000

  September 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  629

  584

  482

  416

  391

  Bedfordshire

  186

  175

  148

  134

  119

  Cambridgeshire

  336

  308

  293

  214

  197

  Cheshire

  491

  416

  358

  307

  233

  Cleveland

  157

  136

  108

  122

  98

  Cumbria

  184

  210

  193

  167

  125

  Derbyshire

  414

  355

  303

  286

  263

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,079

  916

  908

  836

  780

  Dorset

  325

  303

  287

  278

  258

  Durham

  178

  159

  169

  155

  146

  Essex

  641

  590

  528

  478

  413

  Gloucestershire

  287

  245

  221

  197

  153

  Greater Manchester

  657

  567

  498

  408

  355

  Hampshire

  681

  747

  720

  541

  444

  Hertfordshire

  306

  267

  232

  214

  177

  Humberside

  348

  289

  263

  198

  207

  Kent

  588

  565

  484

  416

  366

  Lancashire

  500

  465

  397

  362

  325

  Leicestershire

  402

  350

  303

  202

  155

  Lincolnshire

  273

  233

  218

  179

  160

  London, City of

  84

  69

  66

  46

  34

  Merseyside

  407

  463

  467

  452

  507

  Metropolitan police

  1,528

  1,214

  1,173

  754

  753

  Norfolk

  346

  351

  317

  270

  240

  Northamptonshire

  314

  262

  210

  195

  184

  Northumbria

  480

  352

  356

  323

  276

  North Yorkshire

  337

  302

  245

  189

  186

  Nottinghamshire

  597

  530

  405

  411

  281

  South Yorkshire

  295

  266

  236

  193

  189

  Staffordshire

  643

  558

  460

  461

  395

  Suffolk

  300

  402

  420

  376

  322

  Surrey

  231

  226

  205

  168

  176

  Sussex

  465

  415

  377

  317

  301

  Thames Valley

  694

  587

  514

  463

  377

  Warwickshire

  379

  323

  260

  260

  208

  WestMercia

  558

  499

  512

  443

  364

  West Midlands

  949

  784

  697

  662

  604

  West Yorkshire

  604

  590

  572

  452

  371

  Wiltshire

  150

  176

  182

  172

  160

  Dyfed Powys

  241

  237

  237

  193

  174

  Gwent

  149

  114

  110

  131

  148

  North Wales

  388

  336

  262

  233

  203

  South Wales

  362

  360

  331

  254

  250

  Note:

  Figures provided by Research, Development and Statistics

  The Government are committed to increasing the size of the special constabulary and are working on a number of options designed to achieve this. These include improvements to the recruitment, training, conditions, management and deployment of specials—focusing their role on intelligence-led, high visibility patrolling and local crime reduction initiatives.

  Special Constables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were, broken down by(a) police force and (b) local authority area, in each year since 1997. [42370]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in each police force area from September 1997 to September 2001 are set out in the table. Data showing the number of specials per local authority is not held centrally.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the eleventh annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [44999]
  291W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have today laid before Parliament the eleventh annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. John Morris
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the findings were of the inquest into the death of Mr. John Morris in Luton in June 2001; how many persons have been prosecuted for offences connected with this death; and what the outcome was of criminal proceedings. [41105]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The inquest into the death was adjourned after charges of murder were brought against three suspects. One of these subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Another pleaded guilty to violent disorder and was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment. The third was found not guilty of any of the charges brought against him. The coroner decided not to resume the inquest.

  Drug Treatment Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the availability and quality of drug treatment services. [42895]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are making substantial investment to increase the availability of drug treatment services, particularly for Class A drug users. Through the pooled treatment budget, we are increasing funding from £234 million in 2001–02 to £400 million by 2003–04 to improve services locally and reduce waiting times.

  The Government set up the National Treatment Agency (NTA) last year with the clear objective of improving the quality and availability of drug treatment in England. Since then the NTA has:

  1. Established challenging waiting time targets for drug treatment and will monitor these at local level

  2. Piloted a system of delivery to integrate all the support services that someone undergoing treatment may require—including aftercare and housing, as well as clinical drug treatment.

  3. Promoting a shared care approach to enable GPs to work more effectively with specialist services and drug users in their areas.

  The Government's drug strategy calls for a doubling of the number of people in treatment in the 10 years from 1998 to 2008. The numbers of people in treatment in 2000–01 was 118,000, an increase of 16 per cent. over 1998–99.

  Vetting Procedures
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many professionals working with children were screened in each of the past 10 years; how many people have been prevented from working with children after being screened in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38140]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. Pre-employment screening takes various forms, including taking up references, medical checks and inquiring about previous employment history.
  292W
  Criminal record checks have been carried out by the police, principally of employees in the statutory sector in posts (of any nature) involving substantial unsupervised access to children. The table shows available figures for such checks conducted in the years shown under arrangements agreed at national level with the Association of Chief Police Officers:

  Year to 31 March

  1993

  654,472

  1994

  609,434

  1995

  607,573

  1996

  613,163

  1997

  657,036

  1998

  712,765

  1999

  769,515

  2000

  804,996

  The following figures show the number of such checks that revealed convictions:

  Year to 31 March

  1993

  33,894

  1994

  38,162

  1995

  39,679

  1996

  38,809

  1997

  46,584

  1998

  49,786

  1999

  54,060

  2000

  53,044

  Information is not available as to numbers refused employment.

  The introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau will make such checks more widely available to employers and voluntary organisations.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39065]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the calendar year of 2001 there were a total of 58 adverts placed for 80 vacancies at a total cost of £205,303.00.

  The adverts were published in a variety of media including the national press, local and specialist press, the civil service jobs gateway website and local job centres.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost was to his Department of litigation in each year. [41117]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is provided in the following table.
  293W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a) Cabinet Office Tribunals

  Number of cases

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Cases won

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cost of litigation

  £3,643

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £1,307

  Courts

  Number of cases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (b) Agencies1 Tribunals

  Number of cases

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Cases won

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Cost of litigation

  —

  —

  —

  £15,453

  —

  —

  Courts

  Number of cases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Denotes same case.

  Notes:

  Figures given are for current Cabinet Office agencies and the year the case was settled.

  The information for 2002 includes cases heard up to 28 February.

  The figures are supplied by the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which is responsible for litigation on behalf of the Cabinet Office.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42466]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures are shown in a table, which has been placed in the Library of the House. They show the number of permanent staff in each Department/agency reported to the Cabinet Office at 1 April from 1992 to 2001. The figures include submissions from all Departments and agencies.

  The figures for 1992 to 2000 were previously published in the annual civil service statistics publication, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The 2001 figures were published in the Press Notice about civil service staffing levels, released on 8 November 2001, a copy of which is also in the Library of the House.

  The figures are calculated on a full-time equivalent basis, and are rounded to the nearest 10. It should be noted that, owing to rounding of figures there may be an apparent discrepancy between the totals and the sum of the constituent items.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the percentage of(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments to non-departmental public bodies made to women in each year since 1997. [44399]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the gender and remuneration of the chair and members of the board of public bodies is set out in the annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many whole time equivalent posts there were at the Government Office for London as at 1 April 1999 and in each subsequent year for which figures are available;294W
  and if he will set out for each Government Office for London directorate the changes in staffing levels since 1999–2000. [44203]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government Office for London had approximately 390 whole time equivalent posts in April 1999, 370 in April 2000 and 240 in April 2001.

  In 1999 GOL comprised three directorates; New London Governance with approximately 60 whole time equivalent posts, Transport and Corporate with 90 and Skills, Education and Regeneration with 240. By August 2000, the New London Governance directorate was wound up and GOL was then restructured into a single directorate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with US President George W. Bush about seeking a new and specific United Nations Security Council mandate for any international offensive military action against Iraq. [44315]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with President Bush and the US Administration. My most recent discussions were with US Vice President Cheney in London on 11 March. I will have another opportunity to do so during my visit to the US next month.

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many chartered engineers there are in the performance and innovation unit; and how many worked on the energy study published in February; [43463]

  (2) how many people are employed in the performance and innovation unit: and how many have engineering and science qualifications at first degree level and above. [43464]

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 March 2002 there were 84 people working in the performance and innovation unit (PIU) based in the Cabinet Office. The PIU works on a range of projects at any one time, and the number of staff and their educational qualifications vary accordingly.

  Five people worked full-time on the energy review from beginning to end. Four people transferred to the energy review from the separate resource productivity and renewable energy project halfway through the energy review. A further eight people provided part-time, advisory or administrative support as required by the main team.

  None of the full-time members of the project team were chartered engineers. The team had access to scientific and engineering expertise through supporting consultants, members of the advisory group and from the organisations consulted during the course of the project. Full details are given in Annexes 2 and 3 of the Energy Review.

HEALTH

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37550]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the right hon. Member to the central answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on 13 March 2002.

  Information in respect of how many staff in the Department and its agencies assumed responsibility for making payments until retirement age is shown in the table.

  Departures between April 2000 and March 2001

  Health (excluding agencies)

  117

  Medical Devices Agency

  0

  Medical Controls Agency

  0

  NHS Estates

  1

  NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency

  0

  NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency

  0

  Total

  18

  1 Early retirement departures as a result of the closure the Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre, Birmingham (GYTC) are not included

  Source:

  Paymaster billing sheet March 2001

  Glivec
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities are providing the cancer drug Glivec; how many people are receiving the drug, broken down by health authority; at what cost; and if he will make a statement; [38233]

  (2) whether there is a mechanism for patients unable to receive the cancer drug Glivec from their own health authority to have the treatment in another health authority; and if he will make a statement; [38232]

  (3) when he expects the NICE report on the drug Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia to be published; and if he will make a statement; [38410]

  (4) which health authorities provide patients with the drug Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia; and if he will make a statement. [38412]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the provision and cost of Glivec by individual health authority is not available. The funding of treatment for patients is the responsibility of the health authority where the patient lives.

  Once a drug is licensed in the United Kingdom it can be prescribed for use in the NHS for patients who meet the licensed criteria. As with all newly licensed treatments awaiting a NICE appraisal, the Department's advice is that funding authorities should consider the clinical evidence available for a specific treatment before making any decision.
  296W
  Glivec received its UK licence last November and so can be prescribed for use in the NHS for patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia who meet the licensed criteria.

  It is anticipated that NICE will issue guidance on the use of Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia in August 2002.

  Nursing Care Payments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the Minister decided not to follow the recommendations of the Steering Group set up to look at the way free nursing care payments should be paid; [38057]

  (2) what representations he has received since 1 October 2001 in favour of free nursing care payments being paid direct to nursing home owners; [38056]

  (3) if he will offer care homes the option of clients being paid the free nursing care payments; [38227]

  (4) if he will offer care homes the option of the free nursing care payments being paid directly to the clients as well as the nursing home; and if he will make a statement. [38058]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have received no such representations since 1 October.

  The stakeholder group set up to oversee implementation of free nursing care did not recommend that payments should be made to individuals rather than to care homes.

  The national health service traditionally provides services to patients or arranges for others, in this case independent care providers, to provide services to them.

  Medicine Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals made against definitive decisions by the Committee on Safety of Medicines were heard by the(a) full committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and (b) Medicines Commission in each year since 1996. [37650]

  Ms Blears
  The number of appeals heard by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission between 1996 and December 2001 are shown in the following table:

  CSM

  Medicines Commission

  1996

  14

  3

  1997

  14

  1

  1998

  11

  3

  1999

  11

  0

  2000

  12

  3

  2001

  11

  4

  This information is published annually in the reports of the Medicines Act Advisory Bodies, copies of which are available in the Library. The report relating to the work undertaken by these committees during 2001 will be published later this year. The information can also be found on the website of the Medicines Control Agency at www.mca.gov.uk.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38920]

  Ms Blears
  The direct cost to the Department of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided is shown in the table.

  £

  (a)

  (b)

  1997–98

  66,590

  706,057

  1998–99

  63,760

  1,002,184

  1999–2000

  73,737

  1,063,325

  2000–01

  83,349

  900,532

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each Civil Service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39149]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the central answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on 13 March 2002.

  Unlicensed Medicines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual budget is for(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003 for the Special Unit to investigate possible breaches of regulations on the internet set up within the Medicines Control Agency's Enforcement Group. [39019]

  Ms Blears
  The Special Enquiry Unit forms part of the Enforcement Group within the Medicines Control Agency. The budget for the Group is set at approximately £1,600,000 per annum.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time members are in the Medicines Control Agency's Enforcement Group Special Unit to investigate possible breaches of regulations on the internet. [39020]

  Ms Blears
  Following the absorption of the Special Enquiry Unit into the main investigation area in 2001 the number of officers assigned to internet investigations, has varied according to the assessed public health risk.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) supporting and (b) co-ordinating activities have been undertaken by the Medicines Control Agency for the International Forum on Pharmaceutical Crime established in Ottawa in 1999 that relate to the sale of licensed and unlicensed medicines via the internet. [38819]

  Ms Blears
  There have been four meetings of the International Forum on Pharmaceutical Crime since its foundation in 1998 at Sunningdale, with subsequent conferences in Ottawa 1999, Holland 2000 and Washington 2001.
  298W
  Medicines Control Agency (MCA) was the co-ordinator for the initial conference and provided the main co-ordination facility for the subsequent conferences.

  Internet crime has been discussed by the Forum.

  One of the last initiatives undertaken was an international internet sweep, for which the Office of Fair Trading was the United Kingdom's co-ordinator in February 2002. MCA was directly involved.

  The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are co-ordinating the global results. Relevant cases in breach of UK legislation will be forwarded to the MCA for further investigations.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Special Unit to investigate possible breaches of regulations on the internet was set up within the Medicines Control Agency's Enforcement Group. [39021]

  Ms Blears
  The Special Enquiry Unit of the Medicines Control Agency Enforcement Group, was originally set up in 1998 to investigate offences involving the sale and supply of Viagra. The unit then developed the necessary competence to investigate internet crime. After this initial phase the unit was absorbed into the main investigation area in October 2001. However, investigation of internet offences remains a high priority.

  Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 671W, if the district valuer has completed the work required for the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association to take a final decision on the acquisition of the site. [39131]

  Ms Blears
  Negotiations with the Epsom Riding for the Disabled Association are at an advanced stage. It is hoped that these will be finalised shortly and that a sale to them can be concluded.

  Repair and Maintenance Backlog
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog figures were(a) in each NHS region and (b) in England in each of the last five years. [39143]

  Jacqui Smith
  While backlog maintenance costs have risen since 1994–95 the bringing into use of new health care buildings resulting from the major capital investment programme within the NHS, in the order of £7 billion by 2010, should see a marked decrease in backlog maintenance costs. This is already evident in the smaller rate of change seen recently in backlog maintenance costs. It is estimated that the impact of this planned major capital investment, together with contributions from block capital issued directly to NHS trust should, if fully implemented, see the virtual eradication of most backlog maintenance costs within the NHS by 2010.

  Combined SHA
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefit to Somerset of having a strategic health authority with Dorset. [38480]
  299W
  Ms Blears
  The benefits of creating a new Health Authority for Somerset and Dorset were set out in the consultation document "Modernising the NHS: Shifting the Balance of Power in Somerset and Dorset". This was the subject of public consultation last year by the South West Regional Office of the Department of Health. Following consideration of the responses received during the consultation exercise the boundaries of the new health authority were announced on 18 December 2001.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list non-Governmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from his Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39186]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested cannot be identified from information held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recompense hospitals who face major new expenditure, if the proposed new Health and Safety Executive regulations on asbetos come into effect. [39297]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Regulations to protect against the exposure to asbestos are already in existence. Under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, it is the duty of all employers to prepare risk assessments and make arrangements to protect workers and, in the case of the NHS, patients. The proposed new regulation, which will formalise and expand upon existing regulations, will better protect against the risks of exposure to asbestos by imposing more rigorous management arrangements on employers. The regulations will ensure that where there is evidence of asbestos, it is managed effectively and safely so as not to cause risk of harm to anyone.

  Cost analysis of the proposed new regulation indicates that the financial burden on the NHS will not be major. Hospitals will be expected to pay for such work out of their normal running cost allocation budgets.

  Waiting Time (Avon)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times for people in need of orthopaedic surgery in the Avon health authority have been in each of the last five years. [40429]

  Ms Blears
  The average median waiting times, from the date of a decision to admit a patient for treatment for the trauma and orthopaedics specialty to the admission date, in Avon health authority are shown in the table:

  Median waiting time in days

  1996–97

  101

  1997–98

  112

  1998–99

  125

  1999–2000

  104

  2000–01

  117

  Source:

  Health Episode Statistics database
  300W
  The figures are based on elective hospital in-patients admitted with a specialty code 110—trauma and orthopaedic. There is currently no separate specialty code for orthopaedics alone.

  NHS Dentistry
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in(a) England and (b) each health authority were registered with an NHS dentist in (i) each year since 1997, (ii) 1979 and (iii) 1992. [40409]

  Ms Blears
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to NHS services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that 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.

  The percentage of people registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist per head of population by family health service authority is shown in table 1 for England at 30 September 1992.

  The percentage of people registered with a GDS dentist per head of population by health authority is shown in table 2 for England at 30 September for each year since 1997.

  Registrations were first introduced in October 1990, and therefore figures for 1979 are not available. From September 1996, the registration period was changed from 24 months to 15 months for adults, and from 12 months to 15 months for children. As a result of this, data held on registration numbers after 1997 is not comparable to earlier years. The data may also be affected by gradual improvements in the methods used for the removal of duplicate registration records, which were first employed by the dental practice board in 1993.

  Table 1: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by family health service authority at 30 September 1992

  Family health service authority

  Percentage

  England

  59

  Avon Health

  66

  Barking and Havering

  51

  Barnet

  44

  Barnsley

  54

  Bedfordshire

  49

  Berkshire Health Commission

  56

  Birmingham

  60

  Bolton

  58

  Bradford

  59

  Brent and Harrow

  56

  Bromley

  42

  Buckinghamshire

  58

  Bury

  59

  Calderdale

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  60

  Camden and Islington

  59

  Cheshire

  65

  City and East London

  48

  Cleveland

  64

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  64

  County Durham Health Commission

  57

  Coventry

  63

  Croydon Health

  60

  Cumbria

  60

  Derbyshire

  56

  Devon

  66

  Doncaster

  63

  301W

  Table 1: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by family health service authority at 30 September 1992

  Family health service authority

  Percentage

  Dorset Health Commission

  67

  Dudley

  56

  Haling, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  55

  East Sussex

  64

  Enfield and Haringey

  53

  Essex

  55

  Gateshead

  55

  Gloucestershire

  67

  Greenwich and Bexley Heath

  56

  Hereford and Worcester

  61

  Hertfordshire

  63

  Hillingdon

  58

  Humberside

  57

  Isle of Wight Health Commission

  63

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  47

  Kent

  56

  Kingston and Richmond

  46

  Kirklees

  60

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Commission

  58

  Lancashire

  60

  Leeds

  63

  Leicestershire

  60

  Lincolnshire

  61

  Liverpool

  59

  Manchester Health Commission

  67

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  53

  Hampshire

  63

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  56

  Norfolk

  63

  North Tyneside

  62

  North Yorkshire

  64

  Northumberland

  53

  Northamptonshire

  57

  Nottinghamshire

  61

  Oldham

  59

  Table 2: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by health authority at 30 September for the years 1997 to 2001

  Percentage

  Health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  54

  47

  47

  47

  47

  Avon

  59

  52

  51

  50

  50

  Barking and Havering

  50

  41

  41

  42

  42

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  47

  39

  37

  37

  39

  Barnsley

  58

  52

  52

  53

  53

  Bedfordshire

  46

  39

  40

  40

  40

  Berkshire

  45

  38

  39

  38

  35

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  45

  39

  38

  38

  38

  Birmingham

  57

  50

  49

  48

  47

  Bradford

  56

  49

  49

  49

  49

  Brent and Harrow

  57

  45

  46

  46

  46

  Buckinghamshire

  43

  38

  37

  37

  37

  Bury and Rochdale

  58

  50

  49

  49

  49

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  62

  56

  54

  55

  55

  Cambridge and Huntingdon1

  50

  43

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire1

  —

  —

  44

  44

  45

  Camden and Islington

  58

  46

  44

  44

  43

  Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly

  53

  45

  43

  42

  43

  County Durham

  56

  50

  50

  51

  50

  Coventry

  58

  49

  49

  48

  49

  Croydon

  54

  44

  43

  43

  42

  Doncaster

  65

  59

  56

  58

  58

  Dorset

  59

  54

  54

  54

  53

  Dudley

  52

  47

  47

  47

  47

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  53

  43

  40

  41

  42

  East Kent

  48

  43

  42

  43

  43

  East Lancashire

  57

  50

  50

  49

  45

  East London and The City

  44

  34

  33

  33

  32

  302W

  Table 1: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by family health service authority at 30 September 1992

  Family health service authority

  Percentage

  Oxfordshire

  55

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  55

  Rochdale

  60

  Rotherham

  54

  Salford

  63

  Sandwell

  56

  Sefton

  64

  Sheffield

  61

  Shropshire

  66

  Solihull Health

  54

  Somerset

  67

  South of Tyne Health Commission

  56

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  61

  Staffordshire

  57

  Stockport Health Commission

  69

  Suffolk

  65

  Sunderland Health Commission

  55

  Surrey

  59

  Tameside

  59

  Trafford

  74

  Wakefield

  59

  Walsall

  51

  Warwickshire

  59

  West Sussex

  66

  Wigan

  62

  Wiltshire

  58

  Wirral

  64

  Wolverhampton Health Executive

  54

  Notes:

  1. Based on the number of registrations at 30 September 1992.

  2. ONS mid year population estimates for 1992 are used to calculate the percentage of patients registered.

  3. Registration rates reflect a 24 month registration period for adults whereas children's registrations lapsed at the end of the following calendar year. The basis of the later figures in table 2 are for a 15 month registration period for both adults and children.
  303W

  Table 2: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by health authority at 30 September for the years 1997 to 2001

  Percentage

  Health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  East Norfolk1

  57

  52

  —

  —

  —

  East Riding

  51

  46

  46

  47

  47

  East Surrey

  49

  43

  39

  41

  40

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  56

  49

  47

  48

  47

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  60

  53

  54

  54

  55

  Gloucestershire

  44

  38

  38

  38

  36

  Herefordshire

  64

  54

  55

  53

  51

  Hertfordshire

  59

  51

  51

  51

  51

  Hillingdon

  57

  48

  47

  46

  45

  Isle Of Wight, Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

  51

  46

  45

  44

  44

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  40

  31

  31

  29

  28

  Kingston and Richmond

  43

  36

  35

  34

  32

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  54

  44

  40

  40

  40

  Leeds

  57

  52

  52

  52

  51

  Leicestershire

  56

  50

  49

  48

  50

  Lincolnshire

  57

  51

  51

  52

  53

  Liverpool

  60

  51

  50

  51

  50

  Manchester

  62

  51

  52

  51

  50

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  50

  41

  39

  41

  41

  Morecambe Bay

  55

  49

  49

  50

  51

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  59

  51

  53

  53

  52

  Norfolk1

  —

  —

  49

  50

  51

  North and East Devon

  54

  48

  50

  53

  53

  North and Mid Hampshire

  52

  45

  43

  45

  45

  North Cheshire

  60

  51

  51

  51

  51

  North Cumbria

  52

  48

  50

  51

  52

  North Derbyshire

  50

  45

  45

  45

  45

  North Essex

  54

  48

  49

  50

  49

  North Nottinghamshire

  60

  56

  57

  58

  59

  North Staffordshire

  47

  41

  42

  43

  43

  North West Anglia1

  46

  42

  —

  —

  —

  North West Lancashire

  60

  54

  55

  54

  52

  North Yorkshire

  58

  53

  52

  53

  53

  Northumberland

  56

  51

  51

  52

  53

  Northamptonshire

  58

  49

  52

  53

  53

  Nottingham

  62

  56

  54

  56

  55

  Oxfordshire

  39

  34

  34

  37

  38

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  54

  46

  45

  47

  46

  Rotherham

  56

  50

  49

  51

  51

  Salford and Trafford

  63

  54

  53

  53

  51

  Sandwell

  53

  49

  50

  51

  52

  Sefton

  65

  60

  59

  56

  55

  Sheffield

  62

  56

  56

  57

  56

  Shropshire

  51

  44

  43

  43

  41

  Solihull

  46

  36

  39

  40

  40

  Somerset

  60

  53

  51

  53

  51

  South and West Devon

  55

  48

  46

  47

  49

  South Cheshire

  60

  48

  49

  50

  51

  South Derbyshire

  51

  48

  47

  49

  48

  South Essex

  48

  43

  45

  46

  46

  South Humber

  56

  51

  52

  53

  53

  South Lancashire

  48

  43

  44

  45

  46

  South Staffordshire

  54

  48

  47

  46

  45

  Southampton and South-west Hampshire

  59

  53

  51

  49

  49

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  60

  52

  52

  49

  49

  Stockport

  66

  60

  60

  60

  59

  Suffolk

  60

  54

  55

  55

  55

  Sunderland

  58

  50

  51

  51

  52

  Tees

  67

  59

  59

  60

  60

  Wakefield

  64

  56

  55

  55

  54

  Walsall

  49

  44

  44

  45

  44

  Warwickshire

  53

  46

  43

  43

  45

  West Kent

  45

  41

  41

  41

  43

  West Pennine

  60

  52

  53

  53

  52

  West Surrey

  49

  44

  43

  42

  42

  West Sussex

  55

  48

  48

  47

  48

  Wigan and Bolton

  61

  56

  55

  55

  54

  Wiltshire

  48

  40

  43

  44

  44

  304W

  305W

  Table 2: general dental service: number of patients registered as a percentage of the population by health authority at 30 September for the years 1997 to 2001

  Percentage

  Health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Wirral

  64

  59

  59

  58

  58

  Wolverhampton

  55

  48

  49

  50

  49

  Worcestershire

  56

  50

  49

  49

  49

  1 Three health authorities Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia were replaced by two health authorities Cambridge and Norfolk in April 1999.

  Notes:

  1. Based on the number of registrations at 30 September each year.

  2. ONS mid year population estimates for 1997 to 2000 are used to calculate percentage of patients registered.

  3. Registration rates reflect a 15 month registration period.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the further research commissioned by the Department regarding public funding for air ambulances will report; and who is conducting the research. [40461]

  Ms Blears
  The Department is commissioning a wide-ranging piece of primary research that will examine the role and effectiveness of air ambulance services in a modern national health service. The first stage is already under way and will provide an up-to-date review of existing evidence. This work is being undertaken by the medical care research unit at Sheffield University and will be completed by May 2002. No decision has been taken yet on who will undertake the next stage of research but it is intended that it will be completed by the end of 2003.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has given on prescribing medication to patients with arthritis. [40773]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health service circular 1999–176 advises national health service bodies to use their existing arrangements to determine local prescribing policies, using the publicly available evidence to inform their decision. Local policies may therefore reflect differing assessments and interpretations of evidence along with differing local circumstances and priorities.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been asked to appraise the use of infliximab (Remicade) and etanecerpt (Enbrel) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis for adults and etanercept only for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Unless there are appeals, NICE expects to issue its guidance in March 2002 for etanercept for JIA and guidance on the etanercept and infliximab appraisal for adults in April 2002. NICE also has anakinra for rheumatoid arthritis on their appraisal work programme and guidance is expected in July 2003, providing there are no appeals.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of funding for arthritis treatments and medication was in each of the last five financial years for which records are available; and what level is estimated for(a) this and (b) the next financial year. [40772]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally as the drugs budgets of health authorities and primary care trust are not determined centrally. They receive unified allocations to cover the 306W
  costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.

  The level of funding made available for arthritis drugs is therefore a local decision. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to develop local cottage hospitals. [40857]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The concept of care closer to home as identified by the National Beds Inquiry (NBI) underpins our plans for modernising the national health service. To this end maximum use needs to be made of cottage hospitals and primary care organisations in delivering and co-ordinating the local population's care. Cottage hospitals are working hard to develop their roles, for example in carrying out day surgery, minor procedures and caring for patients in the recuperative phases of recovery from illness or accident. They will be key players in meeting our target of introducing an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds—the bridge between hospital and home—by 2004.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has undertaken to ensure that fostering agencies are able to carry out police checks on prospective foster carers. [40848]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991, agencies are required to seek criminal record checks on prospective foster carers. Checks may be made through the Criminal Records Bureau, which began processing applications on 11 March 2002. The checks will also include information from the Department's Protection of Children Act List and Department for Education and Skills' List 99.

  Kent Hospitals
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the waiting times are for in-patients needing cancer care at Kent and Canterbury hospital; [40865]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the cost of transferring in-patient cancer treatment from Kent and Canterbury hospital to Maidstone hospital; [40859]
  307W
  (3) what the waiting times are for in-patient treatment for cancer at the Maidstone hospital. [40858]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  No assessment of costs for transferring patients to Maidstone hospital has been carried out as a decision on the future role of Kent and Canterbury hospital, resulting from the reconfiguration of acute services, has not been made.

  If any changes to services are to be made, detailed plans would first be put in place to ensure other, appropriate facilities and services are available at the Maidstone hospital and other centres.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each London borough the number of elderly residents who are placed in residential and nursing homes outside London; [43840]

  (2) if he will list for each social services department the number of people from outside London who are placed in residential and nursing homes inside London. [43841]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in residential and nursing homes for the elderly in Greater London there were on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [43894]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Information on the number of residential places and registered nursing beds for older people, in Greater London, at 31 March each year, is shown in the table.

  Residential places and registered nursing beds for older people in Greater London at 31 March

  rounded numbers

  1997 1

  2001

  Residential care places for older people2

  20,490

  19,360

  Registered nursing3 beds for older people

  10,600

  11,440

  1 Nursing bed figures relate to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  2 Includes residential care beds for older people who are mentally infirm people.

  3 Includes nursing care beds in private hospitals and clinics.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual return.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long his Department estimates it has taken for care homes to be built from the initial application being submitted to the relevant planning department in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [43901]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the National Care. Standards Commission has at its disposal to enforce the minimum standard that relates to contracts between care homes and individuals. [43898]
  308W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The commission has the ability to take enforcement action in relation to the Care Homes Regulations 2001. The national minimum standards will be the basis for the commission to determine whether the regulations are complied with. In relation to contracts the relevant standards are standard 2 for care homes for older people, and standard 5 for care homes for younger adults.

  Regulations will be mandatory and providers must comply with them. If a regulation is breached, the breach of which is an offence, providers will be given a notice setting out the regulation breached, how the service is considered deficient, what must be done to remedy the deficiency, and a time scale within which the deficiency must be remedied. If the deficiency is not remedied, proceedings for prosecution may follow. The breach of regulation 5 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001, which states that a service users' guide should include a standard form of contract for the provision of services and facilities by the registered provider to service users, is an offence.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reissue his Department's "Moving into a Care Home" leaflet; how many he plans to distribute; to whom; and by what means. [43896]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Department has commissioned the production of a new booklet containing key information that individuals should have when they are moving into, or resident in, a care home. It will include the contributions that residents may make to care home fees and other financial aspects. The booklet is currently being finalised, and it will be made available in hard copy to all councils with social services responsibilities and a range of relevant voluntary and community organisations. Other means are being considered to ensure the widest possible circulation.

  The new booklet will effectively replace "Moving into a Care Home".

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue a direction to require NHS bodies to use the central core contract for how NHS nursing contribution received by care homes is to be accounted for. [43895]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I have strongly recommended that national health service bodies use the Department's core contract, recognising that some flexibility will also be required to reflect particular local arrangements in any agreed contract.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to compensate those self-funding residents who are eligible and received payment for free nursing care but did not have the money passed on in a reduction in fees. [43899]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 172W.

  Care Funding
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the methodology underpinning the
  309W
  distribution of the funding for extra intermediate care funding facilities for older people as described in his letter of 6 March to the hon. Member for Cheadle. [43903]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: In November 2001, the Department's regional offices were invited to submit bids against £66 million of capital funding available for intermediate care. Bids were assessed against 10 criteria.

  I announced allocation of the "first phase" of £46 million to 80 projects on 6 March 2002. A £20 million "second phase" will follow, after further developmental work in a number of localities.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase co-operation between general practitioners and pharmacists; and if he will make a statement. [43040]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Many of the initiatives in "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan"—our programme for pharmacy published
  310W
  in September 2000—will encourage greater co-operation between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists. These include repeat dispensing, medicines management and extending prescribing responsibilities. There are also many local initiatives where GPs and pharmacists are already collaborating to improve patient care, including prescribing advice, support for smoking cessation and anti-coagulant treatment monitoring.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce measures to increase the role of the local pharmacy in treating minor ailments. [43041]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan"—our programme for pharmacy published in September 2000—sets out a number of measures for increasing the role of community pharmacists in treating minor ailments. Successive winter campaigns have reinforced the message that in many cases the best course of action is to "Ask Your Pharmacist". All NHS sites will be able to refer callers to their local pharmacy, where appropriate, by the end of 2002. We are also committed to the availability of a wider range of medicines over the counter.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Office of Communications Act.

Zimbabwe
11.7 a.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What their present policy is towards Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, our policy is to work for a peaceful, prosperous, stable and democratic Zimbabwe where human rights and the rule of law are respected. We are working intensively with our friends in the region and elsewhere to secure this outcome for the people of Zimbabwe.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that Fiji and Pakistan were suspended from the Commonwealth for breaches of its principles which were much less serious than the breaches that we have seen in Zimbabwe, which were condemned by the Commonwealth observers? If the troika decides not to act equally firmly, will it not give the impression that there is one set of principles for most of the Commonwealth and a different and lower set for Africa? Will that not be bad for the Commonwealth and for Africa?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, knows, the troika meets this afternoon. It is important that I do not prejudge the outcome of that meeting. The noble Lord will be aware that the British Government have argued consistently—indeed we did so before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—that there was sufficient evidence that Zimbabwe had violated the Harare principles. We argued for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. That was not a position that was agreed unanimously by other members of the Commonwealth. As I have said in this House before, the Commonwealth consists of 54 countries which operate by consensus. But we have made our
1230
views absolutely clear. It would be a great pity if the Commonwealth and its values were undermined, but we must await the outcome of the troika meeting.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the South African observer mission's report into the recent election was politically rigged? If that is the example that is being set by South Africa, does it not put the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative in jeopardy? What pressure can Her Majesty's Government put on President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to lead by example to try to achieve a government of national unity in Zimbabwe, thus averting a further deterioration of the situation in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have a situation where observer teams from the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum, from Norway, Japan and the Commonwealth have concluded that the electoral process in Zimbabwe has not met the Southern African Development Community norms and standards and that the official outcome does not reflect the will of the people. Indeed, the South African parliamentary observers team has dropped its conclusion that the elections were substantially free and fair.
On the other hand, the South African observer mission concluded that the election outcome was legitimate. So we have a situation where there are different views being expressed through The Observer s reports. Noble Lords will know from the Statement that I made last week, where we quoted extensively from the Commonwealth observer report, that it was made absolutely clear that there were flaws to the electoral process.
With respect to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, it is important that we do not punish an entire continent because of the behaviour of Robert Mugabe. We have discussed Africa extensively in this House. We are well aware of the issues. We need to ensure that the reputation of the entire continent is not blighted. That is why the work that we are doing through the New Partnership for Africa's Development is so important.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the murders continue in Zimbabwe and as the evidence of vote rigging and other manipulations pour in, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, has rightly made clear, does the Minister agree that this really is the moment of truth both for the whole of southern Africa, the Commonwealth and indeed for Zimbabwe? Does she further agree that any arrangement which legitimises Mugabe is unacceptable? Will she therefore accept that any ruling this afternoon from the troika which seeks to legitimise and to favour Mugabe would threaten the end of the Commonwealth as a body of principle?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that I repeat that the troika was established by the Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting. The troika decision is not our decision. A clear mechanism was established. This afternoon the Presidents of Nigeria and of South Africa and the Prime Minister of Australia will consider the report from the Commonwealth observer team.
It is important that we recognise that the Commonwealth is a strong organisation. It does extremely good work; for example, with young people and with NGOs. I have said in this House before that I think that the decision that was taken not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth undermines the credibility of the Commonwealth. Our position has not changed in relation to that. Last week, when I answered questions in this House, I also made it absolutely clear that we did not consider the current government in Zimbabwe to be legitimate because of what we knew about what happened in the run-up to the elections and during the election process itself. I have made those views absolutely clear. Those views have not changed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on the implications for NePAD? Many of us have welcomed the New Partnership for Africa's Development. However, we have understood that this would very much depend on improving practices of good governance across the continent. Nigeria and South Africa, together with Senegal, have been among the countries which have pushed most actively for this initiative. What does the Minister think may be the implications for the principles of good governance, which are so important to NePAD?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there can be absolutely no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe has cast a cloud over the entire New Partnership for Africa's Development process. We all recognise that. The key elements, with which all have agreed, were the economic and political governance aspects of NePAD, to which African governments will need to sign. The Economic Commission for Africa is currently undertaking detailed work on governance issues for the NePAD steering committee. However, it is important to remember that NePAD is a process. We never thought that we would be able to solve Africa's problems overnight. If we could do so, then the debates that we have held in this House over the lack of progress in meeting millennium development goals would not have taken place. What Zimbabwe has done is to demonstrate how much further we have to go, but it also shows us exactly why our efforts are so critical.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, given the food shortages in Zimbabwe, what is the Government's present position with regard to sponsoring land reform in Zimbabwe and the clearing out of the highly productive white farmers?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are two elements to the noble Lord's question. As regards food shortages, the Department for International Development has been involved, for example, in supplementary feeding programmes. Furthermore, we are funding the World Food Programme because there is a serious humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe.
On the question of land reform, our position has not changed. Last year, we brokered a deal through the Abuja process during which we made it absolutely clear that our support for land reform would depend on the Government of Zimbabwe abiding by the commitments they had made. It would also depend on the UNDP making a report on the ways in which we could put the land reform process back on a transparent basis. That has not happened. The UNDP has published a report which makes it quite clear that it can go no further because of the current situation on the ground.

Iraq
11.14 a.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence they have received of support by Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq for the Al'Qaeda terrorist network.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, so far Her Majesty's Government have seen no convincing evidence of support by the Iraqi regime for the Al'Qaeda network. However, we continue to share the concerns of all responsible governments about Iraq's support for terrorism and its development of weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she accept that, although we fully recognise the duplicity of Saddam with his murderous chemical and biological weapons and the remaining essential and urgent need to end his regime, and although we applaud the efforts of President Bush in continuing with his coalition-building efforts, it would be valuable for both the other place and this House to hold an early and full debate on the whole issue before any decisions of an irrevocable nature are taken? Does she also agree that, when it comes to evidence, it would be useful for noble Lords and, indeed, the other place to have made available a dossier of the kind which has been published in the United States in this week's New Yorker magazine? That dossier sets out fully the detail of the links between Saddam and Al'Qaeda and the danger that he may be supplying terrorists with horrific weapons which would threaten not only Israel, but also Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord

1233
has just said. The duplicity of Saddam Hussein speaks for itself. His use of weapons of mass destruction, which is already a matter of record—given what happened in Halabja where thousands died as a result of the use of those weapons—points out the urgent need for all nations to take control on the question of weapons of mass destruction. It is this which makes the return of the weapons inspectorate to Iraq as soon as possible so important.
On the question of a full debate, of course that is a matter that will need to be resolved through the usual channels. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord with regard to a dossier of evidence about what is happening in Iraq. Perhaps I may remind the House, as I have through the Whips' offices and through the office of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, that tomorrow at 1.15 p.m. I shall hold a briefing meeting in Committee Room 3A. I hope to be able to brief further those noble Lords who have a particular interest in this matter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we thank the Minister for that commercial and we shall all take full note of it. Perhaps I may draw her attention to an article that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post commenting specifically on the article in the New Yorker magazine referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell:
"The thrust of the article could be news to some U.S. officials, because the CIA has largely discounted the proposition that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has maintained links with al Qaeda".
Reports front intelligence sources have also suggested that Saddam Hussein personally specifically rejected an Al'Qaeda initiative to try to involve Iraq.
Given that we could be standing on the edge of a major escalation of war, may I press the Minister with regard to the recent statement made by Mr Mubarak of Egypt, who has written to Saddam Hussein insisting that he should allow inspectors back, and to the position taken by the vice-president of Iraq, Mr Taha Yassin Ramadan, to the effect that Iraq would be willing to accept the inspectors back, although admittedly on the condition that a timetable is laid down, along with a specific list of sites to be visited? Could it not be the case that, although admittedly under US pressure, Iraq may now be willing to accept back the weapons inspectors? Can the Minister assure the House that the British Government are doing everything in their power to try to get the inspectors back into Iraq on terms acceptable to those of us who are so deeply concerned about weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, first, it was not a commercial; rather it was a genuine and serious attempt to fill in some of the gaps in what I know is almost impossible ground to cover on this subject in the seven or eight minutes that we have available to respond to Questions.
I was very careful in what I said in answering the original Question about evidence put by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I stress again to the House that I have used the words "so far", along with the word
1234
"convincing". Yes, of course, there are rumours; but in answering seriously and factually the Question put to me, I must say to the House that so far Her Majesty's Government have not seen any compelling or convincing evidence.
As to the question of United Nations inspectors returning to Iraq to look at weapons of mass destruction, we have seen and believe that Iraq is accelerating its weapons programmes in a number of respects. However, I stress that Iraq cannot lay down conditions acceptable only to itself for the way in which the United Nations inspectorate should operate. The United Nations inspectorate must operate under the ceasefire mandate laid down in UNSCR 687 and it must do so to the best of its ability. It should be able to go where it needs to go, and not under a timetable preordained by Iraq.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government or the United States Government have any plans to go to the United Nations to seek a new resolution in relation to Iraq, particularly if any action is contemplated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any action of a military nature contemplated by Her Majesty's Government—I stress that no decision has as yet been taken—would follow the procedure that all such decisions follow; that is, it would he taken under the auspices of international law. Any decision would be taken after a careful and cautious assessment of what is needed. It must have a realistic chance of achieving its objective and it must be proportionate to the threat posed. That applies to any military action contemplated by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether there is a direct link between Iraq and 11th September is not the whole story? Can she say what, if anything, Iraq has done to fulfil its obligations under the 1991 resolution not to support in any way terrorism and how this squares with its actions? Does she further agree that the first order of business should be to ensure that a Security Council resolution is passed which requires Iraq to meet its obligations by implementing Resolution 1373 of last September, and all the resolutions on weapons of mass destruction which it is currently flouting?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Iraq poses a threat to the international community. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made the point on several occasions that there have been nine Security Council resolutions in the past 10 years, placing 27 obligations on Iraq—and 23 of those obligations have been flouted. Iraq's record in this area relates not only to the specific issue of Al'Qaecla, but also to the general climate of terrorism, and very particularly to Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and its seeming acceleration of such production.

European Union: Definition of "Federalism"
11.23 a.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their definition of federalism in relation to the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, experience has shown that the word "federalism" often means different things to different people. Definitions can also change over time. The Government are interested in the substance of Europe's constitutional arrangements rather than the label. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has described Europe as a union of,
"free, independent sovereign nations who choose to pool that sovereignty in pursuit of their own interests and the common good, achieving more together than we can achieve alone".
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. At least we do have a definition from the Prime Minister. Has my noble friend seen the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, where, effectively, "federalism" is described as a union of member states receiving more power from the centre? Although, as my noble friend said, many people will take different views, in practice the bogey word as used by some should be eliminated from our vocabulary. We are talking about something which, I am happy to hear, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister described as a union of independent member states. If that is the case, can we now make it quite clear that it is not a word about which we should worry but about which we should, indeed, be proud?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the good fairy was obviously sitting on my shoulder yesterday evening when I said to officials that we should look up what the Oxford English Dictionary states is the definition of "federal". I do not know whether my noble friend and I are using different copies of that august work, but I am told that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "federal" as,
"Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of, that form of government in which two or more states constitute a political unity while remaining more or less independent with regard to their internal affairs".
I think that sums it up rather well.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the definition of "federalism" from the Prime Minister cannot be made to fit with the EU's ambitions for a written constitution in the shape of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; for an EU federal legal order in the shape of corpus juris; and, above all, for the EU's ambition that it should be given legal personality? If so, will the Government repudiate these aims of the European Union and veto them if necessary?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect for a single moment that I will take issue on this important question with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As to the question of a constitution, I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett—it is not a question of the label that matters but what we are doing. There is a clear case for a statement of principles for the European Union to establish what should be done at European level and what should he left to member states at national, regional and local levels. The statement could be set out in plain language, in accordance with subsidiarity and proportionality—a point dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—and set a clear line between what is done by the EU and what is done by member states. That is what we are about. It is on the question of the statement of principles that the Government are working.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is little point in deciding whether the European Union is technically a federation, a confederation or something in between? Does she further agree that it needs a governing instrument and that it makes very little difference whether or not that is called a "constitution"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is the point I was endeavouring to make. The question of a statement of principles lies at the heart of what we are trying to pursue. I applaud the setting up of the European convention. We had a lengthy and exciting debate in your Lordships' House on this issue when we discussed the Nice treaty. We need to address the questions of how we can make the European Union better understood; how we can make it more democratically accountable—a point to which your Lordships often return during our discussions on this matter—and how we can make the European Union more effective. That is what we are trying to pursue through the convention.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that because of excessive harmonisation and the absence of genuine subsidiarity, the individual nation states of Europe have less autonomy in certain matters than do South Dakota and Rhode Island?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we will have the opportunity to discuss how we pursue subsidiarity through the convention. There has been a great deal of concern and interest about this matter in the House. I stress that the question of subsidiarity is a two-way street. That is implied by the very word. It is the principle whereby the European Union acts only where it can add value at an EU level to the legislation under discussion. We have a genuine opportunity in the upcoming convention, on which discussions began on 28th February, to discuss the very issues which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and many other noble Lords wish to take further.

Emergency Hospital Re-admissions
11.30 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the rise in the number of patients needing emergency re-admission to National Health Service hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, reducing the number of emergency readmissions is an important priority for the NHS. NHS trusts are expected to target this area as part of their performance, improvement and clinical governance programme. The National Service Framework for Older People—with specific standards, targets and milestones to improve general hospital care, stroke services, and falls prevention and rehabilitation—will improve the quality of services and care that older people receive, including the tackling of emergency re-admissions.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, would it not be as well to try to establish the causes of the emergency readmissions? Does the Minister agree that there are only two reasons: an over-zealous attempt to meet government, waiting list targets on the one hand, or inadequate care in the community on the other, due to lack of government resources for social services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that we need to look at the main reasons for emergency re-admissions, but I have failed to detect any evidence to support the claims that the noble Lord subsequently made.
We know from research that an emergency readmission to a hospital may be a consequence of the natural course of a patient's disease, or that he or she may not have received appropriate care after the first admission; or it may be entirely unconnected with the original patient care. A literature search by the National Centre for Health Outcomes Development, examining evidence throughout the world based on studies of older patients, suggests that between 15 and 60 per cent of re-admissions are unavoidable; but in two studies of medical patients, between 9 per cent and 18 per cent of re-admissions were considered preventable. That is why every NHS trust should be looking through its clinical governance programmes at the specific reasons for re-admissions—and that is what we expect the trusts to do.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, one of the major factors responsible for this situation is—I do not like the unfortunate term—bed-blocking in acute hospitals by elderly patients who have nowhere to go? Is it not the case that, progressively across the country, more and more care homes in the community have closed down
1238
within the last two years? Is it not also the case that certain misguided health authorities, such as that in Oxford, have closed down valuable community hospitals such as those in Burford and Watlington?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that community hospitals have an important role to play in ensuring that rehabilitation and intermediate care facilities are available. He will know that, as a result of the Government's policy, we are seeing a great deal of investment in additional places for intermediate care.
So far as concerns care home capacity, the noble Lord is right to point out that there has been a reduction in the number of care home places throughout the country. The position is patchy, with some parts of the country still having an excess of places over the number of people wishing to go there. We have put in extra resources to local authorities to enable them to buy additional care home places. As regards bed-blocking, I am glad to report that we have seen a reduction in the number of beds blocked between the third quarter of the current financial year as opposed to the third quarter of the last financial year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend say how seriously the present shortcomings in providing community care are impacting on the incidence of hospital re-admissions? What figures are available? Moreover, ought the pejorative term "bed-blockers" to be applied, not to vulnerable people for whom only hospital care is available, but to those failing in their legal duty to provide adequate and appropriate community care for them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to suggest that, if appropriate community care and community facilities are not available, that can have an impact, particularly on older people who have been discharged from hospital and who may have cause to be re-admitted. That is why, in dealing with the issue of beds that are being blocked, we have made additional resources available to local authorities which can be used to purchase extra care places. More importantly, those resources can also be used to provide additional packages of community care.
Part of the work of an NHS trust in reviewing re-admission rates is to ensure that discharge procedures are as effective as possible, and that there is a strong partnership between the health service and local government, to make sure that there is a seamless transition of care.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a flaw in the collection of data as regards waiting lists and re-admissions? It was brought to my notice that a patient on the point of going into theatre for an operation was in fact sent home pending further tests and the operation taking place at a later time. She

1239
is now not deemed to be on the waiting list, although, by anyone's understanding, she is still waiting for her operation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always happy to examine individual cases to see whether the trust has recorded a patient properly. It is very important to the Government to ensure that data collection is treated with all due seriousness by the NHS. It is why we commissioned the Audit Commission to examine the quality of NHS data, and why we have agreed with it that it will undertake spot-check reviews of NHS trusts to make sure that they are recording data properly.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I am advised by the House authorities that this Motion is necessary to ensure that none of the three Motions standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty is subject to pre-emption. Today's procedures and this business Motion have been agreed by the usual channels. Without this business Motion, we should find ourselves in difficulty; namely, that if either of the first two of the Motions standing in the name of my noble friend were agreed to, the remaining Motion or Motions would fail.
Your Lordships, quite reasonably on all sides, want to have a guarantee of three votes. If the House agrees to this business Motion, I can give that guarantee. No matter what happens in any of the votes, there will be no question of pre-emption and three votes would be assured.
Assuming that your Lordships agree to this business Motion, the procedure is intended to be as follows. My noble friend Lord Whitty will move the first Motion standing in his name. The whole debate will take place on that Motion. When we reach the end of the speakers' list, some time later today, my noble friend will wind up the debate and the first vote will then occur. After the first vote, my noble friend Lord Whiny will formally move the second Motion. We shall vote on that Motion straightaway, without any further debate. When the second vote is complete, my noble friend will move his third Motion. We shall vote again without further debate. That third vote will conclude our proceedings.
As your Lordships have seen, there are 45 names on the speakers' list. There is no time limit, but perhaps, if Front-Bench speakers voluntarily limited themselves to 15 minutes and all Back-Bench speakers voluntarily restricted themselves to, say, eight minutes, we could conclude our proceedings at a reasonable time this evening.
1240
Moved, That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that matters already decided may not be brought forward again during the same Session, the House may if it thinks fit consider and vote on all the Motions standing in the name of the Lord Whitty this day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hunting with Dogs: Ban
11.38 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)rose to move to resolve, That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons in Session 2000ߝ01 [Bill 2]. (Ban)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House for explaining this slightly unusual procedure. I begin my remarks by formally moving the first Motion, but, as was explained, I shall refer to all three.
The House will be aware that similar Motions were debated and voted on in another place yesterday. A clear preference was established by that House. That debate fulfils our manifesto commitment that there would be an early opportunity to vote on the future of hunting with dogs. It also fulfils the announcement in the Queen's Speech after the election. This House is now to be given the same opportunity to express our view.
These debates are an important step towards fulfilling the second part of our manifesto promise, which is to enable there to be a conclusion on this issue. So today's debate is the next step towards a conclusion. It is not an invitation to opt for deadlock or for delay.
Hunting with dogs is contentious, and the issue needs to be resolved. There is obviously no right time for everyone to try to resolve it; yet the future of hunting is an important issue for many who want to see an end to what they perceive as cruelty, and for those who want matters to remain as they are.
There have been a good few legislative attempts to deal with hunting, mainly through Private Members' Bills, and last year the Government introduced the Hunting Bill. That Bill was an attempt to enable each of the—broadly speaking—three main lobbying groups to set out their preferred solution before Parliament, with the Government remaining neutral. It was a matter for a free vote on all sides in both Houses.
It was hoped—I say hoped rather than expected—that the three main groups would come together behind one option, but that did not happen. Rather than coming together, views had polarised between the Houses by the time the Bill fell in your Lordships' House.

1241
I also remind your Lordships of the report on hunting, which the Government commissioned in 2000. Those of your Lordships who have been involved in the hunting debate, whatever their personal views on hunting, have been united in their admiration for the quality of the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which sets out the facts surrounding the hunting that takes place now and the consequences of a ban. I am sure there will be many references to it today.
We have already accepted the format of the Motions that we are debating in our consideration of the programme Motion. A vote on these alternative Motions provides—in relative terms at least—a straightforward method of taking the views of both Houses in as close as we can get to a clear and unambiguous manner, at a point during the Session that does not take too much time out of the busy programme faced by both Houses.
The options contained in the Hunting Bill 2000 form the basis of the options in the Motions before us today. The first option has been described as a ban or prohibition on hunting with dogs. The second is hunting under licence or regulation, which has also been described as the middle way. The third option is supervision, which has been described as self-regulation and is the nearest of the three Motions to the status quo.
My ministerial colleague in another place, Alun Michael, has held discussions at some length and in some detail with all the interest groups, all of whom have considered refinements to the detail of their options as originally drafted. Things have therefore moved on. In particular, the option proposed by Deadline 2000—the first of the options—was amended during its consideration in Standing Committee and on Report in another place before the Bill arrived in your Lordships' House. However, referring to the three options as set out at the time of introduction of the last Bill in the other place is probably the simplest way of defining the basic choices that your Lordships are being asked to vote on.
I am well aware from the long list of speakers that all interest groups are represented in your Lordships' House. Anyone speaking in the debate can explain the nuances of the latest thinking on their preferred option—or any others.
I remind your Lordships that the Government have remained neutral on the question. No Whip has been imposed on these Benches for the votes that will come at the conclusion of today's debate. I understand from the usual channels that that is also the position of the Official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats. I understand from the media and other sources that there are some unusual channels operating around the debate, but they have nothing to do with the Government, the Whips or the political parties in this House. This is a genuinely free vote. It is therefore essentially a parliamentary issue rather than a government one. We certainly respect that fact.
Some of your Lordships may be interested in my own position. This is a free vote for Ministers as well. The way I voted on the issue in the last Session is on
1242
the record. For those who have not checked, I will give you a clue. I am a bit old fashioned about these matters. If an issue has both been long-standing Labour Party policy and been voted for overwhelmingly by the democratically elected House, I tend to support it. Unless in the next umpteen hours or so I hear something new in this debate —that is a possibility, albeit remote—I intend to stick to that position. In any case, my role today is not as an advocate of any position, but I thought that I should make my position clear for the record. My role today is as a humble facilitator to your Lordships to make your own decision.
My colleague Alun Michael gave an assurance in debate in the other place yesterday that the points made by your Lordships in today's debate will he given careful consideration. I shall ensure that all points, particularly new ones, are made known to my ministerial colleagues when they are deciding how to take things forward. Alun Michael has also said that once the votes have taken place today, he will make a Statement—which will, of course, be repeated in your Lordships' House—outlining the way forward. All I can say at the moment is that this will be before the Easter Recess.
The purpose of the Motions before the House is to give all your Lordships the opportunity to consider the issue, to make their views clear and then to vote. We all recognise that hunting is an emotive issue on which principled and deeply felt opinions are held among all groups and are likely to be expressed in this House as elsewhere. I have said clearly that this is not a party issue. All parties in this House and elsewhere have the full spectrum of opinions represented in their ranks. Although this will be a passionate debate, it will he genuinely and personally passionate, not a contrived party passionate debate.
However, there is another division, which I hope that we shall manage to avoid—the tendency to treat this as an issue between town and country. Whatever else the opinion polls are held to show, the division of opinion in rural areas is no more than a few percentage points different from that in urban areas. There are hundreds of thousands of people in rural areas who passionately oppose hunting with hounds, just as there are many in urban areas who oppose a ban. That is also my personal experience of people who live in town and country. Passions run deep on all sides, not just in the drawing rooms of Hampstead, but also in the market towns and villages of our countryside. It is hugely misleading and a disservice to the interests of the countryside to represent this issue as an attack by the town on the countryside.
Country dwellers of all persuasions also say—and here I have considerable sympathy with them—that this is not the most important issue facing the countryside. That is why I and my colleagues in DEFRA are spending all the other days of this Session and of this year trying to tackle the basic problems of our rural communities and the sustainability of agriculture and the rural economy.

1243
However, today we are dealing with hunting, which is an issue that needs to be resolved. This debate is a step towards resolving it. It is not a cause for deadlock, but a path towards resolution. The debate in the other place yesterday was interesting, particularly for those who are fascinated by this subject. We shall see how the debate develops in this House. The Government—in particular my ministerial colleague Alun Michael and I—will listen to what is said today. I am confident that in one way or another it will illuminate the way forward.
I look forward to the debate. I beg to move the first Motion.
Moved to resolve, That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons in Session 2000ߝ01 [Bill 2]. (Ban)—(Lord Whitty.)
11.48 a.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I say first from this Dispatch Box that today will be a free vote for us. I must then declare my interests: a family farm, an early career in poultry management and, in days when time and agility allowed, hunting with the Quorn. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has expressed his personal view. It shows, I suggest, not much compromise.
My remarks will focus on the issue of hunting with hounds as it is popularly perceived—that is to say, fox hunting. I do not propose to argue the nuances between that and stag hunting or hare coursing, or even coarse fishing. Noble Lords on all sides of the debate may wish to do so, but so far as I am concerned we are dealing with a fundamental principle that can be adequately explained by reference to fox hunting alone. I do not decry the subsidiary arguments, but I shall focus on the Motions before us.
It is incredible that we are again debating the question of hunting with dogs when the countryside is in crisis. Time given to this Bill has resulted in the abandonment of the criminal justice Bill and the extradition Bill. Farm incomes are at an all-time low; meat is still being imported illegally. France still refuses to take British beef and the Government remain unwilling to hold a public inquiry into the crippling foot and mouth outbreak. Does that not show clearly how out of touch the Government are with the concerns of people in the countryside?
Today we are being asked to vote on three schedules to the Hunting Bill which were considered last year. Government thinking has not progressed much in that time. I believe that there are four essential issues which need addressing—animal welfare, liberty, law enforcement and rural communities.
As regards animal welfare, I say to those who are so vocal in their opposition to hunting with hounds that banning hunting will not mean that fewer foxes are killed. Alternative forms of killing by shooting, trapping or poisoning are more abhorrent. None of them is painless; indeed, they will cause additional
1244
suffering. Is it not ridiculous that the Scottish Bill bans hunting but allows a regime where foxes are driven towards guns?
Vets are experts on animal welfare. Their views were sought in an NOP poll last autumn. In a survey of 1,000 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 520 were running rural practices, 380 urban practices and 100 a mix of the two. Out of those, 63 per cent of rural vets opposed a total ban, but so did more than half the number of urban vets. More vets of both types felt that a ban would increase the suffering of foxes rather than decrease it.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns—the Minister paid tribute to the noble Lord and his committee—in this House on 12th March last year stated that his inquiry concluded that if in upland areas dogs could not be used at least to flush out foxes from cover, their welfare would be adversely affected. He repeated that once the fox was caught, insensibility and death would normally follow in seconds.
Hunting disperses foxes to fresh pasture; it tends to cull the old and the sick and thereby reduce the risk of pockets of disease affecting foxes, livestock and other wild animals. Hunts provide a valuable service in taking fallen stock from farms. Indeed, this last year they helped with the culling of animals caught up in the foot and mouth outbreak.
I turn now to liberty. Hunting has been legal in this country for centuries and is currently open to anyone and everyone, as was reflected by Clarissa Dickson Wright's programme. As with football, bingo and coarse fishing—the latter the chosen hobby of Tony Banks—hunting is not everyone's choice.
But we live in a country that strives to tolerate its minorities. In recent years enormous efforts have gone into reducing prejudice and disallowing discrimination in all aspects of our daily lives. I cannot understand how a government who embrace inclusion and political correctness so loudly appear to be prepared to spend precious time on what is, when all is said and done, an attempt by a vocal minority to remove freedom of action from another minority of people of whom they do not approve.
The Government should be addressing real problems of rural resource, let alone running the nation generally. On grounds of liberty and freedom of choice for the individual, I shall oppose a ban.
Law enforcement is a serious issue. The Home Secretary tells us of daily increases in the number of police recruits and of increases in the number of inmates in our prisons and of car thefts. Parish councils complain of the lack of police presence in rural areas and newspapers stress the fear of crime which keeps people prisoners in their own homes after dark.
I have a postbag filled with letters from people and organisations explaining carefully, clearly, and, in many cases, despairingly, why a total ban will be bad law. Hard cases make bad law. A submission from the public order sub-committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers expresses "significant concerns" at the practical difficulties of enforcing a total ban.

1245
I have a letter from a police inspector, retired after some 30 years in rural Derbyshire, alerting me to the potential impact of a total ban on hunting on relationships between the police and the community in rural areas—a particularly significant consideration in current circumstances. Is it, I ask myself, sensible to divert valuable police time to enforce a ban on hunting when they are under so much pressure from violent crime?
We have all heard of the growing tide of complaints from village to village about the lack of police presence, rising numbers of burglaries, serious traffic violations and drug-related crimes. What will happen in the event of a total ban and the only time the police show up is when local riders decide to go across country to give their horses or dogs some exercise? And indeed the reverse. What will happen if they do not show up?
We are adding to the statue book a measure which will be unenforceable. The noble Lord, Lord Donoghue, is in his place. He said—in different circumstances—that there is a particular concern with this Government in arguing in favour of banning things.
I turn to rural communities. Since foot and mouth has started to wane, I have had the opportunity of visiting companies, farms and rural businesses. I have had countless meetings with trade associations, charities and countryside organisations. There have been interviews on radio and television. I am utterly convinced that rural communities need every possible assistance to maintain a viable livelihood, as, indeed, the noble Lord has just acknowledged.
This is not the time—there never was a time—to drive a wedge between town and country, but I fear that if we support a ban we will do exactly that. It is wrong to criminalise an activity against the advice of the Burns inquiry which found neither the practices to be intrinsically cruel nor damaging to the national interest. Now is not the time for the Government to encourage bigots to destroy Britain's rural economies.
I find myself having to advance a view that may be antipathetic to some Members. I find it utterly extraordinary that the Prime Minister no less, against a background of the serious issues which require his dedicated attention, should feel comfortable to vote for one thing and perhaps mean another. Is this the underlying premise on which the third way was based?
To an extent it may he excusable because this is free-vote territory. Your Lordships are being offered two other options. The whole issue of hunting is as much about personal liberty as anything else. I cannot help but feel that the Government have failed to grasp that, perhaps even to the extent of putting spin and party political considerations ahead of the national interest. It is of course a free vote, but I am proud to say that I shall be opposing those who support a ban on hunting. I desperately hope that all noble Lords appreciate what is at stake here.
11.59 a.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, running through my mind as I prepared for this debate was a comment apparently attributed to the chairman of a meeting in America who said that everything that could be said on the issue has been said hut, unfortunately, not everyone has said it. I suspect that we could have our votes at 12 noon without too many changes of mind.
I should make it clear that I do not speak for my party on this issue. As with the Labour Party, there is a Liberal' Democrat Party conference decision in favour of a total ban but we too are operating a free vote. As always with the Liberal Democrats, we will during the course of the day provide the House with a rich diversity of experience and opinion.
It is incumbent on me to say that I will vote, as I did last time, for the first option and against the other two. I am in favour of a total ban. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that this is not a town versus country issue. I was brought up on the cusp between seaside and countryside, in rural Fylde—close to Cumbria and the Lake District. I remember singing with gusto "Do yea ken John Peel?" in my primary school. During the half-term break, I took a holiday on Exmoor and saw what an excellent opportunity it provides for holidays. I came to realise how deeply held are the feelings about hunting on all sides in such an area and I respect the passion of the debate.
I put four questions to myself—and the House will be delighted that I have brief answers to all of thorn. First, do I believe that hunting with dogs is cruel? I do. Therefore, I do not think that there is a middle way between having hunting and banning hunting, which is why I shall vote as I said.
Secondly, should there be a separation between sport and pest control? I think so. I see the glamour, attraction and pageantry of the hunt. I am interested in knowing why that side of hunting could not he carried on by drag hunting as an alternative, not necessarily tied to pest control.
Individual freedom was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I know that strong views on that subject are held by no less a person than my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, which I am sure will influence his vote today. However, our history has been of Parliament legislating against certain aspects of individual freedom. I am sure that banning bear baiting, dogfighting or cockfighting impeded individual freedom and probably cost some jobs—but Parliament's decision was accepted. Each age makes its own decisions on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
I put to myself also the question asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in our last debate. I answered rather rudely, for which I apologise. The noble Lord questioned whether we were are the top of a slippery slope and suggested that we might next see legislation on shooting or fishing. I do not know what a future generation will decide. The question before us now concerns a ban on hunting. The Labour Party manifesto made it clear that there was no proposal to bring forward legislation on any other activity.

1247
I accept that there are many more issues before the country than a ban on hunting. But the fact that this matter keeps returning cannot be laid only at the door of those who want hunting banned. We must reach a decision as part of a parliamentary process. We may do so on the basis of lobbying, which is quite legitimate, protests, marches and demonstrations, but ultimately it must be Parliament that makes the decision.
I am much impressed by another place coming to a clear and settled view. Four times since 1997 it has been asked its view on hunting and each time it has made the same decision. One remembers Henry Ford saying of the Model T,
"You can have any colour so long as it's black".
What more can another place do to make clear its view?
I understand that there may be a majority in this House for the middle way, which will leave an interesting constitutional position. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly said that yesterday and today Parliament was fulfilling the first tranche of the Labour Party's commitment to allow Parliament to debate the issue. The second tranche is to allow Parliament to reach a conclusion. I am not aware of any Labour Party manifesto since 1918 that included the caveat that a proposal would be implemented subject to the veto of the House of Lords. Much of what the Labour Party has promised comes with a determination to defy this House to get its will.
Our procedures give the Government a clear way forward. In light of last night's vote in another place, the Government should bring forward a Bill based on the first option before us today. It might be sensible of the Government to offer a pre-legislative scrutiny committee—as with the Office of Communications Bill—to allow outside interests to put their views. Then the Bill should go through Parliament in the normal way. If your Lordships' House, in its wisdom, reaches a different view from another place, the Government should invoke the Parliament Act.
The clear and settled view of another place cannot be thwarted by this unelected House, the threat of extra parliamentary action or anything else. That would be a constitutional outrage. If such a veto were proposed in respect of any other issue, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, would be down here like a shot, threatening us, with that clinical smile of his, with an "Emasculation of Peers Bill". Why should this one issue be reserved for a veto by the House of Lords?
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the Prime Minister should come clean. It is time to stop the spin. The Government asked for the opinion of both Houses. Honourable Members of another place who voted yesterday have to get themselves re-elected. Knowing how difficult it is to get into another place and how easy it is to get out, I respect honourable Members who have to test their views with their electorates in a general election. An unelected House should be wary of throwing its weight about—and against the clear views of an elected Chamber.
1248
I hope that the Government see it as their clear duty to bring forward a Bill, so that no more time is wasted, which should be subjected to the proper parliamentary process. This House should, as is its right, revise and advise—but in the end, I have no doubt that our constitution and democracy demands that the rights and opinions of the democratically elected House of Commons should prevail.
12.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the Minister said, this is not the most important issue facing the countryside—I agree with that—but it involves important principles. He pointed out that probably the majority do not feel strongly about it. That is certainly true. However, an important minority on both sides care passionately. Therefore, our debate and vote today matter.
I should begin by declaring some non-financial interests; I have no financial interests. I am a trustee of or associated with two charities related to animals and animal welfare: the International League for the Protection of Horses and Animals in War. I am involved in various horse-racing activities. I grew up in the countryside. I have never hunted and I do not anticipate doing so. I have a dog and a shotgun licence but these are reserved for domestic pest control, mainly against magpies, rats and journalists!
I do not propose to re-examine all the arguments on this complex issue with which the House is now familiar. Anyway, like my old noble friend Lord McNally, I suspect that few remain still to be converted by the pros and cons of various forms of pest control. Therefore, I wish to focus, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, so excellently did, on a few central issues of concern to the main parties represented here.
I address my noble friends on the Labour Benches who I know are genuinely concerned about animal welfare. As has been stated, I ask them not to be deceived by the false argument that any ban, or the ban that is proposed, protects foxes or other mammals from suffering. Nor is it the case in this debate that one side is against cruelty to animals and the other side is for allowing cruelty. Through my observation over many years I believe that virtually everyone here abhors cruelty to animals. I certainly do. In the previous Session I introduced a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and to create a new criminal offence of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. If the Government do not include that provision in their new legislation, I shall reintroduce that Bill.
However, nothing we do, certainly not the ban, will prevent animals suffering and dying in the wild. Foxes, which are major inflicters of suffering on other animals, as my ducks discovered, as do thousands of lambs, will always have to be controlled. The excellent report of the independent Burns inquiry concluded that no method of fox control avoided suffering. It did not conclude that hunting is cruel and did not support a ban on hunting with dogs. That was an independent

1249
view. Indeed, a ban in some ways increases animal suffering because, of course, it would lead to unregulated killing by shooting, poisoning or setting traps in which wounded animals die slowly and painfully. It would also result in hundreds of beautiful hounds having to be put down.
In my view, the best way on offer to limit animal suffering is through the middle way licensing option because it has the welfare of animals at its heart. It advocates the amendment to the 1996 Act which I proposed to ban deliberate and unnecessary cruelty. The proposed statutory hunting authority would issue codes of conduct forbidding cruel practices and would license or withdraw licences accordingly; unlicensed hunting would be a criminal offence. As has been mentioned, chief police officers have announced their support for it as the only enforceable and therefore practical method. The majority of country vets affirm that it is the best approach for animal welfare.
I introduce what is for me an unaccustomed political dimension. I suggest to my noble friends on my Benches, speaking as a former Minister for farming, that the last thing our Government need at this time is to initiate fresh hostilities towards the countryside, which has enough problems. They certainly should not wish to impose unemployment on the countryside. Burns estimated that 10,000 to 13,000 jobs are directly or indirectly related to hunting. I always assumed that we were against unemployment. I add, having read yesterday's debate in the Commons, that I am still not totally convinced that those from West Ham in east London are necessarily best placed to judge what is in the best interests of the countryside.
I need not remind Liberal Democrats opposite, and also my own side, of that party's—I refer to the new party of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—great tradition of defending liberty. That has been a central theme in its proud history. The proposed ban would infringe the liberties of many country people. That may be what made Adolf Hitler an early supporter of banning hunting. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that throughout history we have infringed liberties. I say to the noble Lord that such an infringement of liberty could be justified only if it was clearly in the public interest. I also say to the noble Lord that the matter we are discussing is not like bear-baiting which was purely about cruelty and betting on cruelty. This matter is quite different. No such case for an infringement of liberty has been made anywhere, not in the Commons yesterday, in this House or outside.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend said that bear-baiting was different because it was a spectator sport and people could bet on it. Will he comment on the Waterloo Cup and hare coursing?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should be happy to see the Waterloo Cup and hare coursing subjected to much greater control. However, that is not my view as regards the hunting of foxes with hounds.
1250
Nowhere does the Burns report suggest that a ban was justified on any grounds. That case has not been made and there is not now even a crude majority in favour of doing so according to the opinion polls. The decline of 20 per cent in the support for a ban since the 1997 general election—that is, in less than five years—is a sign of the way that public opinion changes as it becomes better informed.
I know that many noble Lords on the Conservative Benches genuinely prefer and believe in principle in the status quo and hunting with supervision but without licensing. On the previous occasion we discussed the matter many noble Lords on the Conservative Benches argued that our middle way proposals were too complex, too bureaucratic and too expensive. We have worked to meet those criticisms and to simplify and refine our proposals without diminishing the powers of the proposed new hunting authority. Therefore, I hope that that argument will no longer be made.
As regards licensing, I emphasise what I consider the key point; namely, that to license is to legitimise. That is, of course, why some of my noble friends object to licensing. I repeat that to license is to legitimise. That applies to alcohol, shotguns, brothels and so on. Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches may prefer the unlicensed status quo but, frankly, the political reality is that it is not seriously on offer. I urge noble Lords on the Conservative Benches not to repeat the mistake they made in the previous Session when they rejected the prospect of preserving legitimate hunting and so gave renewed hope to those who seek a ban. Moreover, I urge those noble Lords not to rely on taking to the barricades. Arthur Scargill, we recall, did that and we know what happened to the mining industry and the mine workers' union.
The only practical, political choice today is between middle way licensing and a ban. Votes that are withheld from the middle way assist the ban. Frankly, those of us who support the middle way today need the maximum number of votes for licensing. I hope that the total number of votes in both Houses for that approach will exceed the total number of votes for the ban. That would give a form of parliamentary legitimacy, should the Government wish to take a more compromised route rather than follow the vote in one Chamber.
To the Cross Benches, fortunately, I need say nothing more because they always understand such matters very well. I urge that we concentrate on the two basic questions. The first question concerns liberty—the liberties of rural people to pursue a traditional sport would be infringed, with no public interest justification for a ban. The second question involves the complex issue of animal welfare. No option excludes some animal suffering, but the middle way has animal welfare at its heart.
The middle way is not just a compromise between two dogmatic extremes. It is a radically different approach, which is geared to protecting animal welfare and human liberty. I urge all who believe in rights and liberties to vote for the middle way and against a ban.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I know that there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, a manifesto commitment to hold today's debate, but I regret its timing. Our time might have been better spent considering other manifesto commitments and attempting to reverse the collapse in our public services.
I am speaking today not because I am a fox hunter but because, as a board member of the Countryside Alliance, I may be able to help noble Lords to reach as constructive a conclusion to this debate as possible. Hunting, of course, has not changed during the past year, since we last debated it before the general election. We had a sensible debate and at the end of it we voted decisively. I hope that noble Lords will vote just as decisively against a ban in the first Division today.
It seems to me that today's debate needs to focus more carefully on the political position in which we find ourselves, to see if there is some way in which we can finally put this issue to bed. One point is absolutely clear—the public are now heartily sick of this debate and rightly believe that the Government and Parliament would do better to concentrate on the issues that concern them, such as schools, hospitals, transport and crime. A debate on hunting does nothing to encourage people about the relevance of the political process, particularly if they had attended the debate in the other place last night.
I detect, too, a certain boredom about covering the matter in the press. However, I am encouraged that the press, including what used to be called the Left-wing press, has now almost completely swung against a ban. I cannot also help but notice how much criticism the Government have taken for allowing this subject to resurface again. The press coverage also makes it clear that the case for a ban is universally rejected and that the issue is now seen as one involving the rights of individuals and minorities. Arguments about animal rights and class warfare are simply no longer credible.
At the same time, hunting's opponents cannot argue that their view is supported by the majority. The majority, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, has now swung against a ban. More importantly, the overwhelming majority want the issue to be settled and settled quickly.
I cannot speak for the hunting community—I should not dream of trying to do so—but I can say with confidence that it, too, has had enough. It has been attacked—often physically—abused, insulted and threatened, again and again and year after year. The final insult now is that many in that community believe that they are being used as a pawn in a political game in which they have no interest. As a result, they are extremely angry, on top of which they are tough, resilient and very well organised. They will not surrender their way of life.
During the Committee stage of the Government's Hunting Bill, the Countryside Alliance presented its own option, which encompassed a system of open and independent regulation. I hope that we made it clear
1252
that the various hound sports have rules, codes of conduct and a proper regulatory body—the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting. I accept that hunting may have been slow to modernise, but the fact is that there is now a transparent independent regulatory authority which works, and it has been doing so for some time. Although I know that some people, for some extraordinary reason, do not approve of hunting, I have never heard anybody argue that we do not keep our own rules. It would therefore have been pretty odd if, during the passage of the Hunting Bill, I had not been confident about the option that I had helped to fashion.
At the same time, noble Lords may recall that I was more than a little sceptical about the middle way option as it was presented. I know that a number of noble Lords felt that the hunting community was wrong to reject that option out of hand. However, we did not reject it out of hand. We had a number of concerns about it. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained most of them to the House. We believed that the middle way option added little to the system of self-regulation and that it had a number of disadvantages. But it has changed.
I hope and believe that we made it clear that we were not opposed to some form of statutory underpinning of the existing system, provided that the details were workable. There are of course some caveats. The hunting community has already gone some way towards regaining the confidence of the general public and the press and it is unlikely to sign up to a process that will, over a period of time, be used as a ratchet slowly to regulate hunting out of existence. It will not on any account throw coursing or stag hunting as a trophy to be done away with. Should that be the case, the Countryside Alliance will advise its members to reject the process. Any regulation must be genuinely independent, and that includes being independent of politicians.
The conduct of this debate in Scotland has drawn attention to the practical difficulties of legislation that focuses on human behaviour. That has brought the Scottish Parliament into disrepute. The issue will now have to be settled in the courts but, until it is, it would be an unwise government who travelled down that path.
On the face of it, there may now therefore seem to be even fewer reasons for adopting the middle way option than there were previously. However, times have changed. Since December, when hunting resumed, we have operated under a regime of permits although, for reasons associated with foot and mouth, that regime is somewhat cumbersome. But it worked and caused few problems. In part, that is due to the sympathetic and helpful way in which staff at local DEFRA offices worked with hunts. They are to be congratulated on that and we thank them. That has gone some way towards meeting the concerns that hunts had about licensing.
Many noble Lords may not be aware that hunting has operated under a licensing system in respect of National Trust land, Forestry Commission land and

1253
MoD land. That arrangement worked but it caused some problems. In particular, the unfortunate fact that two Ministers sought to use the licensing system to impose their own personal views did much damage. That must never he allowed to happen again; that is one of the reasons such a regime must be truly independent.
Noble Lords will recall that the Burns report, which was widely welcomed in this House, went beyond its remit to suggest that a licensing system might produce an answer to that dilemma. It is inconceivable that the inquiry team would have made such a suggestion if it had concluded that hunting was inherently cruel.
The Countryside Alliance understands the difficulties that the Government have with that issue and we have no desire to quarrel with them; indeed, we would prefer to work with them. I hope that the Government will not make the mistake of taking that as a sign of weakness. I t is one year and one day exactly since the foot and mouth crisis caused us to cancel what would have been the largest demonstration that this country had ever seen. A substantial number of my friends want to march again, and some want to go further, so strongly do they feel about this unwarranted threat to their way of life. I cannot emphasise enough the feeling of real anger that there is in the countryside about the fact that, following the worst year that anyone can remember, we are back in Parliament once again talking about hunting.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said that Parliament decides and should decide. However, Parliament will bear the responsibility for its decision if the Government and Back-Benchers succeed in declaring war on a substantial minority within the electorate. That would be a terrible route to go down.
But we are prepared to give the Government the breathing space that they need to resolve their problems, and we have persuaded our supporters to go along with this at the moment. The chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association believes that he can persuade his members that the regulatory regime should be underpinned with a statutory licensing system, along the lines proposed by the Middle Way Group. We have some justification in hoping that the other hunting organisations will follow his lead, although I should emphasise that that is not a foregone conclusion.
The second element of the middle way option, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, concerns the introduction of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. The perception of cruelty is the one genuine issue that concerns people. I have hunted all my life in the certain knowledge that nothing that is done in properly conducted hunting causes more suffering than other methods of control—and a great deal less than most. I believe that it should be an offence deliberately to cause unnecessary suffering to any creature, and I am content to allow the courts to exercise their judgment in respect of hunting. I am slightly perplexed as to why hunting's opponents do not share my confidence.
1254
Of course, I am concerned that we shall face a barrage of litigation and be dragged through the courts. That is exactly what happened following the passage of the Protection of Badgers Act some years ago and I hope that we can find a way of dealing with it. But it is important because this second element deals effectively and conclusively with the cruelty issue.
There are considerable risks for the hunting community in going down that path. Many in our community want nothing to do with it and would prefer to continue the political fight. They believe that the present system works well and that the proposed system will slowly but surely throttle them.
I do not hold that view. I believe that the middle way proposal can be made to operate if it is truly independent, and that we have little to fear from the courts. The board of the Countryside Alliance is willing to try to persuade its members and supporters, which now include over 500,000 fishermen, and the leaders of the hunting community to support us in trying to make this work. In order to do that, we need not only the resolve of the Middle Way Group, which I am sure we shall have, but also the support of your Lordships to give us the space to try. Having gained that space, most importantly of all, we need the Government to display a little courage, openness and honesty in their handling of this issue— qualities which, I am afraid, have not been entirely obvious in the debates thus far.
Consequently, we must take this one-off opportunity. When the Divisions are called, I shall of course vote against a ban. When the second Division is called—on the so-called middle way option—I shall vote "content". I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House, regardless of their views on hunting, will see that this is the only chance that we have of finding a peaceful resolution of this interminable and divisive debate.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, when it comes to blood sports, I am a spoilsport. When it comes to the hunting party, I am a party-pooper. When it comes to hunting with the hounds, my attitude is that of dog in the manger.
Killing for pleasure is wrong and should be banned. Fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing are moral issues. It is time that we stood up for morality. The commandment "Thou shall not kill" may be hedged with exceptions. "Thou shall not kill for pleasure" is not; it is a commandment for the 21st century and it is time that we respected it unambiguously, without prevarication and without procrastination.
I do not want to regurgitate the general arguments against hunting that I employed in your Lordships' House when last we discussed the issue. I want, instead, to parse the proposals of the so-called "Middle Way Group" and suggest that drag hunting is the best route to find a solution to this blot on the English landscape.

1255
The middle way is still driving on the wrong side of the road; it still permits the killing of the fox for pleasure. One cannot kill half a fox. Like Monty Python's parrot, a fox torn apart by hounds remains dead, deceased and off its perch for ever. Before the fox has been dispatched—sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly—it will have suffered the agonies of the pursuit by animals four times its size and four times its strength. The middle way is a compromise that still seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
From that evident and unvarnished truth, there is no swerve, cover or bolt-hole. It is time its supporters owned up, as does, indeed, Peter Luff, MP, a leading exponent. His website declares that the middle way's proposals are, indeed, "not a compromise". Let us abandon, then, this piece of perverse prevarication. The middle way is the muddle way for those who are tiring of the chase. A ban must come, and it must come now.
Having asserted that fox hunting is cruel, which it is, perhaps I may pose a slightly different question. Do those who participate in fox hunting find the cruelty inflicted on the fox an integral part of their enjoyment of hunting? I believe that the answer is no. I am sure that a small minority gain some perverse pleasure at humiliating and hounding the fox. But the majority are not sadists in red satin. They enjoy the ride over England's unparalleled countryside; they warm to the test of skill between rider and horse; they celebrate the work of the hounds pursuing the scent; and, above all, they love the camaraderie and companionship of their fellow riders and the attendant pleasures of dressing and drinking gin in the pink. They value, too, the social life that flows from the hunt, the point-to-points, the hunt balls and the general exchange of being part of a community with a common cause. All of us can recognise that hunt for human companionship. It is what marks us out with our essential humanity.
But here is the interesting thing. Absent from that list of why people love hunting is mention of the cruel chase and the killing of the fox. If that is true, why oh why does the hunting fraternity want to retain the one element of its activity which is repulsive and rebarbative to the vast majority of our fellow citizens—the wanton pursuit and killing of a live mammal? There is a better way.
I support the real alternative of drag hunting, which allows those involved in live quarry hunting to continue their activities in a similar way but without the cruelty that the British public abhor. As noble Lords know, in drag hunting followers ride after hounds trailing a scent laid over country by a horseback rider pulling a scented drag. The trail includes fences and other obstacles which are more or less difficult according to the tastes and experience of those taking part. Bloodhound hunts are very similar but involve fewer hounds following the scent of a person on foot. As the trails are laid out in advance, drag and bloodhound hunts can avoid trespass and there is less risk of hounds straying across roads and railways and into residential areas.
1256
Drag and bloodhound hunting are different from live hunting, and the Burns committee decided that,
"it is not possible to lay a trail artificially which simulates fully the subtlety and complexity of the scent left by a fox as it moves through the countryside".
However, these sports can be adjusted to suit the skills of riders of different ability levels, and they can operate at times of the year when live quarry hunting is not possible. Furthermore, the numbers of drag and bloodhound packs have been increasing in recent years, whereas the number of live quarry hunts has declined.
I believe that, in the event of a ban, more farmers would welcome drag and bloodhound packs on to their land, especially if it meant additional revenue through a payment system. That could easily be achieved through subscriptions and the usual social fundraising activities.
Many people enjoy riding in the countryside and are attracted by the social life that hunting can provide but feel unable to take part because of the cruelty currently involved in these so-called "sports". Drag and bloodhound hunting offer a non-controversial way of continuing the traditional aspects of hunting and the pageantry. I am confident that their popularity will increase in the event of a ban as more people feel able to take part.
I also believe that many hunters who claim that they would never take part in drag hunting will feel differently in the event of a ban. It is simply not in their interests to admit that drag hunting would be an acceptable alternative at this stage. On that point, the Burns inquiry concluded that,
"there would be greater incentive, in the event of a ban, to expand the number of drag and bloodhound packs and the level of participation in both sports".
All sides agree that an important determinant of the economic impact of a hunting ban will be what hunt participants subsequently decide to do with their horses. In recent years, horse ownership has continued to increase against a background of declining numbers of live quarry hunts. Research by Dr. Douglas Macmillan of the University of Aberdeen has shown that data for West Lothian and Midlothian, revealed that in the territory of a hunt that disbanded in 1991, horse numbers have increased faster than in any other area of Scotland.
The case for drag hunting is clear. It removes the cruelty, the element that is opposed by the majority of the British people, and retains the pageantry, tradition, hound packs and social activities. If the hunting community rejects drag hunting as that viable alternative, it then must understand that it leaves itself vulnerable to the charge that a bloodlust does indeed underlie its desperate and otherwise irrational defence of the hunt.
For those of us who want the ban, we must respond imaginatively and sensitively to the fears of the hunting fraternity. For them, a ban is a death-knell, not on the fox, but on a way of life that gives certainty, structure and strength to a community that feels itself harried and hurried and challenged by townies like myself.

1257
We must assure them—and this Government, with their positive rural policies, most strenuously have—that change can reinvigorate and renew their community; that they, like the fox, need not feel threatened by outsiders invading their rural idyll; that to stay the same, they must change with the times; that now is the time to spurn a tradition that has become abhorrent to modern sensibilities. The drag on progress is their failure to embrace the drag hunt.
I support the ban and a better future for all our citizens in England's hunt-free green and pleasant land.
12.42. p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I share the widespread frustration that we have to devote yet more time t o this subject, over which every conceivable fact has been rehearsed countless times and every argument repeatedly deployed.
I believe that the continuation of hunting is vital for the rural economy, for animal welfare, for conservation and for the maintenance of freedom of choice for rural people. I hope that your Lordships will vote today overwhelmingly for the middle way. I believe that this is still politically achievable, as well as being the best option, for a variety of compelling reasons. If something is going to change today, I hope that it will be the votes of some of your Lordships who voted last time for the status quo.
Rural life has suffered grievously over the past year, after several years of severe pressure on farming and a steady loss of jobs and livelihoods in country areas. It is deeply hurtful to rural people to he faced with the threat of a ban on hunting. This is a further blow to a way of life already being battered by urbanisation and globalisation and the increasing separations of town and country in terms of attitudes and ethos. I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, over that. There really is a difference between town and country attitudes. The vote in the other place last night was very much an urban vote.
When the Curry report is urging the farming community to reconnect with its market, society and the environment, the proposal to ban hunting is particularly damaging and very strongly resented.
We need to be realistic also about animal welfare, especially the welfare of foxes. There is no National Health Service for foxes. There are no retirement homes for elderly foxes. There are no analgesics for ill or injured foxes. The natural world is not a kindly place. Foxes are not kindly in their ways, if and when they gain access to the hen-house.
There is a very dangerous and misguided tendency towards anthropomorphism on the part of many of the most fervent opponents of hunting. This is a tendency which needs to be exposed and is an attitude which needs to be resisted.
1258
However, we do need to acknowledge the real sincerity and passion with which very many people oppose hunting—not a majority despite last night's vote. That is why self-regulation is not a sensible option. I gladly acknowledge what has been achieved by the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting. It has been impressive. It includes some significant changes from previous practice in many areas.
Hunts no longer meet in places where they cause road congestion and inconvenience to the general public. Much greater care is exercised to avoid damaging public footpaths or allowing hounds to run across roads and into gardens and public places. Far fewer foxes are being dug out. All this is to be welcomed. It indicates that statutory regulation could be introduced and made to work with no difficulty. It would be a natural and acceptable transition from present practice under well-run hunts to the sort of regulation for which this Bill provides in its second option.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, hunting which has been carried out recently with DEFRA permits, is another form of regulation which has worked well.
We need statutory regulation in order to reassure those people who believe that standards under self-regulation have not been uniformly high and that there have been incidences of malpractice or attitudes of arrogance or discourtesy or indifference to the sensibilities of those who do not share an enthusiasm for hunting. Statutory regulation would be a reasonable way of showing good will and ensuring good practice.
The benefits of regulated hunting are very significant. They sustain a wide variety of rural industries and occupations, of landscape management and nature conservation. They offer a service to farmers in the recovery of fallen stock and in the opportunities provided to young people to develop skills and learn the discipline of the hunt; above all, in providing the least cruel method of controlling the quarry species.
I am grateful, as I am sure are many of your Lordships, for the clear way this has been set out by those veterinary surgeons convinced of the advantages of hunting. They wish it to continue so that it may perform the vital function of enabling the weak, diseased and injured among the quarry population to be humanely despatched. They say that if hunting were to be banned, an uncertain but unacceptably large number of animals would be condemned to a lingering death, through disease, injury, malnutrition or illegal poisoning. Do those who care about animal welfare really want that?
I wish to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in saying that it is not just the perception of cruelty which people find offensive. That is a perception, albeit a misguided one, but there is also the social issue. There is the perception that hunting is indulged in by toffs, which has led to a great deal of jealousy and resentment.

1259
Some of your Lordships will have read the article by Christina Odone in The Observer on March 3rd.
"The popular prejudice may be of whip-bearing toffs, tally-hoing over hill and dale, but in many rural areas, hunting is like some Chaucerian tale that brings together the Knight, the Wife from Bath and the Parson.
"When I accompanied the Beaufort Hunt…"
—the Beaufort Hunt of all hunts—
"ֵin Gloucestershire, the event proved a blueprint for a Blairite experiment in social inclusion. The hunt attracted a burger van driver from London, a plumber from Burford and a local waitress, as well as a couple of Lords-a-leaping."
The reality is, in most places, with most hunts, that social inclusion is even more comprehensive than with the Beaufort.
Farmers do not need more regulation and more cost. Hunting under licence would inevitably mean some increase in both. However, if that is what is necessary in order to enable hunting to continue—and I believe it is—then I know that farmers will gladly accept it.
I hope that there will be no political-party games this time but a massive vote in favour of the middle way. I speak not only for myself. Last week, there was a residential meeting of the Bishops representing the most deeply rural constituencies. We do not have a three-line Whip; we have a free vote. Every single one of those Bishops agreed with me that the middle way was the right way.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am most pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I have heard him speak on rural matters previously and know that he has always spoken wisdom on stilts. I have never heard him speak on hunting and I agree with everything that he said. I do not seek to damage him in the House of Bishops, but he can now number me among his fan club. His Holiness the Pope has given those of us in my religion no spiritual guidance on the matter, so I shall look to the right reverend Prelate as my spiritual guide and beacon in future years. I do not intend to extend that to all his colleagues on the Bench of Bishops, I hasten to add.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not in his place at the moment, but I suspect that he was right in saying that most things that could be said have been said and that most minds have been made up. I intend to speak as briefly as I can in the interest of voting as early as possible. I shall not repeat what I said in earlier debates, except to say that I have no interest to declare. I do not hunt, shoot or fish, although for as much time as I can I live in what is by any standards deep countryside.
I believe that what looks good is leaving well alone and that the status quo is the best way forward. However, as we have the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that there is no pre-emption, I shall vote in favour of the middle way, but perhaps I may warn my friends in the Countryside Alliance to beware of the smile on the face of the tiger
1260
offering some form of co-operation. I suspect that little by little the smile on the face of the tiger will become wider and broader. In the hope that the Countryside Alliance will be prepared to be as robust as possible, as it has done previously not just in the interests of hunting but of threatened rural minorities at large, I seek to make only three points.
My first point relates to the social issue. We heard a lucid and clear speech on the matter from the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. I listened with great care to what he had to say. Speculating on an idea that I cannot prove, he caused me to think about the way in which the hunting of vermin with hounds has developed. As the noble Lord said, it has developed most colourfully, including coats of many different colours and rituals, and there is a certain amount of historic background. I believe that had the hunting of vermin such as foxes or mink developed in the way in which it was done by a few people, without the flashes of pink, scarlet, buff, green or whatever else, the social hackles of people in the countryside, and more predominantly in the towns, would never have been raised against hunting.
I do not pursue country sports, but in my view in my part of the country there is a high measure of social cohesion and hunting locally is most inclusive. As the right reverend Prelate said, people of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds are part of the society in rural areas which supports hunting. I know that many people in rural areas do not support hunting and do not greatly care for it but, in my experience, they do not want to see it banned. Country people are liberal and tolerant and are prepared to rub along with each other in the interests of the social cohesion of the countryside.
My second point is that should this House and another place decide to ban hunting with hounds, there will be no more foxes, mink or other vermin left alive. It is difficult to speak with certainty, but I believe that the necessary putting down of vermin by shooting, trapping and other means, about which others have spoken with more authority, will lead to an increased amount of cruelty in the countryside. If hunting with hounds—or with dogs, as the Motion has it—is not allowed to take place, not only will there be a little more cruelty in the countryside as vermin is dealt with—I seek not to exaggerate—but I believe that attention will turn to other forms of countryside activity. I believe that shooting and fishing will be next.
Then logic draws one inexorably down the route of examining other forms of cruelty. Anyone who has been to an abattoir, a slaughterhouse or a chicken production line knows full well that the animals waiting to be killed know that something at least unusual is about to happen to them and that they can smell something rather rum in the air. I believe that there are some forms of slaughter which are practised today in 21st century Great Britain, particularly in the aid of minorities in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, which have a considerable degree of cruelty attached to them. Yet we do not see anyone much bold enough to come out and say so in comparing arguments about slaughterhouse practices with the arguments about hunting in the field.

1261
Thirdly and finally, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Whiny. He is a stalwart fellow and has sat for many a long hour on the Front Bench debating this and other issues. I cannot agree with him that. the debate is not about the rural/urban divide. I spend about half my week in the town, in the City, and about half my week in the countryside. It is clear to me that if hunting with hounds is banned, it will send a terrible signal to a rural minority which is fast diminishing that its legitimate practices are not understood by an overbearing, overweening and overwhelming urban majority. People in the countryside really will begin to feel themselves threatened beyond all belief. Then there may be the explosion of anger that my noble friend Lord Mancroft, with his characteristic good manners, fell just short of predicting, but which I, with greater vulgarity, will predict will happen if the ban takes place.
I say to the House, and through the House to anyone in a minority who is listening, particularly in an unfashionable or politically-incorrect minority; "Do not under any circumstances do anything except be fearful about what will happen to you next, because you will be next".
I now pass on to the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, my uncovenanted minute and look forward to what she has to say.
12.57 p.m.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, I must declare an interest as one of the chairmen of the all-party Middle Way Group. Indeed, it would be fair to say that the Middle Way Group was set up by three MPs, one man and a dog: Peter Luff from the Conservatives; Lernbit Opik from the Liberal Democrats; myself from Labour; and Jim Barrington, who used to be chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports but who left because he did not think that the organisation was involved with preventing cruelty to animals. We had very little money and, as your Lordships proved in the previous vote on hunting in this House, not very much support when we first set up the group.
Following that vote, it would have been easy for us to have gone away and left hunting to its fate. But we did not do that. We decided to set up the committee. We organised, and I chaired, a two-day middle way development committee meeting. We held it in the House of Commons; it was a kind of Select Committee. We invited all the groups we could think of which were involved in the issue of hunting. Some wrote, some attended, and some gave personal evidence. We had evidence from the vets, from the Welsh packs, from the lurcher clubs, from shooting organisations, from the NFU and even from a professor of animal welfare. Many more people attended and gave evidence. The meeting was highly successful, and we hope that your Lordships will take into consideration our revised proposals when voting today.
Our proposals have two key elements: first, a change to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 to create a new general offence of causing unnecessary suffering
1262
to wild mammals, as per the original Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to whom I pay tribute; and, secondly, the establishment of a statutory hunting authority. Both of those elements would mean a ban on all uncontrolled and unregulated hunting.
As some noble Lords may know, I fly fish, which I have no doubt is a form of hunting, although I do not do it on horseback, wear a red coat or have a dog with me. I must admit that I enjoy it. I pay for a licence, which I obtain from the post office in the Commons and which gives me the right to use a fishing rod and line. But I also need permission from the owner or tenant whose water I want to fish.
There are codes of conduct for all types of fishing. For example, there is a closed season, the recording of fish and restrictions on the kind of fly one can use, the number of fish one can keep and the kind of fish one has to return to the water. One must supply a record of catches to the Environment Agency at the end of the year. Fishermen say, and I agree, that they are the protectors of our water and it is in the interest of their sport to be so. It is in the interests of all hunting sports that people protect the countryside.
All the evidence presented to the middle way committee convinced us that reasonably priced, easily obtained licences with individual codes of conduct like those for fishing would be acceptable to groups who hunt. Many of those groups, such as fox hunting groups, have already set up their own codes.
We, as human beings, have changed the balance of nature in this country. To suggest that we ignore that change is nonsensical. This debate is not about whether we kill wild animals but about how we do it: whether by hunting, poisoning, snaring, gassing or shooting. This debate is not just about fox hunting but about whether we ban all hunting with dogs.
It is about banning ratting. In the area where I live, a group of men went out for a day's ratting with their dogs. They killed 96 rats. Surely, we do not have to tell them that we are going to ban that—first, because they enjoy it; secondly, because they took a dog with them; thirdly, because they killed rats; and, fourthly, because they did not eat them. That is what we are telling fox hunters. Hunting with dogs is surely a more efficient and much safer solution to our rat problem than is the desperately dangerous attempt to control them with poison.
It is also about banning rabbiting with dogs. Yes, we eat them and people in my area who rabbit freeze the surplus to feed their dogs. Do we tell them that in future they must go to the supermarket to buy tinned meat produced from animals farmed and killed by humans because that makes it all right for their dogs to eat? It is nonsense, but perhaps those who support banning should tell that to the rabbits as we snare, shoot and gas them or kill them with the horrible myxomatosis.
My friends would think that I had gone soft if I did not mention that nastiest and most destructive animal in our country today: the mink. The mink is responsible for the decline of our water vole and the devastation of islands off the coast of Scotland where

1263
they have eaten or killed all the ground-nesting birds. They kill for pleasure anything that gets in their way. The only groups that consistently hunt those vicious creatures are mink huntsmen with their mink hounds. Everyone else has given up. When I write to the Ministry to ask what it is going to do, it passes the responsibility to someone else. When I discuss the problem with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it does not want to know. The only people who want to do something about destroying mink in this country are the mink hunters with their dogs. Are we now to tell them that we want everyone to give up on that serious problem that threatens our indigenous wildlife?
The benefits of the middle way approach are consistent and improved standards of animal welfare; a clear and logical legal framework, with inspectors paid for by the licensing fee; and clear codes of conduct that do not criminalise honest people. The middle way has tried to reach as many people on all sides of the argument as it can. It represents not a pallid compromise but a strong, workable and better way. I hope that when we come to vote, many of your Lordships will follow me into the Lobby.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has made a most valuable speech, and I am glad that she supports the middle way, as I do. As some of your Lordships will know, I was the Member for Huntingdonshire for 34 years and hunted regularly until I was 70.
What worries me is that if hunting of foxes is abolished, foxes will suffer terribly in ways that they do not suffer at present. If foxes are not hunted, they will multiply and become an even greater menace than they are at present. They are terrible predators, especially for poultry.
I remember being asked by a lady with a country cottage in my constituency to go to see the damage done to the poultry run at the back of her cottage. There she had 16 chickens, of which nine had been killed by a fox that had not attempted to eat any of them. I cite that merely as an example.
If hunting of foxes is abolished, they will have to be destroyed by much more cruel methods than hunting with hounds. There will be only four ways of killing them. The first method is poisoning, which is illegal and horrible. The second method is snaring, which is illegal and even more horrible. I have seen a fox caught in a snare. It must have been there for some hours and was suffering agony. That is illegal. The third method is shooting. People's skill in shooting varies widely. If a fox is shot at, wounded and gets away, I understand that it is likely to die from gangrene, which is a slow and horrible death. The only other way to destroy foxes is by trapping. That is not so cruel, but it is not very effective. Foxes are difficult to entice into traps, so we should not rely too much on that method.
Why, then, is it that I and others say that hunting is less cruel than any of those four methods of killing? Being a lightweight, I was often up front when hounds
1264
closed in on a fox. In my last few seasons, when the anti-hunting movement had really got under way, I decided to count the number of seconds between hounds closing in and the death of the fox. I never counted more than four seconds. So, that is not a very cruel way of killing.
There are those who say that just chasing the fox is cruel. I am not so sure about that. There was a distressed look on the face of old foxes, but the chase did not last long and they were killed quickly. I did not see a distressed look on the face of younger foxes. It may be almost irresponsible of me to say it, but I sometimes saw on a fox's face the nearest thing to a grin that I had ever seen. Of course, they were chased for long periods, but, as I said, they were quickly killed. When chased, foxes did not suffer the agony that, generally, they would suffer if killed by any of the other methods.
Townspeople do not know about such things. They should realise that abolishing the hunting of foxes will cause more cruelty to foxes.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in the debate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I believe that there is a difference between urban and rural views on the issue. There is a split between campaigners on the issue of whether the hunting of foxes with hounds or dogs should be banned.
On the whole, rural people wish to keep hunting going, and urban people appear to favour a ban on hunting, although that is not borne out by recent opinion polls. I declare an interest as someone who has always lived in the countryside. I was partly brought up on a small farm. I have been a farm worker, a farm manager, an agricultural economist and educationalist and a small farmer. I have never tried to force my rural views on city and town dwellers. However, urban views on hunting are being forced on rural people, who are a minority. Ignorance of rural life has never deterred those who campaign for a fox hunting ban. Sadly, an urban/rural divide exists.
In rural Wales, we must put up with some of the worst aspects of urban culture. For example, two weeks ago, a high-speed motorcyclist was prosecuted because he had been travelling at 160 miles per hour on country lanes. The evidence for that was provided by his own video camera on his motorbike; it displayed 160 mph. Rightly, he was banned, but we suffer incursions of motorcyclists travelling everywhere at 120 mph every weekend. They come from Birmingham, Liverpool, Shrewsbury, Bristol and south Wales. They are rightly condemned, but they are there.
Drugs come into our rural areas, and there are distribution networks. Only yesterday, a gang appeared in court in connection with a multi-million pound operation, bringing drugs into rural towns and villages. Such activity has an extreme effect on young rural people. Crime has spread from the cities to rural areas. Cottages and houses can lose all their slates

1265
overnight. The slates are sold in cities with no questions asked. Quad bikes, chainsaws, antiques and even four-wheel drives and livestock trailers disappear. City slickers are ready to market all that loot. Dyfed-Powys Police have just over 1,000 officers. They have the best detection rates in the United Kingdom, but even they have some difficulty in coping with such activity.
Decent urban people, when informed of the mayhem, are, naturally, horrified. They say, understandably, that such acts are not typical; nor is the worst behaviour ascribed to hunts. It is hardly surprising that, when told by city dwellers that fox hunting must be banned, country people ask, "Who are you to tell us what we can do, when many of you abandon your dogs on the streets? That is immoral, as are the other crimes perpetrated by urban people in the countryside". I hasten to add that the people committing crimes are a minority, but the majority seems unable, for various reasons, to control them.
Livestock farming is an unending, relentless battle against the weather, the politicians and the pests. Sometimes, in the pubs, country dwellers, in their laconic way, say that it is difficult to distinguish between the last two. On every farm that I have managed—my own farm of 65 acres, a college farm of 350 acres, a. Scottish estate of 1,500 acres—the fox has been a pest. My worst experience was the loss, one spring, of 37 young lambs. Twenty-nine of them were left headless and torn apart, killed for the fun of it by foxes. That was from a 200-ewe flock that had been shepherded outside at midnight and 5 a.m.
Foxes must be controlled but not eliminated. If the fox population is kept in balance, there will be a balance of all species, wild and farmed, in the countryside, and that will remain stable. I am a former Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire, the largest constituency in England and Wales 87miles long by 45 miles wide—where there are 16 sheep to every one person. There are many Welsh packs, and nine hunts operate in my former constituency. Many are foot packs, which are vital for fox control, as are gun packs, in the mountainous and deeply forested areas, for example, the Cambrian mountains. Those nine hunts kill 2,000 foxes annually. They keep the fox population stable and have done so every year for the past 30 years. The main problem in controlling foxes is the imposition of monoculture forestry. Fir trees offer excellent cover for foxes.
On the whole, hunts are well supervised. However, the general public need reassurance, and hunting practices need to come under a measure of control. The case for hunting under licence—the middle way—must be pursued. The other option—a ban—is out of the question. It would result in an explosion of the fox population and the ravaging of the lamb crop every spring, with terrible consequences for animal welfare. That view is hacked by most of the veterinary profession.
1266
The solution must be a balance between, on the one hand, liberty, tolerance of others and the survival of a lifestyle and, on the other, a set of rules that will take into account concerns for animal welfare and the wellbeing of those who live in the countryside. In a nutshell, that means a respect for animal welfare, the rural economy and the environment. Here I speak for my Welsh colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, Lord Geraint, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I pay tribute to my colleague in the House of Commons, the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, Lembit Öpik, who has done tremendous work on the matter. With his colleagues, he has evolved a radically different approach. There is a guarantee of an improvement in animal welfare; a guarantee of balance; and a guarantee that human liberty will be protected. The alternative—banning the hunting of foxes—would mean that uncontrolled, unregulated killing would occur. There is no longer majority public support for a ban.
These proposals would amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 by creating the new offence of causing unnecessary suffering to wild animals, which would be a big improvement in the Act's current provisions. They would also result in the creation of a statutory hunting authority which would be appointed by the Secretary of State and include people from many different backgrounds. The authority would enforce codes of conduct, create licensed hunts and be funded by the sale of licences—which would themselves be affordable and readily obtainable. Codes of conduct would be policed for breaches, and licence holders would be subject to inspection. If a hunt did not have a licence, a £5,000 fine would ensue. The proposals would undoubtedly result in improved animal welfare standards, a clear and logical legal framework, and controls on hare coursing. They would also address the concerns expressed in the Burns report about fox control matters.
The alternative—a ban on fox hunting—would criminalise farmers and rural dwellers who have to protect their own livestock, and that would be a serious incursion on their liberties. A ban would deny to a minority the human right to protect their own livestock. Parliament's record on protecting basic civil liberties would be besmirched if we chose that alternative.
I believe that it is possible to reach a compromise on this issue, and that it is to be found in the middle way set of proposals. I shall oppose a ban and support those proposals. They are the best option from every point of view.
1.21 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, in the past few days, many people have told me that they think it is positively obscene—yesterday, my daughter telephoned me and said precisely the same—that we are spending seven hours debating this issue today when we are surrounded by so many problems that should be debated. I am sure that the Minister will agree that he

1267
could be spending his time a little better than sitting here listening to this debate. I am not an active hunting man and I never have been, but I am a supporter and I always have been. I am also a countryman. Above all, I am a firm believer in people's right to enjoy country pursuits. I therefore totally oppose a ban on hunting. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider joining others in supporting the middle way.
The other night, and for obvious reasons, the masters of my own hunt, the Atherstone, in North Warwickshire, came to see me. Richard and Penny Tyacke are family farmers who are up at 4 a.m. to do their chores and feed their livestock before they can have a day's hunting. It is therefore a total myth that only those who can easily afford it become involved in hunting. They told me that, this year, compared with two years ago, twice as many people are following the hunt. I think that that speaks for itself. Moreover, many of the supporters pay by instalment because they cannot pay the full amount during the season. They also include five doctors, some North Warwickshire miners and local families who enjoy a day's access to the countryside.
As others—not least my noble friend Lord Patten—have said, if we completely banned hunting with dogs, there would be a cry to ban fishing, all hunting and other country pursuits. I was born in a mining village. I can assure the House that, if we banned hunting with dogs, the outcry from that part of the world would be absolutely deafening in condemnation of those who they believe have taken away what they believe is their English tradition. The issue is about human rights and people's freedom to enjoy watching and participating in a well-organised and disciplined sport. As others have said, through the ages, fox hunting has set a fine example to all sportsmen, above all to respect the land that they hunt. Many of their supporters have occupied and farmed that land, and they respect those codes of conduct. My own son, at Wye College, led the beagles for a couple of seasons. When I teased him about the hares that he did not kill during the course of a season, he said to me, "This is not about killing hares. It's about hunting and managing the pack. It's about discipline in the countryside".
Well-established hunts are recognised well beyond the countryside. I have a new point to raise with the Minister. I have been reminded by my good friend and neighbour, a retired captain in the Royal Navy, that, in the Second World War, thousands of men served in His Majesty's ships named after and affiliated to the British hunts. They were known as hunt-class destroyers. For those who served in them, those ships were their homes, and in many cases their graves. There was a warm relationship—I speak from experience in this—between those who were in the ships and their hunting friends. The latter were generous in providing comforts for the sailors.
Destroyers included the "Beagle", the "Foxhound", the "Greyhound" and the "Hunter". One flat minesweeper was named the "Hound". Yes, there was also an HMS "Fox". Even today, the names of a class of mine-countermeasure vessel refer to the hunts, even
1268
to my own Atherstone hunt. Will the Minister tell us whether all those names are to be changed to satisfy political correctness? Today, we watch films in which two or three predators chase and kill innocent animals in the field. Does the Broadcasting Standards Commission receive complaints about that from animal rights activists, or is what we see on film all right because it occurs more than 3,000 miles away?
I am sure that the Minister will accept that a total ban on hunting would only add to the current economic crisis in rural areas with which he is so familiar. Such a consequence is the last thing that farmers and those involved in rural businesses such as tourism need. The Government may insist on proceeding with a certain type of legislation for their own political reasons, but—as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, concluded in his excellent report—the animal welfare case for doing so is far from compelling. What is needed, in the British tradition, is moderation and tolerance, not more red tape or bureaucracy.
The Burns report also concluded that it is necessary for man to manage the population of the species—in this case, the fox species. The use of dogs to hunt mammals, particularly foxes, makes a vital contribution to pest control across the country. As we speak, I can almost see the fox licking his lips as the lambs are being born. The report also acknowledges the important fact that hunts provide vital services to farming, including—as my noble friend Lady Byford said—the removal of fallen stock. The loss of that service would be a new imposition on the whole of the livestock industry and one which it can ill afford. A ban would also have knock-on implications, including—as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said—the possible loss of 10,000 to 13,000 jobs.
The challenge for the Minister, his team in DEFRA, and everyone involved in or concerned about rural industries is to address the wide range of pressing issues highlighted in the Curry commission report on the future of food and farming. Those issues will have to be tackled to secure a sustainable, long-term future for the industry.
I suggest that those challenges are substantial enough without adding further restrictions to control pests and driving a wedge, as has been said, between town and country. In his foreword to the rural White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister said that that was not government policy. I hope that he and the Government will stand by that.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, oh, dear! Here we go again. I must declare an interest as a resident of Scotland and being married, as of last Friday, to a redundant master of foxhounds. I shudder to think what she has spent in time, emotion and worry trying to make Members of the Scottish Parliament listen to the argument. A lot has already been said on both sides of the debate. Therefore, my contribution will be brief.
This time last year, when the country was in the grip of foot and mouth disease, it really was ironic that DEFRA enlisted the help of hunt servants to help

1269
eradicate the disease. Those same hunt servants are having their very livelihoods put at risk by single issue Back-Benchers who do not have the capacity to concern themselves with the real issues facing the country. As other noble Lords have said, it must be education, transport and the beleaguered National Health Service that matter, not foxes.
Only yesterday the Daily Telegraph ran a headline, "Street crime spiralling out of control, admits Blunkett". I believe that political commentators will look back in 20 years' time on all the parliamentary time wasted discussing foxes in utter disbelief.
I believe that there are lessons to be learnt from the hunting fiasco in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has set a damaging constitutional precedent by ignoring the findings of its own rural development committee. That committee spent 15 months taking evidence concluding that it would be,
"difficult or impossible to amend the Bill into a form which would adequately meet the aim of ending cruelty and for this reason recommends that the general principles of this Bill should not be agreed to.
My local police force in the Borders, from where most of the hunts in Scotland operate, stated that
"A ban is almost unworkable … because the legislation is not clear".
With inner city crime out of control, serious concerns were raised about the lack of police resources. The idea of helicopters looming over the Lammermuirs twice weekly is ridiculous in the extreme. Surely, Westminster must avoid the trap into which Hollyrood fell last month, which generated a most extraordinary collection of headlines from the mainly pro-government press, of which I shall quote a few: "Daft as a brush", the Sunday Mail; "NHS not foxes is top priority", the Sun; "A real dog's breakfast", the Daily Record; and "The mark of a civilised society is its tolerance of unpopular behaviour", the Independent.
It must be wrong for Parliament to put in jeopardy a hitherto legal way of life. The real irony is that a ban will not save the life of one single fox. As a result of the Bill in Scotland, foxes will undoubtedly suffer a far more cruel death by indiscriminate shooting, trapping, poisoning and gassing. In these times of real voter apathy, can the Motions before us be considered fully democratic? I fear not. As one national newspaper recently led, "Let us have a Bill to ban banning". I urge your Lordships to vote "no" against a ban, "yes" for the middle way and "yes" for the third option.
1.35 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow up the reference to hunting in Scotland made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, except to say that it may not be intelligible to them; it is certainly not intelligible to us. We have sympathy for the vast problem they have. Let us ensure that we do not go that way in this country.
1270
I must first declare an interest. I have lived and hunted in the Pytchley country for over 60 years. I have hunted with that pack and with neighbouring packs. In the 60 years I have hunted I have never seen anything which I can condemn as cruelty in any shape or form. I would still be hunting but for the fact that my wife and my doctor told me not to.
One has to be lucky to be close enough to see the lead hound snip the neck of a fox and kill it instantly. On the few occasions on which I have seen the killing of a fox, it is clear that that is how it is done. In the photographs much publicised by anti-hunt papers and periodicals, one is presented with the fox being torn to pieces by the hounds. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who is not in his place, seemed to suggest that he has seen foxes killed by being torn to pieces. I defy any noble Lord to claim that he has ever seen a fox killed in a hunt by being torn to pieces. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made the same comment on a previous occasion.
All forms of nature have a degree of cruelty. A cat chasing a mouse is one of the most cruel events one can watch. If one has to put an end to it somehow, one must get hold of the mouse and kill it. In foxhunting I have never had cause to see anything remotely cruel. Foxes cause much cruelty by killing lambs. Farmers today are under great pressure at lambing time because of the number of lambs they will lose. Foxhunting has been under some control for months. Therefore, there are now more foxes slaughtering lambs than previously.
The alternatives to hunting are shooting, poisoning, trapping and snaring. I find those immensely cruel. They cause ghastly consequences, particularly poisoning. They are the alternatives. If a ban is imposed the result will be massive cruelty to foxes which, as a result, will be exterminated over a period by shooting, trapping, snaring, and poisoning. That is something to which I hope none of us will ever agree, accept or support.
The alternative to that is option three, hunting under supervision, which is very much hunting as it is now. I believe that a good master of foxhounds will ensure the most effective discipline in his hounds. That would be far more effective than government regulation. He will see that hunting is carried out without cruelty. I accept that the present mood of Parliament is not to agree to hunting under supervision but to go for the middle way, hunting under licence. In the circumstances, I accept that, provided that the conditions and regulations imposed are reasonable, fair and practicable, and proposed for the continuity of permanent hunting under that system so that it can be controlled unspoilt for the benefit of the fox, the sheep and the hen hereafter. Therefore, I accept that. I believe that it is the right course to adopt today. There needs to be a careful look at the controls and conditions which are imposed in order to enable the countryside's sport activity and control of pests to continue. Hunting should continue as in the past but with suitable discipline, control or licence.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I have not spoken in previous debates about hunting. I want to speak today in support of the middle way proposal, so eloquently stated by my noble friend Lady Golding in what I thought was an absolutely terrific speech. In a sense I have little to add to it. But, following the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I shall nevertheless do so.
I have never hunted. It is about the last thing in the world I would ever want to do. I am an inveterate urbanite. I get worried when pavements stop and coffee shops cease to be. I do not much like being in the open country. I like streets and facilities. Normally, I am racked with anxiety when faced with a political decision about what I should think and how I should vote. Nevertheless, despite my background of not being a country dweller, I have been quite certain all the way through the debates that have gone on since 1997 that hunting should not be banned. That has always seemed to be absolutely clear cut. I should like to explain why.
In some ways the defenders of hunting have done themselves a disservice. I can understand why they have done it; nevertheless, I think that it is a disservice. They have tended to emphasise a great deal the links between hunting, a traditional way of life, the local community and so on. There are some fine evocations of all of this in English literature. My friend and political opponent, Professor Roger Scruton, has often written about this kind of thing, about the way in which hunting and community and so forth are linked.
That is not an argument that will cut much ice with the urban population because they might just think, well, there are lots of forms of community life in Britain which have been undercut by economic and social changes—mining and fishing communities—so why should rural communities somehow be preserved indefinitely in a kind of aspic? One can understand people who live in rural communities wanting to emphasise all those kinds of reasons for valuing hunting as part of community life. But that will not be all that powerful in terms of trying to persuade other people that hunting should continue. What those who defend hunting need to do is to try to link the practice of hunting with reasons that people outside the rural areas who have never lived in a rural community can appreciate, understand and endorse. That points directly to justification of hunting as a form of pest control. It is something everyone understands and has nothing to do with arguments about sustaining local communities. It is about a particular way of controlling a pest. There is no doubt that foxes are pests. They will be killed. Indeed, they should be killed for all the reasons that we have heard today.
If we see hunting as a form of pest control—albeit rather upmarket pest control, with Gilbert and Sullivan elements attached to it, but nevertheless a form of pest control ultimately—then what are the appropriate ways of doing the killing? Is it by hunting? Is it by shooting, poisoning, snaring and so forth? I shall not add to all the points that have been made. It
1272
seems to me clear as a pikestaff that hunting is no more, and probably less, cruel that those other ways of killing foxes.
Yesterday morning an animal welfare campaigner said on the "Today" programme that there could be no compromise with cruelty. So if it turned out on investigation—as I think the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, showed—that these other methods of killing foxes are as cruel as fox hunting, does that mean that there can be no compromise with those as well? The attention of animal welfare people will then turn towards trying to ban other methods of killing foxes on the grounds that they are equally cruel. The logic of the situation would seem to imply precisely that.
The same person also argued that cruelty is indivisible. It may well be. But if we regard killing foxes with hounds as cruel, then, as my noble friend Lady Golding said, what about rats, for instance? I understand that rodents are excluded. After seeing the television programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, it seems to me that rats are killed in almost exactly the same way by small dogs as are foxes by hounds. So will the next focus be banning the killing of rats with dogs? If cruelty is indivisible and if killing foxes with hounds is cruel—
Baroness Golding: My Lords, perhaps I may inform the noble Lord that rats are included.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, it would certainly make ratting with dogs part of the indivisibility of cruelty.
Another argument often put forward is that it is morally objectionable that people take pleasure in killing. Let us assume the worst about the fox hunting fraternity and say that they do take pleasure in killing. But so do lots of other people. That is not a basis for trying to ban what they do.
One of the Sunday papers recently carried an interesting profile of a recently retired footballer who has now made a career in acting. I shall not make any clearer to whom I am referring. He finds it quite enjoyable late on a Saturday night to go out with a lamp and slaughter a few rabbits. He makes clear that this is very enjoyable from his point of view, a nice way to end an evening. So if fox hunters enjoy killing, what about people like him? Are we to say that anyone who enjoys it will be caught within some eventual legal ban? That is totally absurd.
What we need is some kind of legislation which looks at where people's freedom harms the interests of others. That freedom can then be curtailed. But whose interests are harmed by fox hunting? Certainly a ban would harm the economic interests of people attached to fox hunting. No doubt fox hunting may offend the sensibilities of many people. I do not think that offended sensibility is a reason for banning something. One must be able to show precisely what is wrong with it. The argument is, "Well it is cruel and people take pleasure in it". But, as I have tried to argue, those two reasons are not particularly compelling in the fox hunting case.

1273
If we focus on fox hunting as a form of pest control, then we should have the licensing system. One has to be able to demonstrate the need for it and so forth. It also seems to follow from seeing hunting as a form of pest control that hare coursing should not be allowed. I was rather dismayed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, take a rather absolutist position over stag hunting and hare coursing. I am rather agnostic about stag hunting because I am not sure of the extent to which they are or are not pests. I would be quite happy to see that depending on the evidence.
There is the same point about digging out. If one is actually trying to control the pest, it is not clear to me what is wrong with digging out unless it became clear that digging out a fox was somehow more cruel in the way it was subsequently killed. That may or may not be the case; I am not in a position to say. However, it is not clear to me that digging out is a practice that should be banned if the focus is put on to pest control.
We should try to reach a common view with regard to the appropriate way of controlling a pest. I do not think that it will do for the countryside movement to stress over much the way in which hunting helps to preserve a historic way of life. Since the early 1980s, many communities in this country have had to adjust to the collapse of their historic ways of life. Those communities will not necessarily be too sympathetic to rural communities on that basis. We shall need to find another basis on which to justify fox hunting. If that is achieved in terms of pest control, while retaining a reasonably clear-sighted view of the issues of cruelty, then we might get somewhere.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, since this issue was last debated in your Lordships' House approximately a year ago, a significant number of opinion polls on hunting have been published. However, to the best of my knowledge, we have not seen any significant publications on the scientific aspects of hunting; that is, whether the hunting of target species is unacceptable and detrimental to the welfare of animals.
On the contrary, several papers have been produced on the alternative methods of control which indicate that those methods, such as shooting, snaring or poisoning, are much less certain of a clean kill than would be provided by hunting. Indeed, they may lead to prolonged injury, pain and distress.
All these points have been made both in the previous debate and in the contributions of earlier speakers in today's debate. However, what is new in my opinion is the fact that there has been a significant shift in public opinion on whether hunting with dogs should be banned. Those who wish to see a complete ban on hunting have declined, as assessed by the National Opinion Polls Research Group. It has recorded a shift from 51 per cent in support of a ban in July 2000 to only 37 per cent seeking the same outcome in April of last year.
A detailed analysis has also been made of comparisons between various methods of control, should hunting be banned outright. As I have already
1274
mentioned, this would lead to prolonged injury, pain and distress. That analysis has been put forward by some 300 veterinary surgeons, my colleagues, who have country practices and who, I would submit, are well aware of the problems of suffering of animals in the countryside. In their general practices they may well take in such animals for treatment—I refer not only to foxes, but also to deer and other species—when the general public bring them into their surgeries. Those vets would submit—and I agree with them that hunting is the method that produces what I would call the "cleanest" kill, if it does prove necessary to kill.
Again, a recent NOP poll taken of 1,000 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons found that, again, some 63 per cent were against a ban on hunting on welfare grounds. The respondents felt that it would be detrimental to the welfare of animals that currently are hunted.
So what is next? In my speech to this House last year, I indicated my support for the then recently established Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, ISAH. Here I should declare an interest in that I have been invited and have accepted an invitation to serve on a small committee,
"to develop standards for hunt policy and hunt practices and procedures for the regulation and positive development of hunting practices through a policy of self-assessment, monitoring and independent inspection".
On this I am joined in agreement by two other very distinguished people, the first of whom is Professor John Webster of Bristol University. He is an animal behaviourist. The second is Professor David Macdonald of the University of Oxford, who specialises in wildlife management.
I have agreed to undertake these new duties on the basis of two issues. The first is that ISAH would attend to the welfare of wild animals in the environment as well as to the issue of hunting with hounds. Also, I shall seek permission to press for the curtailment of those practices that I believe are unacceptable facets of hunting, such as "digging out", "stopping up", "cubbing", the "hunting of hinds with calves" and so forth. I can say to noble Lords that useful progress has been made in this area. I believe that if ISAH is to progress, then it could produce a highly satisfactory level of supervision and control.
As the name, "Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting" implies, it is an independent body, unlike the alternative proposal, which today is clearly gaining much support; namely, the Middle Way Group which has been set up by MPs and noble Lords and is strongly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. It proposes statutory control.
In all this, my concern is to attempt to ensure a level of supervision and control such that public confidence with regard to the proper conduct and regulation of hunting can be assured. If either of the suggested routes put forward would achieve that, then I shall be willing to support it. But I believe that ISAH has already gone well down the road of ensuring that the aim can be achieved. The authority also benefits from the fact that to a great extent it is already in operation

1275
within the hunting fraternity. It is transparent and it already has a fair amount of teeth in the control and regulation of hunting.
Although I believe that the way forward lies in opting for an independent supervisory authority, I also understand and accept that the two options—one for statutory regulation and the other for selfregulation—could be brought together effectively. I say that because, if the proposal were to be accepted, much of what would be required of either of them is already common to both. We could derive considerable benefits from using the two options to develop what will be required in common practice. I also accept that ISAH may require statutory underpinning in order to make it effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has stated in a circulated letter that both sides of the debate must be willing to move from their entrenched positions. I believe that the hunting community is now showing itself willing to do that. However, I, too, echo the hope that has already been expressed that the supporters of statutory regulations and those in support of independent control will do the same; that is, they should join together in an effort to reach a common goal—that of effective regulation.
I firmly believe that we have here an opportunity—I would describe it as a golden opportunity—to develop a wider supervisory structure for all wild animals in our environment, of which hunting with dogs would be only one element of the wider issue.
2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is clear from the tone of the debate that the way in which your Lordships are approaching this tricky question has moved on from the lengthy and informative debate last year, which, if I remember aright, began at 3.5 p.m. on Monday, 12th March and concluded at 1.51 a.m. on Tuesday, 13th March. This debate raises many difficult issues. I want to call attention to three of them.
First, we are all affected, in one way or another, by our environment—where we were born, how we were brought up, the attitudes with which we grew up. In the part of the country that I know best—south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—I see very different attitudes which echo what I have experienced elsewhere. Rural west Isle of Wight is a place where hunting is a part of life and has been for generations, as it is in many parts of Scotland, as I know from my own upbringing. Urban Gosport echoes parts of Manchester, where I worked for a time as a university chaplain. Many people there fail to see what hunting is about, except that they know that the fox is an increasingly local nuisance, even in the urban areas. Suburban Fareham, where I live now, echoes in some ways Guildford, where I worked as a parish priest, with animal rights activists vocal and, to many, very convincing. We are dealing with a deeply divided community and paradoxes within those divisions—I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out earlier—and we have to recognise that.
1276
Secondly, there are the questions of fact and detail which were rehearsed during last year's debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with a coolness and a clarity that had something of the forensic about it. I am glad that a number of speakers have referred to that contribution. We heard the noble Lord tell us about the differences between lowland and upland hunting and their relative economics—upland hunting being on balance less costly in economic terms than lowland—and we heard him speak of the relative differences in speed in the ways in which deer and fox are killed.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, provided some perceptive observations of the different meanings according to context of that slippery word "cruelty". That has been developed to a certain extent during this debate by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Plant.
The third question is about what lies before your Lordships today as we play our constitutional role in trying to manage the deep sociological, conceptual and attitudinal disarray that this intractable issue engenders. We are faced with a very strong majority in another place for a total ban and a marginally stronger minority for regulation and supervision, so what kind of signal should we give?
I began my speech by suggesting that things had progressed in the public debate on this matter—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby—and that demonstrates the Government's wisdom in not trying to force the pace last year. Many of those who then seemed implacably opposed to a total ban are coming round to seeing the need for regulation by law. They realise that they need to be held to scrutiny, down to the kind of detail mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, last year—for example, in how packs of hounds are properly controlled all the time. That relative opinion shift is visible, and my post bag verifies it. On the other hand, the total ban lobby has quite rightly taken the opportunity to restate its absolute stance, and once again our post bags, whether here or at home, reflect that very proper pressing of the case.
The debate is about more than pragmatics; it is about weighing the evidence before us—evidence of human attitude and how we can continue to live together as a community, as well as evidence of uncontestable fact, and both are in tension. However, I cannot escape the fact that, for all the research into our evolution as a species and that of other sentient beings, there is in the tradition of the three Abrahamic faiths a gulf fixed between the human race and the rest of the created order. For all our weakness, humanity is still described as "the crown of all creation" in a modern Church of England prayer inspired by an early Christian source. That gulf, which I believe to be a fundamental given, is what clinches today's debate for me. It could lead others to vote in other directions; it will help me to vote for regulation.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a number of conservation bodies

1277
reflecting my life-long interest in conservation and natural history. I am not a hunter. I could be held responsible for the end of otter hunting as a result of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975—a very necessary measure in view of the appalling, declining position of the British otter. During one period more than 40 years ago I went beagling. I went three or four times but, on the fourth time, there was an event which led me to become very angry and to cease the practice immediately. However, I am fairly confident that that kind of incident would not occur today. Certainly it would be less likely to occur if the middle way were to succeed.
In our debates last year I said that if I were a fox I would be voting against a Bill, and I see no reason to change my mind. If the hunting of foxes is abolished, the killing of foxes will increase. I should regret the increase because I believe that the fox has a useful role as a predator. It is perhaps a more effective killer of rats than many of the small terriers to which reference has already been made.
If fox hunting is abolished, many people will be remorseless in reducing the rural fox, and the method of killing will be far more obscenely cruel than fox hunting is usually. I brought the badgers Bill before the Commons when someone placed gin traps by the side of a badger sett which I was watching close to a nature trail. Gin traps had been illegal for many years then—but they are still in use today. In 1981–21 years ago—I was involved in securing the abolition of the self-locking snare. It is still in use today. If fox hunting ends, the gin trap will probably still be used; the self-locking snare certainly will be.
How often will the traps and snares be examined? It was said earlier they would be examined every day. Therefore an animal could he stuck in a trap for up to 23 hours. Even if a more conscientious attendance of the snares and traps were carried out, they still could be stuck for 11 hours. It does not take that long for a fox to be killed by a pack.
There is also gassing and poisoning—each of which takes far longer. As for shooting, shotguns do not usually kill foxes outright. If the fox in Scotland is to be driven to guns—and the guns are shotguns—then the cruelty in Scotland will be far greater than it would be under a Bill in this country. A shotgun is likely to wound. The fox is small, but a shotgun is not particularly appropriate as a weapon because it normally fires birdshot not designed to kill larger mammals.
The animal welfare groups considered this point last year and came forward with an argument which I regard as obscene. They said that the fox may not be killed instantly by the hounds—and, true, it may not die instantly if it is shot—but if it is shot the fox will go gently into its earth and die at peace in its home environment. They forget that it might take the fox a fortnight to die in agony from septicaemia. So I am not an enthusiast for a Bill, even though it may be fashionable in the other place.
Fox numbers will fall. If people want to see a fox in 10 years' time, they will have to come to the centre of London or to the centre of some of our other great
1278
cities. I should hate to think that children in my area will not have the pleasure that I had in my boyhood of seeing the diversity of wildlife.
When the Bill surfaced last year, there was a horrid photograph in the national press. It showed 32 head of red deer, shot and dumped in a field in the South West of England. It was a horrid picture—and it carried a horrid message; namely, that if hunting were banned, the deer would be shot, and the red deer of the South West of England would be completely exterminated. Perhaps if I were a deer I might not vote for the Bill either!
The press did not give much attention to the fact that the following week a photograph appeared in the press in Yorkshire of 32 dead foxes placed in a field in South Yorkshire. The same message was being spelt out: ban hunting and the modern shooting fraternity—although there are examples of conservationists within it—will not tolerate foxes on the scale on which they currently accept them. Pheasant and partridge are not a sufficiently profitable harvest.
Another aspect has not received adequate attention. The landscape of this country may have resulted from the raw materials provided by God; but it was certainly shaped by man for the purposes of agriculture and field sports. It may be that the influence of field sports was rather greater than the interest in agriculture.
I have spent 25 years seeking protection for hedgerows. The result has been a scarcely satisfactory system of regulation. Yet, if hunting is abolished—and certainly if we go on to limit other field sports—the landscape of this country will be subject to an even greater devastation than that caused by the intensification of farming in the years since the Second World War. The landscape of our country is vital. It has inspired our artists, poets and musicians; it has uplifted the hearts and minds of those confined to an urban environment. Are we prepared to make a decision that would have such an effect? Some people will say that we can protect the copse, the spinney, the wood and the hedgerow. My own experience over the past 25 years suggests that we would not be moving fast enough.
Therefore, I support the middle way. I am opposed to cruelty to animals, and if the middle way reveals cruelty, let it be persecuted. But let us remember also that if a Bill secures the banning of field sports we shall not see an end to the digging and baiting of badgers, to dogfighting, or to lamping carried out by gangsters who move from the urban areas to the thinly populated rural areas. If the criminals will not be in any way inconvenienced by such legislation, why should we take an otherwise divisive and probably—in conservation terms—disastrous step?
2.12 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a vice-president of the RSPCA and a former member and chairman of its governing council. So your Lordships will not be surprised to find that I strongly favour a total ban. Indeed, yesterday, one or two noble Lords suggested that this would be an

1279
excellent day for me to have some time off. Indeed, one noble Lord suggested that he could provide for me a "charming male companion". I said that I would readily take up the offer—after I had voted. But I gather that it was not extended that long.
I have felt strongly about this matter for many years—although I readily confess that, as a youngster, I spent a great deal of my time riding, and I certainly followed a hunt at that time. So perhaps I may be excused any suggestion that I am particularly antagonistic towards the hunting fraternity. I understand very well the attractions of hunting. None the less, my major concern is what I regard as the inherent cruelty—or at least ill-treatment—of animals that are hunted.
I am not so concerned as to whether the death of the animal is instantaneous. I accept that in many cases it may be instantaneous at that point—although I beg leave to doubt whether that is the case 100 per cent of the time; I think that is highly unlikely. My main concern is the exhaustion suffered by an animal which is hunted, particularly in the case of stags, to the point of exhaustion.
Some interesting research was done by Professor Patrick Bateson on the subject of stress caused to stags that were hunted. It was reproduced for the benefit of the Burns committee. It seemed clear to me from that hard scientific evidence that the animals suffered real distress. The comparison that was made was that of the injury suffered by an animal having its leg broken in a car accident. If I have to choose between that scientific evidence, carried out specifically on that topic, and the views of 300 rural vets, then—I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Soulsby—I prefer to take Patrick Bateson's word for it.
That aside, there are other matters that concern me very much, even in regard to the hunting of foxes—for which there seems to be much less sympathy than there is for stags or hares. We know that it is one of the practices of a hunt to dig out foxes that have gone to ground, using terriers and terrier men. It seems to me that there is a very real chance that that will involve cruelty, simply because each animal may do the other a great deal of harm. I am sure that there is evidence on the point, if anyone cares to look for it. So that, too, concerns me—apart from the fact that I feel that, if a fox has evaded capture by going to ground, it is singularly unsporting to try to dig him out again. But that is my own personal view. It is clearly not shared by many in this House. For me, that is the critical matter on which I fear there is no compromise. I am not prepared to support either self-regulation or the middle way.
A great deal has been said about pest control. If the main purpose of hunting is pest control, it would seem to be about the most expensive and inefficient method of pest control that one could hope to find. I understand that the evidence accepted by the Burns committee was that pest control by hunting alone was insignificant when it came to the control of foxes. The word "insignificant" should be clearly remembered.
1280
I have heard the arguments often enough, today and previously, that alternative methods of control are worse. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I beg to differ. I believe it is possible to find methods which are at least more humane than hunting. Let us take the example of stags. If they need to be controlled as a pest—the case has to be made out, not just assumed—then the stalking and shooting of them by skilled marksmen is infinitely preferable to hunting them to the point of exhaustion.
On the question of shooting foxes, I agree that shotguns are singularly unsuitable. However, the process of lamping—putting foxes in a powerful light at night so that they are temporarily stationary, and then shooting them with a suitable firearm—is a better method. So I do not accept that there are not alternative methods, if this should prove necessary.
Let it not be forgotten that foxes are very efficient at dealing with rabbits and other rodents. I thought that farmers were especially concerned about the depredations caused by rabbits. So it is important to recognise that foxes can do some useful work in that regard.
Therefore, I feel very strongly that we should vote for a ban—although I recognise that I am in a small minority and I have no doubt that the middle way, or something like it, will prevail in this House this evening.
2.20 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, as a young cadet at Sandhurst, I was summoned by the then commandant, General Hugh Stockwell, and told that I was to be excused all academy parades and should go fox hunting instead—an invitation that I did not refuse.
We again find ourselves debating hunting with dogs. There can be few arguments for or against that have not been fully explored here in Westminster, in Scotland and throughout the rural and urban communities. Sadly, the debate is about the loss of freedom of choice, as well as conscience and many moral issues. Tied in with all that are one's own principles, scruples and sense of right and wrong. I believe that it is wrong to be debating the subject without a Bill before us, while other important legislation is being kept waiting and important matters of state remain unresolved.
Since the outright ban on hunting was rejected by a substantial vote in your Lordships' House, much has happened to affect the countryside, not least foot and mouth and the need to slaughter tens of thousands of animals, leading to loss of livelihood and devastation of parts of our countryside. We have also heard of the progress made by the Middle Way Group, which has affected the opinion of a number of your Lordships.
It is more than 18 months since the publication of the Burns report. It is worth reminding ourselves that at no point does that report conclude that hunting is cruel. Insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the quarry is caught. That is true of the foxes and deer that I have seen

1281
hunted and killed. In the subsequent debate, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, confirmed that. The veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds recently came to the same conclusion. We have heard a great deal about cruelty in the debate today.
That same opinion examined in great detail the alternatives for controlling the fox population— shooting, snaring, leg-hold trapping, killing traps, gassing and poisoning. All were found to be open to error, cruelty or abuse.
The fox population of this country needs to be effectively controlled. Like the badger, the fox is without natural predators other than man. The badger, which has been a protected species since 1973, has a steeply rising population and is increasingly suffering from tuberculosis, which is also spreading to man and throughout the farming industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, stated in paragraph 3.63 of his report:
"Hunting as an economic and social activity is intrinsically intertwined within the horse and countryside economy".
A national equestrian survey carried out in 1999 estimated the horse population to be in the region of 900,000. I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the International League for the Protection of Horses, and a past chairman. If hunting were to be abolished, which I sincerely hope that it will not, large numbers of horses would come on to the open market and might well end up in the food chain. That is a staggering thought that no right minded government should ever consider as acceptable to the welfare of our countryside and all those who live in it.
I remain convinced that a total ban on hunting with hounds or dogs is unworkable and unacceptable. However, having in the past supported the status quo, I now believe that we should move to the middle way option as a compromise. We are showing good will, patience and a sense of responsibility in our debate today. I very much hope, for the sake of the countryside, that the Government will match that good will by coming up with a workable alternative and not invoking the Parliament Act, which would cause a lot of trouble in the future.
Although in the past the Masters of Foxhounds Association has effectively controlled the sport and we now have ISAH, which is doing valuable work, the time is surely right to institute a workable and unbureaucratic system of licensing. We must avoid prolonged periods of uncertainty in the countryside and we must at all costs avoid the mistakes and uncertainties that have been created by the recent Scottish legislation. Anyone who has followed that will know what a shambles it is. However, we need to identify what actions will constitute illegal hunting and where responsibility will lie for the different forms of hunting that we undertake in the country at the moment.
Finally, I urge the Government to drop further legislation for an outright ban on hunting with dogs, on the grounds that the countryside has suffered enough deprivation in recent months. I hope that it will soon get back on to its feet. We need to support
1282
our countryside, not to deprive it of one of its vital assets—control of foxes. I, too, support the middle way.
2.27 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, like others, I find it extraordinary that we are spending yet more parliamentary time discussing fox hunting, when the countryside is so in need of our support in many different ways. To be considering legislation to outlaw an activity that has been and remains the pivotal point in the lives of so many who, by and large, are good and honest people, seems perverse—but there it is; that is what we are doing.
As Brian Walden pointed out in his interesting article in the Daily Telegraph on 15th March,
"The case against fox hunting is muddled, grossly sentimental and sometimes laced with social spite".
As an aside, if the case against fox hunting is muddled, try stag hunting.
Sentimentality is always a powerful emotion, particularly when it is allowed to develop in isolation. Too many of those who oppose hunting do so without allowing the facts and the human dimensions to be put into proper perspective. Whereas I quite understand that the natural reaction to hunting from those alien to it is likely to be hostile, those who wish to change the law have the added responsibility of finding out the facts. The casual observer can afford to make comments without ramifications, bust those of us who have legislative responsibilities need to take a different view. So often in the case of hunting, that is sadly and irresponsibly ignored.
Social spite, as Brian Walden puts it, has long been an overwhelming obsession for some and a driving motivation for a ban on hunting for others. So often, it misses its real target.
However, the notion that the squire in his red coat chasing a fox across the countryside is unacceptably cruel, whereas a couple of lads in a yard encouraging their terriers to chase and kill rats is not, is clearly muddled thinking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, said. Of course, there are many other examples besides.
According to one interviewee on Radio 4 on Saturday morning, "Hunting is a rich man's sport", implying, I assume, that if it were subsidised by the state it would be acceptable. Try telling that to the hill communities of Wales and the Lake District. Try telling that to those who follow hunting in the low country where hunting is undoubtedly more expensive. They would not be able to hunt but for the fact that the hunt is subsidised by those who can actually afford to do so.
When I turned on my television yesterday to watch the evening news, I was confronted with a master of one of the hill packs explaining the need to control foxes and just what hunting means to the many who benefit from it. There was a camera shot which depicted hounds and followers spread out across a hard and wet Cumbrian hillside. To me, it was man and nature working in harmony. Compare that to

1283
what followed, which I can only describe as the somewhat ludicrous spectacle of Mr Tony Banks standing outside the House of Commons, under his multi-coloured umbrella, flanked by two people, one dressed up as a fox and the other as a stag. I thought to myself, that just says it all: reality versus sentimentality. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I believe that what I have just cited as an example illustrates that there is a rift between town and country. I am not saying that we should not try to cement it, but unfortunately it exists.
There is the question of legislation itself, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and the need for Parliament to make laws which are unambiguous and enforceable. Here the Scottish situation should act as a warning. It seems to me that the only clear outcome to have emerged from the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, is that the Scottish parliamentary system has been shown to be woefully inadequate. Despite all the evidence produced by the Rural Development Committee and its subsequent recommendations for wholesale change to the Bill, the Scottish Parliament rejected the advice of its expert committee. Judging by some of the extraordinary remarks made in debate, bias and bigotry were allowed to prevail, which has resulted, sadly, in hopelessly inadequate legislation which can only result in ongoing legal challenge.
However, despite what I have said, I found the debate on hunting over the past few years fascinating. Opinions have changed, in some cases radically. There are examples of those who were diametrically opposed to hunting now actively supporting it and, indeed, in some cases actually participating. Many more have become increasingly dubious about the merits of a ban.
Many of the myths surrounding hunting have been exposed by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, to which other noble Lords have paid tribute and in which I join—indeed, let us not forget the other reports which preceded it. I believe that they have lifted the lid on this arcane rural pursuit and dealt comprehensively with many of the issues, not least the cruelty aspect.
The media appear to have given virtually overwhelming endorsement to hunting with the libertarian argument very much to the fore. I believe that it is very telling that when your Lordships voted on this issue last year, 31 government Peers, all of whom are ex-Members of another place, either abstained or voted in favour of hunting and only 20 voted against.
I have no right to assume anything and I do not. But I suspect that the majority of those noble Lords who either abstained or voted for hunting might have found it difficult to have done so in another place because of "constituency commitments" or peer pressure or non-peer pressure as it may be. The additional freedom of your Lordships' House to be able to listen to the arguments in a less encumbered way may well have been the reason for such a vote. I therefore suggest—no more than that—that there are
1284
in fact quite a number of Members of Parliament in another place who voted against a ban yesterday who deep down must question whether such a curtailment of liberty can really be justified.
The point that I am trying to make, therefore, is that as the debate goes on, so the arguments against hunting become increasingly questionable and unfounded. The time has come to once and for all give those who passionately believe in what they do the benefit of the doubt. Tolerance must be allowed to prevail.
I move on very quickly to the question of the middle way. I have listened most carefully to the arguments of those who suggest that we should vote in favour of that proposal. I have my doubts. I believe intrinsically in self-regulation and that it has worked. But I pay enormous tribute to those who have worked so steadfastly to try to find a way forward. But I also acknowledge that they reject the notion of a simple compromise in favour of a completely different approach.
Provided that such a regulatory body is free from government interference and the rules are clear, then I acknowledge that it may be the way forward. I am certainly prepared to listen; I am prepared to he convinced to change my mind. But I do so simply because I feel so strongly that hunting must be allowed to continue to be a fabric within the English countryside in which it has contributed so much. But I say one thing: I would not accept any attempt to divide fox hunting from stag hunting and hare coursing. They are all hunting and all part of the community. I believe it is incumbent that we support them all. There must be no division.
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I speak today in support in support of the ban on hunting with hounds. I am pleased to note that I am in the very good company of the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Whitty and the majority of Members in another place. I wish to declare an interest in that I am the vice chair of the Labour Animal Welfare Society and a joint secretary of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
One form of cruelty which is often overlooked in this debate is the unnecessary suffering caused to the thousands of dogs used in fox, deer, hare and mink hunting. I am in no doubt as to the immense suffering caused to wild mammals when they are chased to exhaustion, brutally savaged by a pack of hounds, or forced to fight underground with terriers. But what is often forgotten is the plight of the tools of all this cruelty, particularly the hounds and the terriers.
The plight of the foxhound starts early in its short life. When puppies that do not show aptitude for hunting, or their colouring or body shape does not meet requirements, they are usually shot by the kennelman. Those foxhounds that are fortunate enough to make the grade as puppies are then trained to chase and kill foxes during the cub hunting season, a

1285
particularly unpleasant aspect of hunting that involves the chasing and killing of fox cubs in order to teach the young hounds to kill.
Hunts will follow wherever the scent of their quarry takes them and it is this that makes the route of hunting live quarry so unpredictable. As a result, many hounds end up being run over on the roads, or even hit by speeding trains after straying onto railway lines. Others become injured on barbed wire fences or get lost from the pack for days on end.
Perhaps I may give an example. In November 1999, six hounds were electrocuted and killed as the New Forest Foxhounds trespassed across a railway line. The incident was witnessed by passengers on a London to Bournemouth train that ran over the bodies of the hounds. Not only did that incident cause the senseless loss of six hounds but also delayed the train involved, which led to another 61 trains being delayed. The Wiltshire Times reported the needless deaths of three beagles from the Wiltshire and Infantry Beagles at Steeple Ashton, near Trowbridge. A car hit two beagles as they chased a hare across the A350 between West Ashton and Stoney Gutter—with one of the beagles sustaining fatal injuries. Another dog was killed at a nearby roundabout and the third fatality occurred as the dog tried to make its way back to the pack.
When hounds reach the age of six or seven—around half their normal life expectancy—most are shot by the very people that they have loyally served since their birth. It makes a mockery of the hunts' claims that in the event of a ban on hunting with dogs, they will have no alternative but to shoot their hounds when they do so anyway. It is estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 hounds are killed in that way by hunts every year.
The RSPCA believes that a mass slaughter of hounds in the event of a ban would be totally irresponsible and unnecessary. The society has pledged to do everything it can to prevent such needless destruction at the hands of the hunts. The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs found that,
"any need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there were a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented".
The Government's Hunting Bill, which fell in March last year, contained such a lead-in period although the RSPCA believes that responsible hunts should start to wind down their breeding programmes immediately, to reduce the number of hounds left in the event of a ban.
When the time comes for hunts to disband, they will have three options open to them: disband and rehome their hounds; disband the hunt but keep their hounds; or convert to drag hunting. I believe that a switch to drag hunting would be the preferable option, as it would allow the hunt to retain the sport, pageantry and social side of hunting while allowing the hounds to continue to be kept in packs.
1286
Hounds that cannot he rehomed with drag hunts should be assessed for their suitability for rehoming elsewhere. The RSPCA has offered to work with hunts to help find alternative homes.
Perhaps the most brutal and callous form of cruelty inflicted on dogs in the name of sport occurs in terrier work. Most registered fox hunts use the services of terrier men or fox diggers—individuals employed to find, dig out and kill foxes that have found an underground refuge during a hunt. That activity has become a "sport" in its own right, attracting thousands of enthusiasts who kill an estimated 50,000 foxes a year for fun.
Most people are familiar with the illegal practice of badger digging, in which terriers are sent underground to find badgers—often resulting in appalling injuries to both dog and badger. Fox digging works in exactly the same way. The only difference is that fox digging is perfectly legal because foxes are not afforded the same legal protection as badgers. The legal loophole that allows the digging out of foxes while outlawing the same practice for badgers has provided persons engaged in the illegal practice of badger baiting with a convenient alibi.
In recent years there have been several court cases where suspected badger baiters have escaped or have attempted to escape conviction by claiming they were hunting for foxes rather than badgers.
Only recently, a gang of suspected badger baiters—most of whom were Welsh, I am sorry to say—escaped conviction by exploiting that very loophole. The six men, accompanied by 12 dogs, were found at the entrance of what was believed to be a badger sett in Wales. When found by police, the men claimed that they had been digging for a fox that had gone to ground. The court heard that two of the dogs were seen trying to get into a tunnel at the bottom of the hole and that a squealing noise could he heard. When one of the dogs was pulled out of the tunnel, it was heavily bloodstained and was later found to have badger hairs in its mouth. A veterinary surgeon that examined the dog said:
"The injuries to the dog were consistent with dogs fighting a badger".
The magistrates felt that it could not be proven that the accused were hunting badgers rather than foxes, so acquitted the six men.
When a fox finds an underground refuge during a hunt, terriers are sent into the earth to locate it. If the terrier finds the fox, an underground battle may ensue between the two animals—one in which both dog and fox can suffer horrific injuries. The fox is then either flushed from the earth by the terrier or is dug out and shot at close range by a waiting terrier man.
The RSPCA has successfully prosecuted a number of terrier owners for failing to seek veterinary treatment for terriers injured during such encounters. I am pleased that one recent case of that type led to recognition by the High Court that those who send terriers into earths, where an underground battle may ensue as the terrified quarry tries to defend itself, can

1287
be guilty of "cruelly ill-treating" their dogs—not to mention the suffering inflicted on the fox. Those can hardly be regarded as the activities of animal lovers.
The cruelty that these so-called sports inflict on dogs and wildlife is totally unjustifiable. The only way that it can be prevented is by the introduction of a ban on these barbaric and bloodthirsty forms of hunting with dogs.
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have occupied many National Health Service beds through falling off horses while hunting and breaking various bones. On those grounds alone, it is probably a good thing that I have given up hunting. When I recently fell off, reluctantly I had to sell a stupendously good horse. I am extremely pleased that it has been promoted to be huntsman's horse of the Cottesmore hounds—where it will have even more fun than it did with me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, described hunting in a way that bore no resemblance to what I know of it. She went on, perfectly reasonably, about digging for badgers. We are talking about hunting for foxes. The noble Baroness referred also to digging out foxes. I know that the policy of the Fernie hounds—which I believe is also that of other packs—is that they only dig out when specifically requested by the farmer on whose land the fox has gone to earth because the farmer does not want the fox eating his sheep. I see nothing wrong with that. It seems the right thing to do. It is a rapid and humane way of killing something.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he could not vote against the decision of another place. I know perfectly well that the noble Lord was in this House when Mr. Major was Prime Minister. I will give way if the noble Lord will say that he did not then vote against the Government. Did he?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that I will always vote for something that is both long-standing Labour Party policy and which has, on successive occasions, been overwhelmingly voted for by the democratically elected House. I stand by that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in other words the noble Lord is perfectly happy to vote against the House of Commons. We have established that.
Last night, I was on a television programme with Mr. Gordon Prentice. There was a bit of a ding-dong but Andrew Neil chaired it well. It all hinged on one remark. I said something and Mr. Prentice responded, "Jolly hockey sticks". We all turned on him and said, "You're not talking about cruelty. Battery chicken farming is more cruel. You are talking about class envy". To that, Mr. Prentice had no answer.
It is amusing, if not slightly sickening, that we can have a modern Parliament advocating abortion. We know that can involve six-month foetuses being chopped up in the womb and destroyed. We have a modern Parliament advocating the repeal of Section 28.
1288
We have a saint of hunting and yet we have an urge to ban it. That is a very interesting moral change which has occurred recently. One thing is yesterday's moral certitudes, something different is today's moral certitudes and something different again will be tomorrow's moral certitudes. But there is, I suggest, one overriding thing for which English Parliaments were founded and which is their primary duty; namely, to protect the liberty of the Queen's subjects.
De Tocqueville writes of the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If the ban is accepted, it will comprise a tyranny imposed on a minority through class envy and crass sentimentality. I accept, however, that many people find some aspects of hunting, to their way of mind, wrong. Therefore, it seems to me totally sensible to follow the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding. I wish that I had made her speech as it was excellent. The liberty argument is so strong. Parliament should protect liberty arguments. I do not like using the word "fascism"; I heard a noble Lord say something about that earlier. It is a word which one should use extremely rarely. However, if Parliament imposes tyrannies on large minorities, it is going down that road. We are heirs of a phenomenal tradition of liberty and freedom. Do not let us throw it away.
I now turn extremely briefly to my noble friends all over the House who are thinking of voting for supervision. I say to them, "Please don't", not because I would prefer it, as I would, but because the middle way offers everyone a way out. It offers the Government a way out. They can say that they have tried and that they accept the liberty argument. They can also say that they accept the arguments and the feelings of the "antis" and will not sacrifice that on the ground of liberty but will go half-way down that road. If we vote overwhelmingly for that option, we shall send out a message. Therefore, do not let us vote, or even move, the third way. I do not say that because I do not prefer it, as I do. I say that because tactically and politically it would be wrong to do so. If, however, the Government do not accept the olive branch and the sensible compromise produced by the statesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, the Countryside Alliance will have a million people on the street. Then there will be an argument. There is a middle way: that is the English way; that is Parliament's way and that is the sensible way. I urge it upon noble Lords.
2.53 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am a ready apologist for the present culture of rural life. As noble Lords know, I have an interest in the countryside. I have partaken in many field sports, but not, I emphasise, hunting on horseback. I have a farm and estate. In the interests of that, and five or six farms round about, we have at times killed up to 100 foxes a year in an effort to protect the livestock. I hope that they were all killed in the most efficient and least cruel fashion. I firmly believe that the people I employed to do that were skilled in that way.
Yesterday a number of Members in another place said that they just could not understand how anyone could take pleasure in killing a wild animal. However,

1289
many people do. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, emphasised that point earlier. I draw noble Lords' attention to one or two examples of that: small boys out with an air rifle; people with high-powered shotguns who shoot at and often wound geese and wildfowl with no sense of the suffering experienced by wounded animals, or who turn up with powerful searchlights and do the same thing to deer at night. I am aware of all those activities from personal experience.
However, as regards the basic issues at stake here, there is a challenge in the search, there is skill in the chase and there is the reward of possession in the kill. That occurs whether the operation is conducted legally or illegally. My noble friend Lady Byford spoke of law enforcement.
We have a revealing example in the 1997 amendment to the Firearms Act 1968 of how legislating with the best intentions for a wholesale ban can produce entirely the wrong result. We have prohibited all possession of handguns and implemented rigorous efforts to reduce the number of legally held firearms. The perhaps unintended result of that is that the influence, and possibly even the authority, of the responsible citizen has been reduced and the criminal feels at greater liberty to do as he wishes. It may not be entirely coincidence that we have now seen in the 21st century the reintroduction of the highwayman who stops people and robs them. Since that legislation was passed, the number of crimes involving handguns has gone up, not down.
The only way to keep the suffering of wild animals to a minimum is to have sufficient numbers of people involved in a legitimate activity on the ground to provide the eyes and ears and, if necessary, the authority to prevent the activity of those who will inevitably operate outside the law. The Scottish Parliament has just passed the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, which is an effort to end hunting with hounds while at the same time allowing for the necessary control of pests. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, drew to your Lordships' attention the amount of time that was taken trying to draw up a workable and reasonable measure. The Act has 12 clauses and a schedule which are all very convoluted and involved. It was classed as unworkable by the committee which had to look at it. However, the Scottish Parliament insisted on that matter.
As your Lordships are probably aware, there will now be arguments as to whether it breaches Articles 1, 8, 11 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is also considerable doubt as to what kind of hunting it will prevent. If protecting wild mammals is the purpose, why should falconry be exempt as opposed to hare coursing? Anyone who has been on a moor and seen the way in which a grouse will allow itself practically to be trodden on before it flies up if a hen harrier has flown past in the previous half hour, will realise what fear can be generated in animals and mammals by birds of prey.
Under the Scottish Act, because a fox is classed as a pest, one is allowed "using a dog" to flush it from cover when one proposes to have it shot or killed. If the dog
1290
happens to catch the fox and kill it, one has not committed an offence. How far is the dog allowed to chase it if one has missed or wounded it? Perhaps the crime occurs if one flushes it out with two dogs. A similar situation applies to roe deer. Because one might be interested in killing them for food, one is allowed to flush them from cover with a dog such as a lurcher.
I shall not bore your Lordships with all the other anomalies that seem to emerge from that Act. One can only say that in the near future there will need to be produced a further volume of Halsbury's Laws, or something similar, that the average countryman can carry in his backpack whenever he goes out with a dog.
The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, vividly described some of the needs for the control of vermin that are required and which I do not believe are fully addressed in what has been proposed. There was an attempt to deal with them in the Scottish Bill but that was found to be very difficult and a solution has not yet been found.
3 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I shall he brief. It seems to me that this subject has been exhausted and I have no wish to detain noble Lords any longer than is necessary.
I do not claim to be an expert on hunting but I do claim to have some knowledge of the subject. The fox has few, if any, redeeming qualities. It is a ruthless and destructive predator, a pest and a squalid nuisance and it must be controlled. But does it deserve to he literally hounded to death?
I should declare an interest at this point. I was, until fairly recently, chairman of the Co-operative GroupCWS—which is the largest active farmer in the land. It banned fox hunting and all forms of hunting with animals in the mid-1980s. I live in Leicestershire, the heart of fox hunting country, and my experience was not particularly pleasant. Social invitations were declined, eyes were averted and hacks were turned because I happened to be the chairman of an organisation that had banned fox hunting. I know people who hunt and many people who follow hunts. Incidentally, they are not all "toffs", whatever that means.
I pride myself on respecting the other man's point of view and I trust that he in return will respect mine. I witnessed a hunt in the 1980s, prior to the CWS banning fox hunting, to see for myself what actually happens. I was a member of a group that contained several children of varying ages. We had the misfortune to be in at the kill. For those children, it was a harrowing and traumatic experience. Imagine the questions they asked. I give an example. Why would civilised human beings allow another creature to be torn apart in full public view?
Those who say that there are greater priorities have a point. However, we banned bear baiting and cock Fighting when we had greater social priorities than we have now. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to that.

1291
I shall not press the point about the manner of controlling the fox population. We all acknowledge that it needs controlling, but it should be done in a humane and compassionate way. I do not know the merits or de-merits of gassing, poisoning or shooting. All I know is that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise some process that is much more effective and less cruel than tearing an animal to pieces.
My noble friend Lord Harrison made many points about drag hunting. As he did so very effectively, I shall not discuss it except to say that it appears to be a way of preserving the sport and removing the cruelty. It is a course of action that I, a countryman myself, would like to see adopted. It would preserve the pleasure and take away the inhumanity.
People have talked at length about the various means of controlling the fox. I do not know whether anyone here or anyone else is ever likely to ask a dead fox what it was like to be torn apart. Indeed, I do not know of anyone who would be capable of asking a fox—and the fox would not be capable of answering—about its preferred means of death. I suggest that if we had the ability to ask such questions and the creature had the ability to answer, being torn apart by dogs would not be at the top of the list.
By allowing hunting in its present form, each one of us participates in the process. I do not want to participate in that process. I believe that by demeaning living creatures, we are—all of us—ultimately demeaning ourselves.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I begin by reminding noble Lords of my interests. I hunt with the Warwickshire hunt, I support fox hunting and I am chairman of St Martin's Magazines, which publishes Country Illustrated and Hunting magazines.
I am most grateful to Mr Stephen Byers for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. I should obviously regret it if at any stage I appear ungrateful. I differ from those noble Lords who made critical comments about the timing of this debate. This is a good opportunity to air some of the issues and to expose some of the inaccuracies and falsehoods that have been perpetrated by those who would ban fox hunting. It is important to nail what I can only call the lie at the centre of the case to ban hunting. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, did that very well when he described the difficulties that are associated with other methods of control. Many noble Lords have discussed that and I shall not go into details. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord was very telling in that respect.
My noble friend Lady Fookes wheeled out our old friend the crack marksman, who will dispose of foxes so efficiently. Our experience of crack marksmen during the foot and mouth epidemic exploded that myth. We saw the horrors of so-called marksmen going around shooting cattle and sheep and creating the most frightful havoc—wounding, failing to kill and missing. That is the future of the crack marksman. That experience gives us no confidence that crack marksmen
1292
will do any better trying to control foxes. If those crack marksmen are unable to hit a cow in broad daylight, how will they hit a much smaller target at night?
Moreover, when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill comes into force, the situation will be even worse. Are we really going to allow deranged marksmen to go around with high-powered rifles at night and shoot willy-nilly? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not in his place but he should look out. He was a great supporter of the right to roam at night in order to find a mountain to climb. He had better be jolly careful or he will find himself in the sights of some licensed marksman wearing a baseball CAP with "Offox" written on it!
The real difficulty with this whole debate is that those who wish to ban fox hunting engage in the debate only on their own terms. They want a simple ban; they will not look beyond that or consider controls. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, "Fox hunting is cruel and I therefore want it banned". He went on to discuss the option of controlling foxes by shooting with a rifle. He suggested that that method was preferred in the Burns report. However, nowhere in that report, so far as I can see, does any conclusion suggest that fox hunting is cruel. I defy the noble Lord to find a reference in the Burns report that says that fox hunting is cruel. It does not say that anywhere. Therefore, the only conclusion to draw is that fox hunting is not cruel.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand the phrase, "that seriously compromises the welfare of the fox" as involving cruelty?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: No, my Lords, I do not think that that means that cruelty is involved. It means that that approach compromises the welfare of the fox, just as any other method of control compromises the welfare of the fox, including shooting, gassing, snaring or trapping. Likewise, fishing compromises the welfare of the fish; that is obvious.
I believe that those who wish to ban hunting must look a little beyond the case for a simple ban by considering the consequences. We have heard that a ban would not save the life of a single fox. That is self-evident; we know that. Apparently it does not matter that possibly tens of thousands of people would lose their jobs, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their homes if hunting were banned. It does not matter if the rural economy suffers so long as those who wish to ban hunting can go home with a clear conscience saying, "We have banned hunting. It does not really matter what happens to the rural economy or jobs".
Apparently it does not matter that, in most cases, farmers welcome hunting. I remind your Lordships that hunting simply could not continue to exist without the co-operation and encouragement of farmers. We hunt because farmers invite us on to their land to control foxes. The idea that we can somehow substitute drag hunting for fox hunting is fanciful. What farmer would allow people to gallop all over his land if there were no pest-control element—a point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Plant?

1293
Therefore, it seems to me that so long as people who want to ban fox hunting obtain a ban, nothing else really matters. That is a pity. But, of course, such a stance is morally and intellectually unsustainable. What is it about fox hunting that is so singularly deserving of the attention of the antis and the banners? As my noble friend Lord Patten said, what about Fishing or shooting? Shooting causes suffering and fishing certainly does so. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, admitted that. Even in the debates in the other place, which were not terribly illuminating, it was clear that those who support coarse fishing glory in the fact that they have caught their fish. They catch it, weigh it, photograph it and then put it back for someone else to catch all over again. Fishing and shooting have their own problems. Why is only fox hunting the focus of the ban? I do not understand that.
No real case seems to have been made for a ban either in yesterday's debate in the other place or today. I hope that, when it comes to a vote tonight, this House will send out a strong message that it will not support vindictive legislation that seeks to criminalise law-abiding people who pursue the sport—one of the many country sports—of their choice.
I believe that a far better approach is that advocated by the Middle Way Group, which I strongly support. I shall not waste your Lordships' time by going through the provisions of the middle way in any detail. That has already been done very effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, and by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I can only say that it is a vast improvement on the middle way as originally postulated in the Bill, which we still have here in front of us. We held two days of hearings and everyone who was interested in the issues was invited to attend. We even invited Deadline 2000, which I understand now trades under a different name. Members of that organisation declined to come. I do not know why. They simply said that they were not interested in discussing issues. I believe that that meant that they were not really interested in going beyond their ban. They did not want to engage in the debate.
It may he worth reminding your Lordships that, I believe, four directors of the League Against Cruel Sports have resigned because they have thought about the matter. They have engaged in the debate and have gone beyond the wish for a simple ban. They realise that the best way to control foxes is through fox hunting and that the alternatives will be more cruel.
Therefore, I believe that the middle way is the way forward. Last year, I received a number of letters from friends and other people who fox hunt who said, "We do not really support the middle way. It is too bureaucratic". I have received a series of letters this year from people who say, "We would like to give it a try. We believe that things have changed. It sounds as though the middle way has modified its proposals. It is less bureaucratic and less cumbersome. It will be easier to get a licence".
We see no difficulty at all—I speak for myself and for my local hunt—in complying with any rules and regulations which are put forward provided that they
1294
are reasonable. After all, we complied wry happily with the DEFRA rules which were sensibly put in place. There was no problem in complying with the need to disinfect our boots, our horses, our cars and everything else. Hunting people are law-abiding. We shall obey the law.
If the middle way is put forward along the lines that we have proposed, I do not believe that there will be any difficulty in obtaining the obedience and cooperation of the hunting community. I believe that that community would accept a middle-way Bill and we should be that much further forward. I hope that any eventual middle-way legislation would work and that it would be obeyed in the same way as the DEFRA rules were obeyed. In that spirit, I ask noble Lords to give the middle way a strong vote of confidence tonight.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I intervene as a former Speaker of the other place and a former Whip. By the way, if hunting is banned, I suppose that we shall have to think of another word for "Whip". Perhaps some of my noble friends on all sides of the House will be able to assist in that.
When I was the Speaker, I longed to hear the comment that I am about to make: the point that I had intended to make in this debate has been better made by the noble Lord who has just spoken and I shall not delay your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is a member of the Middle Way Group, as, indeed, am I. Its case has been very well put not only by him but by our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, and by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Therefore, I shall not repeat it.
I declare a personal interest. Some of your Lordships may know that I am a tailor by trade. I completed a four-year apprenticeship as a breeches maker. Most of the garments that I made, I judge, were used in the hunting field. I regret to say that, whenever I open Horse and Hound, I find far too many advertisements in the agony column for "second-hand Bernard Weatherill hunting coats". That may not be of much interest to noble Lords but it is perhaps an eloquent example that hunting is not only for the toffs.
This has been a very serious debate and I hope that we can relax for one moment. I am a great devotee of Surtees' John Jorrocks. I hope that it is of interest to your Lordships that this fictitious hunting grocer used to hunt the Surrey hills in my former constituency of Croydon. Indeed, there is a statue to him in George Street, Croydon. It is regularly desecrated but, of course, he never existed. Many of his bons mots are well worth bearing in mind, and I hope that I may be allowed to quote just one. It went something like this: "Eh, you, 'airdresser, 'old 'ard". "Hairdresser he damned. I am an officer of the 41st Foot". "Well you, officer of the 41st Foot what looks like an 'airdresser, 'old 'ard". Then we had: "'Anging's too good for 'e. 'E should be forced to 'unt in Berwickshire for the rest of your life". In that comment, I apologise to the noble

1295
Lord, Lord Palmer, who is a very good friend of mine. I mention it merely to stress that we must not get into the awful mess in which they find themselves in Scotland, as so eloquently expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
We all know why we are spending parliamentary time on this issue when there are many other pressing matters demanding the Government's attention. When our hospitals, schools and transport system all seem to be near collapse and when our streets are becoming even more unsafe, the question of whether or not to ban a minority blood sport is, essentially, a trivial issue. However, that is not the case in the countryside where jobs, work and wages will be put at risk if hunting is banned.
The issue is not one of cruelty. As we have heard on several occasions, foxes are serial killers and need to be culled. We have heard that shooting, poisoning and trapping as alternatives to hunting may cause even greater cruelty and, often, a lingering death. If the issue were simply one of cruelty, then opponents of hunting should visit the slaughterhouses where meat is prepared in conditions that do not bear scrutiny. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I can say that because I am a vegetarian. In the light of the biblical references made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I imagine that he has also signed the pledge.
This issue is essentially one of freedom and of liberty. The freedom of country people to go about their traditional way of life is being put in jeopardy for political expediency. What comes next? Possibly shooting, even fishing.
Despite the vote in the other place last night, despite the Prime Minister's personal vote, I do hope that wiser counsels will prevail. I hope that our vote tonight will demonstrate the importance of the role of your Lordships' House in asking the Government to think again.
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, those noble Lords with white speakers' lists may be confused to see me rise, but the green lists have my name on them. This is due to a mix-up on hearing my name over the telephone. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, will not be speaking today.
I have never hunted, but I have been stalking and I shoot. I wish to make some brief points. First, the democratically elected House that we hear so much about was not actually elected by a majority of the electorate. It was elected on a very low turnout. When one has an issue like this, with no clear government line, it is not suitable to use the Parliament Act to force it through.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the lobbying material I have recently received has been pro-hunting and against a ban—at least 99 per cent. I have had only one letter advocating a ban. However, we know there are many people who would like a ban. The answer seems to be that the strength of opinion is much stronger among people who want to see hunting
1296
continue. They care about it. The rest do not really care. Pollsters ask them a question and they reply. We should think about that when we talk about forcing measures through Parliament which may not be strongly supported in the country.
At the countryside march, a huge number of people turned up in central London, many more than the figures published for political reasons showed. With the low turnout at the general election, I cannot understand what the Labour Party is trying to do. This issue could get many Conservatives, who could not be bothered to vote last time, to turn out at the next election, particularly if another party suggested it might reintroduce hunting under licence. The whole thing is very stupid.
Job losses are grossly underestimated. The speech of my noble friend Lord Weatherill illustrated that. Many industries depend indirectly on sporting pursuits. Many of those are intertwined with country pursuits and field sports.
With regard to control, the Bateson report has been referred to. There has been a good deal of debunking of that report. It can be very dangerous to look back at older reports. I saw a very good debunking in a magazine called LM—I later discovered it stood for "Living Marxism"—which amused me.
Another point needs to be clarified. I refer to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about "seriously compromising welfare". He was asked about this later and said that he deliberately used those words to avoid saying that hunting was cruel. It is wrong for people to read more than that into his words.
As a result of this envy of foxhunters, a good many other problems will arise. Mink are difficult to control. I am given to understand that hunting mink with dogs is one of the very few methods of achieving moderately effective control. In trying to protect endangered species, it is sad when measures do not stand close scrutiny. The debate does not apply in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament has banned hunting with dogs. However, that decision may not stand.
At this point I declare an interest. One of the tiny bits of Scotland I own is a rock off the coast of Aberdeenshire on which puffins nest. I would hate it if mink managed to get on to that island. They would wipe out the puffins immediately. If there are no means of controlling the mink, what should one do?
I stalk and I am therefore well aware of the dangers of shooting animals and birds with rifles, particularly in populated areas. In large tracts of England, it is difficult to find somewhere where one can fire a rifle safely. One has to be very careful about what is in the background or who might be around. The country is criss-crossed with footpaths. It is not a simple thing. The police are tightening up heavily on the use of firearms—probably too much—but one does have to be careful. Shooting is not a realistic method of controlling pests in populated areas.
Envy is at the heart of the debate. Someone said that hunting is a very expensive form of pest control—but not for the person who wants his pests controlled. It is

1297
one case in which the pest controller is willing to pay huge amounts of money. As a Scotsman, I think that it is wonderful to get them to pay. They are law-abiding members of society. They co-operate with the police. I would hate to see that break down. But why do they pay? I ant sure it is because of the thrill of the chase. There is a thrill in hunting.
Perhaps the Government would do better to spend all this money on enabling disaffected youths to take part in hunting and field sports. They might then direct some of their aggression, which they release elsewhere, on something that is not harming other people.
Finally, I shall see what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, advises. She is always very sound on these issues.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether it is possible to shoot foxes with a shotgun?
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, yes, it is possible, but one would have to be very close—about 20 yards —to get a clean shot. To do that one would have to drive the fox. It would never happen if one was walking around in the bushes.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I want to congratulate all noble Lords on the fact that I am speaking, not in the nocturnal hours, but rather earlier than even I imagined. It is very difficult for any of your Lordships to say things that have not been said before. Most things have been said in previous debates and, given the speed at which we are moving through this debate, I think we all agree that we want to get to the vote and what we hope will be a decisive vote.
My noble friend Lord Whitty, in opening the debate, made the point that this was not an issue between the urban areas and the countryside. I have always lived in the countryside and I could not agree with him more. In our village, there is an interest in fox hunting, but there is also great interest in other rural subjects, particularly whether the post office will be kept open, the standard of the schools, the bus service and agriculture. Tourism is just as important. As stated by many speakers, we need to decide where we are going.
A debate on hunting with dogs always appears to concentrate on one issue—fox hunting. There is much more. It is about hare coursing and deer stalking; it is about pursuing mink as well as foxes. Often, those who support fox hunting say that it controls foxes, generally termed "pests". That is not correct. The foxes killed by hunts each year number between 20,000 and 25,000. That is only 6 per cent of the total killed. There are 50,000 to 60,000 killed on the roads, which is double the fox hunting figure. I have not heard anyone in this House suggest that the fact that foxes are killed on the road is a means of controlling them. I want to put that point in perspective.
I turn to hare coursing and deer stalking. I interrupted one of my noble friends when he was talking about the outlawing of pursuits such as bear
1298
baiting, bull baiting and cock fighting. All the issues that have been raised today about interference with civic liberty were raised in connection With those pursuits. More recently, they have been raised in connection with otter hunting and badger baiting. The Bills passed relating to those activities affected people's enjoyment. There are restrictions, and rightly so, on what we do and on what we want to do. We must take into account the effect of our actions on others; in this case, on the animal being pursued. It is difficult to do that, which is one of the reasons why those in favour of hunting do not try to defend hare coursing. That is a spectator sport, although how people get pleasure from it I do not know. Nevertheless, that is what it is. In stag hunting, an animal is chased over a long period by hounds which are bred for stamina. The stag either falls exhausted or surrenders itself to the hounds. If it is lucky, it may be shot before they reach it.
Those two issues are not debated, but I am told that people in various parts of the country may give up hare coursing and stag hunting in order to save fox hunting. That may or may not happen, but I must remind noble Lords that the issue goes far wider than fox hunting.
I cannot see how anyone arrives at the middle way. It is a licence for hunting or a licence for cruelty. That is my view of it and not everyone will agree with me. I know that there are those in the House who are in favour of hunting with hounds. I understand their position. I do not agree with it, but I understand it.
Equally, the House is always an extremely tolerant place and kind to all its Members. Noble Lords understand when people such as myself say that we are against it. However, I do not understand the so-called middle way—I say that it is a licence to hunt or to kill—which would introduce a huge bureaucracy but would not eliminate the cruelty; the chasing of animals by hounds. There is no middle way because a fox, deer or hare is killed at the end of the hunt. The cruelty is the chase, and the chase will remain. Some of my noble friends are attracted to the licensing of hunts. I ask them to bear in mind not only the bureaucracy which that will entail but also the chase, which many of us who are opposed to hunting with hounds see as the difficulty.
Finally—we have said almost everything that can be said on the subject—I want to deal with the House's position in relation to the elected House. The elected House has spoken decisively and similarly to the way it voted previously. When arguing for the reform of this Chamber, I have always been told that it is a reforming House. I have been told that we do not intend to challenge the other House but that we can ask it to think again. In this case, we are being set up. That is what I understand from the media and from what has been said. Perhaps not equal weight but certainly a great deal of weight will be placed on what this House decides as against what happened in the democratically elected Chamber.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. His Government have produced the plan. It is not this House or those of us who dream nostalgically of our long-past fox hunting days. The

1299
Government have given this House the opportunity to debate the issue, so surely it is not for the noble Lord to complain about what his Government have done to it.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am most pleased that the noble Earl and I find ourselves on the same side. I am not saying that the Government have decided the matter—I know no more than the noble Earl knows about what the Government might decide. However, I am pointing out to the House the danger if it decides to go down a certain path and then has to face the other place whose Members must face the electorate. We do not have to do that. I have argued many times for changes to be made to this House. I believe that if noble Lords take that path they will bring democratic changes—many of which I would like to see—far quicker. I am pleased that the noble Earl agrees with me but we must not make too much of a habit of it.
This House is used to defending the indefensible. It often shows itself to be out of touch. When I first became a Member I was stopped by one far more experienced who said, "You will find that this House likes to discuss three subjects; agriculture, defence and other people's sex.". I would like to add another subject; hunting with hounds. That is fine. But I want to conclude by saying to your Lordships; please be extremely careful about going down the road on which you might be seen to challenge the other place, which is democratically elected. I believe that that is the way to disaster.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the bans on bear baiting and badger baiting are previous examples of legislation on animal welfare and cruelty? If so, is he aware that that legislation was in fact passed on public order grounds, because the sessions at which those activities took place were unruly and had nothing to do with welfare or cruelty?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in relation to legislation against badger baiting, which is relatively recent, that is certainly not the case. That was passed by both Houses. My point in drawing the comparison was that it would be far better if those who go fox hunting did not say that it was about pest control but admitted that it was about a sport they enjoy.
My second point was that other sports that have been outlawed have attracted speeches similar to those made here today. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want me to do, as several Members of the House of Commons did yesterday, and quote from people in 1800 making exactly the same speeches about interference with human liberty. I am amazed that we are even debating this so late as in this new century, but sooner or later hunting with dogs will come to an end. I am warning: do not get on a collision course with the elected House.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he accept that in my
1300
relatively short experience of this place this House represents public opinion far more than does the other place?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend is quite entitled to believe that we do or do not represent public opinion. What we are not is an elected Chamber answerable to an electorate.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, made it into his earth by the skin of his teeth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, no doubt due to the failure of government transport policies, missed his earth by a long stop but will speak later.
I find myself as a British mammal—the only British mammal not on the list of the British Mammal Association; the human being is not there—speaking on behalf of mammals today. There are three sorts of mammals: the mammals of your Lordships' House and the mammals of another place, all of whom are in the hands of various control freaks. The mammals of another place live in fear of being chased out of their earth if they are not kind to all the minority groups that live in their constituencies, whether or not they believe what they say.
The mammals in your Lordships' House, to go back to when Tiberius outfoxed the Senate, are here—some 200 of them—with the support and on the decision of another type of mammal, which is known in French as the blaireau. When last I mentioned him, the Chief Whip gave me a rocket for speaking in a foreign language. I should therefore explain to your Lordships that a blaireau is an animal that wanders around the world, often up to no good, but is effectively a badger—Meles meles, as he is often known. It is on behalf of Metes metes, Vulpes vulpes and a few others, such as Rattus rattus, that I shall speak today.
Those are mammals of Celtic origin. The one that we are missing is of course the wild boar, the original symbol of the Celts, of whom I am proud to be one. We wiped out the wild boar some 270 years ago. My noble friend Lord Geddes still has the wild boar on his coat of arms but no longer hunts it. We wiped it out because it was what we in Norman French would call a nuisible. I apologise for using a foreign language, as does the Queen when she approves Bills, but a nuisible means a nuisance; it is vermin or something that does harm. The wild boar did harm, in that it ate crops and therefore threatened farmers' livelihoods. The wild boar had one great advantage, which was that we could eat it, and people are thinking of reintroducing it here.
I should explain that I have not hunted since I was 15 and gave it up with great pleasure. I had already become bow-legged and I now find myself bandy legged. I have not fired a shot in anger for many years. I have not fished. I suffer from the disadvantage that, by accident rather than design, I am now a fully qualified French peasant farmer, bound by certain rules and regulations that come to cause problems. I take as my texts today Aesop and La Fontaine.

1301
As your Lordships will know, the figure of the fox, or Vulpes vulpes, is not just 100 years old, it goes back to Erasmus and many others. Erasmus said that a fox—meaning an old fox—can never be caught in a snare. We have not really discussed foxes. We can read of the Rattus rattus, which is in fact the more intelligent of the rats, the ship's rat that went ashore and destroyed the dodo in Madagascar. The common rat is not so common and, although there is meant to be one within 15 metres of everyone in London, the fox finds it difficult to catch the common rat. Ratting is vital to our society and rat catchers are some of the most skilled people that your Lordships may meet.
But now to the fox. There are three types of fox. First, we must consider for how long a fox lives. He lives on average for 18 months. Why are there three sorts of fox? During the first year, he is called a cub. In the second year, he is called a fox. In the third year, he is called an old fox.
He may well live—this is the rural fox—until four to five years. At four and a half years, his tail will go grey, but he is wise and we cannot trap him. He hunts never near his home. Like a crafty thief, he goes abroad so that no one can trace him. He is cunning and wise beyond all mammals. He is never inbred with other mammals. Fie is cheery and crafty and his life is short, mainly because of predators. The predator of the fox is not so much man as disease. Many of the young cubs, which are born around now, will die in the early autumn or the winter. Few foxes live to a ripe old age until we come to the question of the division between the town and the country.
The people in the town do not understand the country, and that is understandable; the people in the country, while they may from time to time feel envious of it, do not understand the town. But the fox —the Celtic fox in particular—knows which side his bread is buttered. If he moves into urban areas, his life expectancy rises to seven or perhaps 10 years His predator in the urban area is not so much man but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, the motor car.
In the country, there is an average of 1.5 fox families per square kilometer—the British Mammal Society and others have moved to kilometres in this; in urban areas, that may rise to five or even 30. In the United Kingdom, we have a total fox population of about 220,000 before the spring births. That can rise to 600,000 before the autumn culls. Between about 15 and 20 per cent of Celtic foxes now live in urban areas, where they are well provided for. They do not fight with each other. Males passing by will conveniently turn their heads the other way, like Pharisees. They will squabble with cats but not fight with them—they will, of course, kill kittens. They like being fed and in general feed upon mice, worms, fruit and their friends, who feed them so much.
Foxes prefer gardens, of course; they do not like supermarkets, like many of us. They will go to eat to their pleasure in the garden of the person who feeds them—often with expensive dog food—and will then move to the neighbour's garden to remove the bits of
1302
the food that they do not want to keep within them, which brings with it an enormous great smell. That is harmful and we could therefore say that they are nuisibles; they are vermin.
Some of us are worried that the predator, which is often disease, is now at large again. In some urban areas, sarcoptic mange has substantially reduced the population during the past year. It can lead to scabies in humans. I am advised by those who know much more about the subject than I that it is transferable to dogs and that the mites that carry it then follow trails of carbon dioxide in order to attach themselves to other beasts—dogs. Then there is toxicara, which can lead to blindness in children. Those diseases are occurring. Your Lordships will have seen the difference between a really good looking, crafty fox, well-fed and moving at high speed and those which now cross Abbey Road—near where the Beatles used to cross—which are very mangy. The foxes on the estates of some of my former noble friends, such as the Duke of Westminster, are very healthy. The Belgravia fox lives in a rich area and many people feed him well.
I am not being light-hearted about this deliberately. Our worry is that it is fairly difficult to dispose of foxes. I return to my peasant farming environment. I do not hunt, but the hunters on the continent of Europe—I have consulted Italians and others because we thought that we might lead a peasants' revolt—are very passionate and see this as the thin end of the wedge. Foxes in northern France—the Pas-de-Calais and the Ardennes—are sick with rabies at the moment. To control them, we get some bright pilots from the RAF— or the equivalent, l'armée de l'air —and give them contraceptive pills, which they drop over fox country to stop the foxes reproducing. One cannot poison them, because one might also poison the dogs.
There are many hunting dogs in France and elsewhere on the Continent. I have said before that there was some enthusiasm about the prospect that there would be many good hunting clogs going cheap, if we got rid of hunting here. The dogs are used there, particularly at this time of the year, to cull foxes. When the shooting season has finished, they must get rid of the foxes. It is extraordinarily difficult to shoot them without packs of dogs. The areas of continental Europe are often divided into quartiles, in which all those with hunting licences—anyone with a gun must have a gun licence and a hunting licence—are dragooned by the mairie into bringing out their dogs, often 50 or 60 of them. They surround an area from which they flush out and shoot foxes and also retrieve those that may be wounded. Many foxes are wounded: it is extraordinarily difficult to shoot a fox. Your Lordships should try to work out how many times they have seen a fox within range when out walking in the country, compared with the number of times that one might see one within range when driving around urban areas.
I have a great regard for the fox. I have a great regard too for the badger and the wild boar. However, we must realise that they are vermin, and we should determine the harm that they do. The fox does an incredible amount of harm; we need not go back to the

1303
fables to realise that. He is a trusty opponent of man. At the moment, I think that he is winning the argument. Tiberius once said that he had out-foxed the senate: at the moment, we are being out-foxed by the fox.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is always a hard act to follow.
I thought of starting by extolling libertarian principles and the value of our traditions, particularly those traditions that go with the grain of the natural order and have inspired so much magnificent prose, poetry and painting. However, it is plain that many people do not rank individual freedoms highly in their list of priorities. Many others are positively impatient with tradition—British tradition, at any rate—and their convictions are unlikely to be changed by five or six minutes of argument. I thought it wiser to concentrate on the accusations hurled at those who hunt by those who want to criminalise hunting and try to refute their allegations.
I was prompted to do so, above all, by an intervention made last Wednesday, 13th March, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—I am glad to see that he is in his place—in which he claimed, at col. 852 of the Official Report, that there would be,
"a reduction in the reputation of this House"
which would "discredit this place" because people would turn up to vote out of alleged self-interest. When he used the term "self-interest", he was certainly not referring to the antis. The only grumbles about parliamentary self-interest that I have heard from members of the public recently concern the sharply higher pensions awarded to Members of another place. I would guess—I may be wrong—that most Members of this House who vote against a ban will never have hunted in their life. I have never hunted, nor has any member of my family. I have no personal axe to grind.
The first accusation or slur made against those who hunt is that they take sadistic pleasure in watching from close quarters foxes being ripped apart. If those who hunt protest that that is nonsense, the answer is, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?". I, who do not hunt, say that it is nonsense, and I have spoken to many people about it. When it comes to the kill, most hunt followers, other than those whose job requires them to be right up at the front, rein in their horse, hang back and avert their gaze to the maximum extent consistent with not appearing wimpish. As in all cultures and civilisations over the past 4,000 or 5,000 years, death is the natural culmination of the chase. However, it is not something to be gloated over. The swift death of the quarry is what all sportsmen and sportswomen hope for.
Some who make a less extreme claim absolve those who hunt from sadism or gloating but maintain that they derive pleasure specifically from death. How much more is that the case with those who shoot? Unlike a hunt, a day's shooting is a disaster if no
1304
animals are killed. Will shooting shortly be banned? There is also the claimed analogy with bear-baiting. Bear-baiting was not a rural sport; it was an urban entertainment. A present-day equivalent might be a striptease show. Bear-baiting was totally one-sided. There was no danger to the humans who participated and no uncertainty as to the outcome. The analogy is false.
There is the challenge, "How would you like to be killed by a pack of dogs?". Of course, I would not like it, any more than I would like to be shot in the abdomen and left to die slowly or have a barbed hook shoved through the roof of my mouth into my nasal passage or be gassed or poisoned or lined up outside a slaughterhouse, waiting to be killed and with the smell of the blood and guts of those of my companions who had gone before me assailing my nostrils. However, those of an anthropomorphic inclination fail to realise that, although animals—including fish—certainly feel pain and instinctive fear, they do not have imagination. Above all, animals are not squeamish.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, hardly any wild animals die comfortably tucked up in bed. Given that most animals' deaths are uncomfortable, painful or both, their interest lies in having a death that is as quick as possible. In that respect, as many noble Lords have said, hunting comes out well, compared to shooting, poisoning or trapping.
We come to the next fallacy, the fallacy that shooting is quick and painless. It is understandable that a generation of people, of whom few have seen battle and few themselves shoot, should imagine that. They have been brought up on a diet of Hollywood films in which people are either grazed lightly on the arm by a bullet or shot dead instantaneously and painlessly without a drop of blood. I am afraid that the reality is somewhat different, and that applies to shooting with rifles as well as shotguns. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, explained that concisely.
What is left? There is the Ann Widdecombe argument, echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who advanced it with great courtesy and moderation, as one would expect. As I understand it, Miss Widdecombe concedes that the kill at a hunt is no more cruel than any other method of killing but maintains that the chase is cruel. How can one be so certain? As has been said, the Bateson report has been criticised from many professional quarters. I have seen quite a few foxes hunted in my time. Generally, they look unfussed and often trot off at a leisurely pace. In contrast, hares and rabbits being driven by beaters towards a line of guns look positively terrified. Should we ban shooting on that account?
If noble Lords do not trust me, as a layman, they should trust the experts. Some might choose to misinterpret Burns, but they cannot misinterpret the vets. Few of them hunt, but a decided majority supports hunting, not on libertarian grounds—that may have played a minor role—but on animal welfare grounds. What more need one say?
3.9 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, as we are getting on in this debate, I do not wish to over-repeat some of the excellent points that have been made both in this debate and the previous one and both in this House and the other place. However, I think that they clearly show that the issue is not about the welfare of the fox. I also make no apology for coming back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, as it needs to be re-emphasised. Mr Course, previous director of the League Against Cruel Sports, and three of that organisation's directors had the moral integrity to become convinced during their period of office that the safest and most humane way of controlling foxes is by hunting. I think that their evidence is very telling. As the current arrangements have given us the healthiest and best fox population in Europe, it is difficult to argue that hunting needs to be abolished on welfare grounds.
This ancient and venerable sport lies at the heart of the social cohesion of deep rural areas. It is for many who work there the one activity that alleviates their hard-working lives. It is at the centre of their socialising, giving them a shared sense of purpose with their neighbours. It bonds the community. To deny it would be like saying to those who live in town, "You cannot play football". Its termination would be a travesty of justice and a wholly unnecessary end to a great tradition. It would also do away with one of the few occasions in this over-nannied world when one can be personally brave. Most of those who object to fox hunting have never done it and have never seen it. Their objection to fox hunting, sadly, is social resentment masquerading as animal welfare. The sad thing is that they do not know the harm that they would do.
I say all that by way of background because to ask Parliament to turn something of which some people disapprove into a criminal offence is a big and dangerous step for any government to take. It has huge political implications as to how government deals with other ethical issues in a free society. Unfortunately, we do not have a written constitution. The central point that I should like to make, really in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is that democracy is not in its simplest sense the enforcement of majority will. Democracy should be about the protection of minority rights. I remind the House of the famous words of the American President Jefferson:
"All too will bear in mind the sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable, that the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".
Legislators in those days carefully thought about their actions within the framework of personal liberty. In 1859, John Stuart Mill, in his famous essay on liberty, said:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant".
I doubt that Hitler had that in mind when he banned fox hunting in Fascist Germany.
1306
The real issue today is one of personal liberty and the degree to which the state should interfere in a free society where the rights of no fellow human beings are being endangered in any way. That is why the outcome of this debate should cause everyone, even the most ardent defenders of animal rights, deep misgivings over what the right to live in a free country really means. I hope that this House, whose task it is to take a reflective and balanced view, will do so, and in due course vote that this aged tradition shall continue in some middle way in this country, as it will continue in other free countries of the western world.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am afraid that I have a fistful of interests to declare. I am president of the Countryside Alliance; chairman of the Labour supporters' "Leave Country Sports Alone" campaign; a member of the all-party Middle Way Group; and a member of the RSPCA. I hunt every week, sometimes with foxhounds, but usually with the staghounds on Exmoor.
As a lawyer, I ask myself, what are we doing here? Leaving aside what is going on abroad, two weeks ago, our Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, urged a reduction in prison sentences as our prison system had reached danger level. Two days ago, our Home Secretary had to accept that serious crime had made it unsafe to walk on the streets of many of our towns and cities. Yet, last night in another place, and here in this House today, the Government have provided time for us to consider passing legislation to criminalise up to half a million of some of our most law abiding, deeply rooted, most responsible citizens, drawn primarily from the farming and the rural communities which are just recovering from their worst economic blow in modern times.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a powerful speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, after him, urged that this House should not seek to frustrate the wishes of the elected Chamber. But surely it is not the role of this House to stand by and watch an injustice being perpetrated. Nor is it our role here to sit back and watch bad law reach the statute book. When those of us who were appointed to this Chamber gave up our right to vote for our elected representatives, we did not take a vow that we would not object or raise our voices when legislation came before us. I for my part have no intention of doing so either today or later if, as I suspect, this matter returns here.
It is, I think, also our role to remind those in another place that love of liberty, and tolerance of the different views of others, particularly those which one may dislike, are the cornerstones of our particular brand of parliamentary democracy. If we knock them aside, the whole institution will be weakened. I accept that in a civilised society—which all of us here today will claim that we want—liberty cannot be paramount. Cruelty trumps liberty. If there were evidence that the activities we are discussing, when properly conducted, are cruel—and let us be clear what we mean by cruelty; it is the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering—then liberty and tolerance must give way.

1307
The former Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw, set up the inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so that we should know the answer. In this House, in our previous debate, the noble Lord spelt out in clear and unequivocal terms that his team did not find evidence of cruelty. My noble friend Lord Harrison cannot have been in his place when the noble Lord said that. Indeed, it was the Burns report which raised the possibility of a licensing system, which we are also discussing today and I shall be supporting. Such a suggestion could not possibly have been made had that inquiry found that there was inherent cruelty. Others have mentioned that the majority of vets have urged caution in relation to this legislation because, in their view, animal welfare will be harmed, not improved by it.
Despite all that evidence, supporters of a ban press on. If we are to pass criminal legislation based on cruelty, there must be some evidence of it. Saying something is cruel—as the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Harrison, and my noble friend Lady Gale did—does not make it so, any more than my saying that it is not cruel means that it is not. The test of cruelty surely must be an objective one for the courts, with findings based on evidence after an impartial and unemotional examination of the facts. The proper way to address the question of cruelty in hunting is not a blanket ban in the face of the evidence, but reform of the Protection of Animals Acts along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in the previous Session and adopted now by the middle way. It should be a criminal offence deliberately to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. I believe that properly conducted hunting passes that test, and the refusal of the supporters of a ban to support that approach makes me suspect that, in their heart of hearts, so do they.
Since the previous debate, I have changed my approach. I still believe that the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, which I helped to set up, is working well and effectively. However, I now believe that this damaging and divisive issue must be removed from the mainstream political agenda. In order to do that, there has to be public confidence in the way in which hunting is conducted and regulated, and both sides of this debate have to be willing to move from their hitherto entrenched positions. I do not know whether that can be achieved but I know that on the side from which I come there is a will to try, and we shall do so. Therefore, I shall vote against a ban, vote for hunting under licence and shall abstain from the third vote, on supervision.
I have been greatly encouraged—I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my comments by the universal praise I have had from local hunts for their DEFRA officials at local level who have been handling the licensing and permit system since December. That shows that with co-operation and good will on both sides, a licensing system can be made to work well.
1308
I understand that my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael is to make a statement shortly about the way forward. Contrary to his speech last night, there have been rumours that decisions already have been made. I hope that those rumours are wrong. I make it clear that any attempt to criminalise any of the present forms of hunting in the absence of evidence of cruelty would be wholly unacceptable and, indeed, an outrage to those who feel as I do.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle spoke about deer hunting, which is close to my heart. I have to say to the noble Lord—he is a good friend of mine—that if I could take him and show him, I could point out that almost everything he had to say on the subject was wrong. In my view, of all forms of hunting, that is the most defensible. The red deer herds on the Quantocks and Exmoor simply would not exist but for the protection which the local community and hunting provides for them. It is the local culture that one does not shoot the deer. That is why there is the strongest, healthiest herd in Great Britain and why recently the Exmoor National Park—I hope that the Government will listen to this even if they ignore every word I say—has expressed the deepest concerns, not just for the economy of that region but also for the welfare of that valuable deer herd, which, with a ban, would be gone in a short time.
It is significant that on the National Trust estate on Exmoor, where deer hunting stopped in 1997, today four times as many deer are now shot each year and the casualty rate has soared by 25 times. I fear that what we warned would happen is happening. My noble friend Lord Hoyle also said that no one supports coursing. I have not been many times, and I have enjoyed it. I have a lurcher and I go out around my farm. In some places, illegal hare coursing is a serious problem. Indeed, it is virtually unpoliceable. The police accept that they have to give it a low priority. Is it therefore to be suggested that the small number of regulated hare coursing meetings should be criminalised, despite the benefits which conservationists tell us they have, not only for the environment but also for the hare population? If so, I fear that we are about to set off down the "hand gun route", where the ban on those who were responsible target shooters has been followed by a massive increase in illegal hand guns on our streets. Gesture politics so often produces the opposite result from that which was intended.
Other Members from all sides of the House have said what I am about to say. I cannot overstate the sense of injustice and anger which this attack is generating on those most affected. The Minister must understand the emotions in the countryside, after all that has happened. I refer in particular to foot and mouth and to the way in which those whose jobs and homes depend on hunting, who volunteered and helped the Government in that crisis, feel betrayed. To throw a match on to that tinder would be divisive madness. This Government, whom I support, were not elected in order to divide our nation.
We look to the Minister here and his colleague in another place, who have been charged with dealing with this issue, for leadership because that is now

1309
needed. If that means putting aside some of our personal prejudices and views, on my side I am prepared to try to do so. I hope that there is a willingness on his side. If there is, the matter will be resolved amicably. If not, I cannot begin to foresee the extent of the trouble that will result.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She has said all that needs to be said, extraordinarily well. I shall speak for a short time. However, before I begin on my reasons for supporting the views of the noble Baroness, I must take issue with my noble friend Lord McNally. I disagree with his views but I do not defend to the death his right to voice them. It is curious that a man of his high intelligence and great ability should hold such views, which are not held by all Liberal Democrats. A bad Bill on this subject has just been passed by the Scottish Parliament. I am happy to tell my noble friend that only one Liberal Democrat voted for it.
Having listened to the debate, it is obvious that everyone agrees that foxes must be killed, so the issue comes down to the method of killing. The Burns committee clearly stated that the degree of cruelty caused by hounds is not as much as the distress caused by shooting. I shall not repeat the arguments. Hunts ensure a healthy population of foxes, which is controlled. If it was left to horrible commercial farmers such as myself, there would hardly be a fox left anywhere. Hunts almost certainly do a great deal of good.
There is not much more to be said—it has all been said—except that this House missed a great opportunity in the last debate to take up a splendid offer from the Government to reconsider. When we consider the speeches in the House of Commons yesterday, the hope of the Government being able to produce a compromise is small, but it is there. If this House votes sensibly this time against the ban and for the second option, there is a chance that a sensible solution will be arrived at. That is what we should aim for.
4.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I need to begin with an apology for not being present during the earlier part of this important debate, as it was simply not possible to alter a prior commitment in my cathedral. I am grateful to your Lordships for the opportunity to take part in the debate, which over the years has considerably exercised my mind and conscience.
For 12 years I lived on Exmoor in North Devon where hunting has been woven into the social fabric for many centuries. It was not difficult to understand the wrath of the farmer towards the fox when new-born lambs had been killed or maimed. Furthermore, I could appreciate that the meeting of the hunt brought a welcome diversion and excitement into what was otherwise a demanding pattern of living for many
1310
people. But on a number of grounds I remained opposed to hunting, and still have deep reservations about stag hunting and hare coursing. Clearly, I need to have a session with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
My conversion to a different position, in support of the middle way, over fox hunting has been slow. Careful and rigorous regulation is essential. That has come through again and again during the debate. The regulation needs to include, in my view, among other factors, the prohibition of the digging out of the fox after it has gone to ground.
There are two moral obligations on humans towards animals that can be expressed in guiding principles. Maybe these have been rehearsed earlier and I missed them. First, human beings have a moral duty not to cause wanton cruelty to animals. Is hunting compatible with the consideration that humans arguably should give to animals? Recent scientific studies, albeit disputed, generally confirm that mammals perceive pain in ways analogous to human pain mechanisms. Individual foxes are frightened. The moments immediately preceding their death are very likely to be characterised by extreme physical distress. Invariably, however, the fox is killed by the lead hound and not torn apart by the other hounds until death. But a ban on fox hunting, as has come over again and again, is likely to substantially increase the number of foxes that would suffer.
A ban would quickly result in farmers and landowners wiping out the fox far more assiduously than is currently the case.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I explained that only 6 per cent of foxes are actually killed by fox hounds; 94 per cent are already killed by other methods. So what difference would that make?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. But I think that a lot of evidence would suggest that the culling of foxes, particularly through shooting, is indeed a very hazardous and imprecise method of control.
The second principle that I want to underline is that human beings demean themselves as well as animals if they cause wanton cruelty to animals or act against the long-term well-being of the animal species. Here the question of motive is vital. In the main, the dominant motive of the hunt and the hunter is not the prospect of the killing of the fox, but rather the social interaction, the relationship with the countryside, the exhilaration, the challenge and risk of jumping dangerously over fences and hedges. Are we not in danger of creating a sanitised society?
Where I now live in East Anglia there have been significant changes in hunting practice since the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting was formed. Hunts no longer meet in places where they could cause inconvenience to local people. They no longer meet at pubs alongside busy roads or where they could cause congestion in the middle of small towns or villages. They generally meet at farms or

1311
private houses off the road. Hunt boxes are no longer parked where they can cause inconvenience or traffic congestion. Field masters who are in charge of the mounted followers take care that they should not ride on public footpaths to avoid cutting up the ground and making it inconvenient for those walking in the countryside. Great care is exercised to prevent hounds from running across busy roads and into people's gardens and other public places. These and other changes since self-regulation came into being strengthen the confidence that the middle way is the one to pursue.
The hunting debate needs surely to be seen within the overall care of rural Britain. Fox hunting cannot, I believe, be seen in isolation from the total picture of our responsibility as co-partners with God the creator, for the stewardship and care of our countryside.
As we well know, many people who live and work in rural areas have taken devastating knocks in recent years and not only through the consequences of the outbreak of foot and mouth. In the countryside there is a widespread and growing feeling of being beleaguered, of alienation from urban dwellers. As one farmer's wife put it to me the other day, "We can't seem to see any light at the end of the tunnel". The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, expressed aptly in The Times yesterday this need to relate the urban to the rural, the need to respect our different communities. He put it this way:
"Britain is committed to a pluralist society; we have many different communities, some with their own faiths, some with ritual methods of slaughter, all with their own pattern of life, all with their own values. The only way this can be made to work is by mutual respect, community to community, majority to minorities. A nation which refuses respect to the community of the countryside will not be able to hold together all the other communities of modern Britain".
I believe that a ban on hunting would further exacerbate the divide between town and country—urban and rural. The middle way could offer a bridge between the two.
In conclusion, I ask the question: is there not a very real danger that this whole debate will obscure wider and, I suggest, even more important issues concerned with animal welfare? As I have indicated, I shall vote for the middle way, but I am even more concerned about the conditions under which live animals are transported hundreds of miles across Europe, often without food and water, to be met at the end of their horrendous ordeal with a death that is far less humane than the one suffered by the fox.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in preparation for this debate I looked at what I feel about animals in all the various ways in which we use them and relate to them. I find that I am remarkably inconsistent. I am a mess of emotions, prejudices and particular feelings and experiences. That is probably the way most people feel. It is the human condition. It is something that we should not seek to alter. But I think that we can reasonably ask for consistency of government.
1312
When we look at all the existing legislation and practice in the ways that we deal with animals it is clear that there is a lot to be done to improve the level of consistency across our general practice. There is a general pattern. Apart from those who oppose the use of animals in any form whatever—they certainly have a defensible and honourable stance-most of us are prepared to do harm to animals in return for a benefit to us.
The most obvious example is the use of animals as food. We kill millions of animals every week in order that we may eat them. By and large we seek to impose standards on the way we keep them. We demand that animals are kept in reasonable conditions. We do not look too closely. I do not think that many people who enjoy chicken have spent much time on a battery farm. The average chicken that we eat lives six weeks from the moment it hatches from the egg to the moment it is flung into a small cage packed tightly with other chickens so that they break their legs on the way to the abattoir. That is not a nice life. It is not a fulfilling life. I am sorry that the promoter of the Welfare of Ducks Bill is not with us today. That Bill seeks to tackle a small part of the problems we impose on poultry. There are many other animals where perhaps we could look more honestly at the cruelty we impose as part of the process that we require in order to have cheap food at supermarkets.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has drawn attention to another of these aspects; that of transport. Over time, in blind accordance with European regulations, we have reduced enormously in number our local abattoirs. That was done from a misguided thought that we would thereby increase the safety of our food. The result has been a great increase in the harm done to, and discomfort suffered by, animals sent to abattoirs, along with an increased danger of food poisoning. In those large abattoirs, disease has proved much harder to control. When outbreaks do occur, they are much larger than ever they were in the little back premises of the village butcher down the road. At least there you knew which animal you were buying.
At the moment I serve on a committee which is looking at the use of animals in research. In the course of scientific research, things are done to animals which would lead to those involved serving very long prison sentences if such things were done in any other context. We are prepared to expose animals to the extremities of discomfort in order to avoid exposing ourselves to a chemical which might do us some harm. Animals are dosed to the point where they can take no more and where their suffering is extreme. When we want to find out how the nervous system operates, the heads of rats are cut open and electrodes are put on what is inside. Those rats are then left alive and unanaesthetised for months, simply so that we can see what is happening. We benefit from such research, but in the main I do not think that we appreciate the extremities to which we expose, if not the majority, at least some of the animals which are subjected to research.

1313
I turn to pest control. If you have a mouse problem, you get the mouse man in and the mice go away. We do not think any more deeply on the matter than that. Warfarin does not result in a "fun" death, the common form of control. If we consumed warfarin, we would take hours to die in agony and discomfort. Where rodents have learned to avoid the poison, we put down mouse papers, sticky pads which, when a mouse comes along, will hold fast its foot. More often than not, the mouse will tear itself free, leaving behind a leg. It then wanders off to die in great pain elsewhere. We do this to avoid a bit of mouse shit in the cornflakes, to avoid an animal with which we have evolved and survived over thousands of generations. Such practices are of relatively little benefit to us but mean a great deal of suffering for a mouse.
Many of us are prepared to keep cats as pets. I keep one myself. We are happy with the consequences; namely, that hundreds of millions of wild mammals and birds are killed every year by cats. When feeling so inclined, cats will kill with great cruelty, playing with their victims for half an hour or so with no great difficulty. We are happy to allow our cats to exercise their natures in that way. But when it comes to allowing dogs to exercise their natural instincts as pack hunting animals, we seem to think that that is something extraordinary and horrible. A little consistency would not go amiss here.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said that "thou shall not kill for pleasure". That is a reasonable position if taken consistently. However, what I find hard to understand or to deal with is that there are those who say that about fox hunting, but then go out fishing. If fox hunting was conducted in the same way as fishing, it would be an extraordinary sport. We would gather up 100 or so foxes in a little fenced field. We would throw over baited hooks and we would play them for 10 to 20 minutes, pulling at a hook in each fox's mouth which would cause great pain. Eventually we would exhaust them, whereupon we would haul them in and hit them on the head.
How someone can think reasonably that in this country we should introduce laws to ban fox hunting but that we should not tackle the cruelty of fishing is quite extraordinary. In another place, the main proponents of the legislation are fishermen. That, too, I find extraordinary. They should look harder at what they themselves do before they look at what other people are doing. They should recognise that a parallel may be drawn, in particular in an area where both groups are doing much the same thing. They are gaining pleasure, if not from killing—the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, was wrong in that—then from the hunt.
There is a great difference between hunting an animal and killing it. The noble Lord might well take a fish out of a bowl and hit it on the head, but that would not be fishing. The difference is bred into us because we are hunting animals. All societies and many, many people take pleasure in the hunt. I myself take a great deal of pleasure from hunting animals and consider it a noble part of my make-up. I am not in the least ashamed of it; it is a part of being human.
1314
However, as already pointed out, at its edges the hunt can descend into cruelty. A fox let loose in a barnyard full of chickens will eat one and kill all the rest for the sheer pleasure of killing. In the past people on the edges of hunting have done many things which were cruel. The noble Lord mentioned bear baiting. Indeed, hedgehog football was only recently outlawed. But the fact that hunting can become cruel does not mean that we have to regard all forms of hunting as automatically cruel. Those of us who are prepared to admit to taking pleasure in the hunting instinct must look at those activities in which we do not participate—I am neither a hare courser nor a hunter of foxes—in parallel with those in which we ourselves indulge.
If we can accept that, in the widest sense, human beings are hunting animals and should be allowed to exercise that instinct, then we have to look at each particular case on its own merits. We must look at what benefits are derived and what harm is done; what benefits are brought to the countryside and its economy and what costs are borne by the way in which an animal is treated. Such problems do not call for a ban to be imposed on one particular practice; rather they should be addressed by a well thought-through Bill which I hope we shall see in due course from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. That should come to pass once all the consultations being undertaken on the welfare of animals have been completed.
I hope that we shall be offered legislation that looks consistently across the spectrum at what we do to animals. Similarly, I hope that we shall be able to move away from involving the courts or other judicial mechanisms in deciding when and under what circumstances a particular practice is or is not reasonable.
It is reasonable for us today to look at what the Commons have decided and to say, "Yes, we understand those emotions". However, in fairness to everyone and in pursuit of a law which all will feel provides an honest reflection of the ways in which we conduct ourselves as well as the ways in which we want others to conduct themselves, then today we should vote for the middle way. I did so on the last occasion. This time, I hope that I shall be able to take with me enough of my noble friends to make that Motion the one which is carried rather than the outright defence of hunting.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise as speaker number 39 in a cast list of 45. Noble Lords are quite right: there can be very little new that could be used in the argument. The last occasion on which I spoke towards the end of a debate was around three years ago. At the time I was the 182nd speaker out of a cast list of 190. That took place at 2.30 in the morning when we were debating the future of the hereditary peerage. I was as proud then as I am now to have the opportunity to express an opinion—not as an expert, not as a participant but as someone who has the chance to express an opinion on what he has Felt all his life was either right or wrong. I shall not go into the
***
1315
detail of the arguments. I come to this issue in the way I came to the issue of the hereditary peerage—with emotion and the belief that it was wrong.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that the regulation of the hereditary peerage rather than its outright banning has been a great success?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, time will tell—and we have all the time in the world in this House.
I come to this debate, as I did to the previous one, with a set of emotions. I asked myself what has changed since the issue was last before the House. The main change is a sense of movement from those who voted last time for self-regulation and who will now vote for the middle way. I then asked myself why this should be. When I examined the proposals for the middle way, I understood why someone who believes in hunting will cheerfully vote for it—because they will be able to continue to enjoy that which they enjoy now, albeit under some kind of regulation or bureaucracy. There will be no change.
If you vote for the middle way you will be voting for licensed hunting. When you licence a hunt you are licensing an amorphous body; you are not licensing a dog because a dog is incapable of being controlled. When you talk about a licence in normal circumstances—for instance, when someone is licensed to hold a gun—you know that the person with that licence is a responsible person. But the killing in a fox hunt is carried out not by the hunters but by the dogs—and dogs cannot be controlled. I understand the role of the whips, but it is a fallacy to believe that when you licence people to do that which they should have been doing without the need of a licence, they will comply.
Let us reflect on the extent to which hunts comply with the law as it stands today. I shall not weary the House, but my noble friend Lady Gale gave illustrations of where, despite what is understood to be legal and illegal, hunts all over the country sometimes trespass beyond the bounds. There are those who will vote for the middle way today who said in the last debate that the middle way could lead to more and more bureaucracy—they are right, but they will still retain their right to hunt.
I could take objection to some of the phrases that have been used. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who is in his place, said that part of the support for a ban came through social resentment. Not from me. I do not resent the lifestyle of anyone in the House. I do not have a scrap of resentment of that kind. Other noble Lords have said that this was "class prejudice". I do not know where they get this from. Which class is prejudiced against the other? One of the fallacies of the debate lies in the attempt to turn it into a town versus country argument. That is a nonsense.
1316
We should reflect on the picture in the other place last night, where a majority of what are recognised as rural seats are represented by Labour MPs. Those MPs stood up to be counted, as they did at the previous election. They not only put their votes on the line but their livelihoods on the line at the previous election, and they were elected. I do not say that everyone who voted examined every line of every manifesto, but they were returned, through the democracy of the general election, with a manifesto which stated that we wish to see the banning of hunting with dogs.
Let me read, very briefly, two unsolicited letters I have received—one from someone living in the country and one from someone living in a town. The first one comes from a lady who lives in north Devon. She said:
"Here in the west country there is great opposition to a ban but in the 21st Century there should be no place for the 'sport' of hunting with dogs. It is cruel and unnecessary and is not effective as a means of control … They also argue that jobs will be lost and hounds will have to be destroyed but there would be no need for this to happen and the Hunts could still carry on their sport by following a man made trail and not by chasing a terrified animal to an horrific death.
I think that a Press Report of a statement by a senior politician's wife at the time of Michael Foster's Bill, that banning stag hunting would ruin her social life reflects more accurately the true feelings of people who are members of a Hunt".
I have a letter from a lady who lives in Palmers Green, north London. She writes:
"Please may I count on your vote to 'Outlaw Hunting with dogs' on Tuesday 19th March 2002.
This bill would cover the hunting of more than the Fox, also the Deer and Hare coursing, and other animals. No animal should be subject to this carnage. There would be a change of jobs for people, as happens in many places of employment, and help would be needed".
People are, I use the word advisedly, threatening the debate by calling in aid the possibility that there will be a mass march against proposed legislation for a ban. I simply say that they will kid themselves that they are arguing to protect their countryside; the foxhunters will know that they are using the march for their own purposes. I have marched over the past 30 years to protect the health service, to protect jobs, to protest against the closure of post offices, to argue that affordable housing should not be sold. Not a peep; not a word. Country life apparently does not exist in such mundane ways. Country life exists only when it comes to this kind of issue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that only two or three weeks ago we had a debate in the House on social housing. I was the only one in the debate to raise the issue of social housing needs in rural areas. It is untrue to suggest that we are not concerned with those kinds of issues as well.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, where was the noble Baroness when the legislation was going

1317
through to enable deprived villages and towns access to affordable housing? The point I am making is that these matters do not stand in isolation.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that on that particular evening—I think it was about 12 or even 15 years ago—he and I voted together. Thank you.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I did not understand a word of what the noble Lord said—but I agree. He is a gentleman.
Let me remind the House of what Ann Widdecombe said in the debate in the other place last night. She said:
"it has always been the purpose of the law to curtail liberty to do something that is believed by the democratically elected body of this House to he wrong. We eliminated cock fighting, bear baiting and badger digging … we curtail liberty when we believe that something is wrong".—[Official Report, Commons. 18/3/01 cols. 80–81.]
I believe fox hunting is wrong.
Of course there will be consequences, damage and danger. A great deal has been said about the effect on employment. I refer to the Burns report on this issue. The report estimates that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 fill-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting, although only around 700 of these jobs, involving some 800 people, result from direct employment by the hunts. In the event of a ban, short-term job losses,
"would be limited, and extend not much further than those employed by the hunt and some employed by those hunt followers who immediately reduced their use of horses".
I believe that there has been gross exaggeration, perhaps on both sides of the debate. We ought to recognise that the Government will have a difficult job to do. I say to my colleagues on these Benches: remember what your colleagues in the other House did last night, by an overwhelming majority. They put their livelihoods and their jobs on the line. If, as we are told by those on the other side of the Chamber, people will rise up, my colleagues went into the Lobby in that knowledge.
We should recognise that when the vote is cast tonight, the most difficult job facing anyone will be that of Alun Michael and his ministerial colleagues, who will have to implement the Government's decision after this indicative debate has provided an opportunity to resolve the matter. It will not be easy. We know that there are deep divisions. I cannot see a clear way forward at this time. I appeal to noble Lords to follow their conscience. Once we have done that and have resolved the matter by means of a vote, let us await what Alun Michael tells us before Easter and what is proposed thereafter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is a dear friend of mine. I am always happy to say that some of my best friends are hunters. She, too, recognises that there is still an opportunity to try to reach a solution. I stand by my view that the middle way is a licence to carry on as before. You cannot compromise on cruelty. When the matter goes to a Division, I shall vote for a ban; I shall vote against the middle way; and I shall vote
1318
against the status quo. I urge not only my colleagues but the whole House to follow me into the Lobbies tonight.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, there are several common themes running through the debate, one of which is the argument of those noble Lords who would ban hunting with hounds. It has been echoed by many speakers and goes along the lines: "We think hunting is cruel and so it must be banned. There must be a more humane way". To this, many noble Lords who favour the continuation of hunting in one form or another have replied that there is no more humane way of controlling foxes, and that hunting is in fact humane.
There seems to be widespread agreement in this House that foxes need to be controlled. There has been widespread agreement also that the alternatives of trapping and poison are much less humane than hunting. If that is so and there is common agreement, it leaves us with our old friend, shooting, as a way of controlling foxes.
For some reason those who want to ban hunting seem to think that shooting foxes will be less cruel than hunting. There has been much talk of "marksmen"—so effectively demolished by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who reminded us of the horrors of the cull during the foot and mouth crisis, when many so-called marksmen—and one must presume that these are the same people whom those who favour a ban on hunting will use against the wretched fox-failed to hit a much larger and more stationary mark than the wily fox.
I want to make a slightly different point which I do not think has been made in quite the way that I want to make it; namely, that even for good marksman—and there are not many of those—the fox is a very difficult animal to kill cleanly. It is tough, wiry, resilient; it has very good eyesight and a keen sense of smell; it moves incredibly quickly. It can turn and run between your decision to fire and the bullet or column of shot reaching its target.
It is at this point that I have to confess that I bring long personal experience to this subject, which is usually a good thing in debates in this House; but I say "confess" because the fact that I have shot dozens of foxes in my life does not endear me to noble Lords who hunt and who on the whole do not approve of people who shoot foxes. My excuse to them is that the terrain of Rannoch Moor, where I live, is too boggy to permit riding to hounds, and we do not have a competent foot pack within striking distance; and so we do have to shoot foxes.
When I was child, we used to poison them too. Some of my early memories are of shooting desperate foxes which had been caught by a limb in a gin-trap for several hours; or of dragging their bodies from the pool of water in which the trap had been set and in which they had drowned. Thank goodness such practices have been illegal for some time.

1319
So I have to ask noble Lords who believe that they would prefer foxes to be shot rather than hunted to think again. If a fox is shot with a shotgun containing normal shot, it has to be very close—perhaps 15 yards; which is about as close as the Minister is, if I could have his attention. If it is that close, unlike the Minister, it is almost certainly moving extremely quickly and therefore becomes an even more difficult target. I admit that if buckshot is used, a fox can be killed somewhat further away, but it is still difficult to kill instantly. Most foxes are shot when people are shooting other things—rabbits or pheasants—so the shot is small and the range has to be extremely close. Of the foxes I have seen shot with a shotgun, nearly all have needed a second barrel—and even then the wretched animal is often finished off by a dog.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his excellent report, preferred shooting by rifle: specifically, lamping at night. But that is not safe either. I am privileged to have one of the best rifle shots, or marksmen, working for me in Scotland. Every winter, he shoots 200 female deer, most of them in the top of the neck. The larder records, the records of the carcasses, are available for noble Lords to inspect, and indeed he has won the prize for being the best shot among stalkers in Scotland for three years in a row. So he really is a brilliant marksman. Yet even he lost a fox last winter, lamping at night. The fox was clearly hit, but we never found it. I shudder to think how it died.
I suppose that most people who oppose hunting do not hunt, but nor do they shoot. The trouble, therefore, is that they have no experience of how difficult it is to kill cleanly. It may be that many who oppose hunting are influenced by what they see in films or on television. That is not helpful to this debate. We all remember the cowboys in western films who had only to lift their rifle, squint briefly down the barrel and fire, and the bad man dropped dead several hundred yards away. In most violent films nowadays—and that seems to be a good many films—people are shot dead with an ease which never ceases to amaze me. It is really not like that in real life, and it really will not be like that for the many thousands of foxes which at the moment are hunted to a swift and certain death by hounds, but which opponents of fox hunting would rather submit to a death by shooting.
So before noble Lords go down the road of believing that shooting will provide a comparatively and acceptably painless alternative death, I humbly submit that they should ask themselves one question—perhaps among many. That question is: have they ever shot a fox? Have they ever even seen a fox shot? If they have not, I suggest to them as gently as I can that they should think again before causing such pain to be inflicted upon thousands of innocent animals.
5 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, my contribution to this lengthy, often emotional, but nevertheless outstanding debate will be brief. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who wrote an excellent
1320
article in The Times yesterday, I have never hunted. The last time I was on a horse was in Egypt while serving in the Army just after the war. I was bodily lifted into the air by a series of dragomen and deposited on the back of a poor animal in order to visit the Pyramids. The dragoman who was my guide said, "My horse very good horse, sir. He called Charlie Chaplin". Charlie Chaplin was a little slow, so I gave Charlie Chaplin a slight tap on the rump. "Oh Mister, you no hit Charlie Chaplin. He pregnant". My last equestrian experience before that had been as a small boy in a mining village in County Durham when some of my schoolmates and I used to ride the pit ponies bareback when they were released from the pit.
I must declare an interest. My son is the chairman of the Lothian and Borders branch of the Scottish National Farmers Union and his wife is a keen hunter, as is their son. They are deeply distressed by the effects of the recent Scottish ban on hunting. I have studied that legislation and in my opinion it is one of the most deeply flawed measures to have been enacted by any legislative assembly. It has major defects. It is not clear to me whether the members of the Berwickshire hunt would be acting illegally if they were to pursue foxes over the nearby border into Northumberland and whether, vice versa, a Northumbrian hunt would be acting illegally if it pursued a fox over the border into Scotland. No doubt those matters will be clarified in the months to come.
I have heard much today about the importance of continuing with the licensing of hunting under the middle way. The Burns report was clear. There is no doubt that it came to the conclusion that hunting with hounds is not cruel. Secondly, as many noble Lords have said—and I do not propose to labour the point—there is clear evidence that if a ban were enacted it would drive an increasingly vital wedge between the town and the countryside. At this moment, the countryside is suffering from the after-effects of BSE—I speak with authority, having been a member of the Southwood working party on BSE—and from the devastating effects of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy. As the Burns report made clear, if a ban is enacted, the effects on the rural economy will be extraordinarily intense.
What would be the effect if a ban were enacted by law? How could the provision be policed when the police have many more things to do? They need to deal with urban street crime rather than those who are following what in the past has been a legal pursuit.
I accept that a few of those who have spoken today hold a sincere opinion that hunting is cruel and should be banned. I venture to dissent from that view. It is almost 13 years since I had the privilege of becoming a life Peer in your Lordships' House. Many noble Lords today have spoken about the ultimate authority of the other place, the fact that the elected Chamber will and must have the ultimate say on matters of this nature and the fact that the executive has a powerful voice. I wholly accept that and I do not in any sense deny the strength of the democratic principle. However, I can think of innumerable occasions over the past 13 years when Bills coming from the other place have been

1321
extensively and very properly amended by this House. On many occasions, this House has invited the other place to think again.
When I have talked to people about my experience in your Lordships' House, I have said repeatedly that one of its great strengths is that there is virtually no topic on which there is not an expert present. This is a House with an enormous repository of experience, authority and expertise in a wide range of different activities.
Many years ago, the great English poet, William Cowper, wrote:
"Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,
Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells
In heads replete with thoughts of other men;
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.
Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more".
One of the great strengths of this House is its wisdom. I have appreciated that over the past 13 years. On the last occasion that this measure was debated in your Lordships' House, a serious tactical error was made in voting for the status quo. I fervently believe that today the House will, properly and advisedly, in its wisdom, vote for the middle way. I hope that in consequence the other place will be able to think again to try to enact a compromise that will be acceptable to all parties, however difficult that may be. I can only say fervently, "Thank God for the House of Lords".
5.7 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, yesterday's debate on this subject in another place started exceptionally late, because a very important Statement on a most important development in the deployment of troops in Afghanistan took precedence. Nothing could bring home more clearly the fact that in the world and country in which we live, there are issues facing the Government and Parliament of far greater seriousness than the issue that we are debating today.
When the debate in another place started, the Minister said that he would make a Statement at the completion of the two debates. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say that careful consideration would be given to the contributions made in this House and in another place before the decision was taken.
In an outstanding speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was concerned as to whether the decision has already been taken. Those who have looked at yesterday's Hansard will have seen that Mr Alun Michael has promised to make a Statement on the Government's decisions before next Monday. If that is truly the situation, and knowing the processes of government, I hardly imagine the he is going to be allowed to go into a padded cell with two copies of Hansard and quietly make up his own mind. I imagine that there will be some consultation with colleagues. If he has given a pledge that by not later than Monday he will be making an announcement of the Government's decision, some of us will be suspicious that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is indeed right and that in a sense the decision has been taken. I hope that that is
1322
not true. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his place at the moment. I understand that he will be responding to the debate. I shall be grateful if his colleagues ensure that he responds to that point.
I come with certain credentials to speak in this debate. I took part in 17 debates on hunting in the past 22 years in another place. In that time I had the honour to represent a constituency that has been frequently mentioned during the course of this debate because it encompasses a significant part of the Exmoor National Park. It encompasses two packs of staghounds and five packs of foxhounds. It also encompasses a significant amount of the town and country which has been referred to today. While the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can refer to one letter that he has received for one side and one on the other, I cannot think how many letters I have had over 30 years from people in my rural constituency. Some are passionately opposed to hunting and a considerable number believe that it is their right and freedom to follow a pursuit of their choice.
What I do know from my experiences in these debates is that it has been a dialogue of the deaf. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. He reminded me of what debates in the House of Commons used to be like. He said, "I know nothing about this subject. I approach these things in an entirely emotional way". He then proceeded to lecture the House with various details that he had picked up from various people. I know the noble Lord well and he knows the spirit in which I say this.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord did it very well!
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I know the noble Lord's power of repartee. He will recall that that is what he said. That is the spirit which underpins a huge amount of the debating on this subject in the House of Commons.
I have been elected more times than most of the people who voted on this subject yesterday in another place. I have listened to these debates. The depth of ignorance is profound. I had hoped that an intelligent contribution made by the Government and Mr Jack Straw to ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to conduct his inquiries and to publish his report might actually inform the subject rather better for the benefit of many of my colleagues in the House of Commons. The noble Lord may not wish to comment.
The disappointing thing about the debate after the Burns report was that hardly anybody in the House of Commons had actually read it. I am prepared to say that to the noble Lord who, in the interests of new technology, published the Bateson and Harris report. It was a very important report on the welfare of the stag and the deer and the effect on the hunting of deer. Contract 7 was published only on a. CD-Rom. I am prepared to guess that nobody has read that except me. The reality is that it is a dialogue of the deaf founded on profound ignorance. As a recent Member of the House of Commons, that tells one a lot about the

1323
present House of Commons. If I needed a reminder of that, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made the point very well.
The first debate in which I had the pleasure to take part in your Lordships' House was on the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. It was produced as something of a knee-jerk reaction by the Home Office in response to September 11th. It was an understandable and desirable political response to be seen to act. That Bill came virtually unamended and untouched from another place. It was wafted through on guillotines. I do not believe that a single iota of it was changed. It came to your Lordships' House where it was the subject of serious debate. There was significant amendment by your Lordships' House anxious to protect the proper liberties of the subject and the freedom of the individual, which many of your Lordships felt were seriously threatened by measures in that Bill.
If I remember, the same speeches were made in the other place—"outrageous interference by unelected Peers". But after the shouting and the fury died, wiser counsels prevailed. I believe that I am right in saying that, with very few exceptions, your Lordships' amendments were all accepted. They were an indication of why your Lordships have a role to play. As one of the most recent recruits to this House, I say that after a lifetime spent in another place.
As to the need for wiser counsel and consideration of the issues, the best speech on the subject that I heard in another place was by the then leader of the Liberal Party, David Steel—now the noble Lord, Lord Steel. He rode a horse but did not hunt. He said then and would say again today, I am sure, that the issue is not whether one is for or against hunting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So much of this debate is people expressing their opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of his emotional reaction—which I respect. Thousands of my constituents have the same emotional reaction. The issue is not whether one is for or against hunting but whether one bans other people from doing something of which one personally disapproves. David Steel said that no true Liberal should embrace that offence against the liberty of the individual and freedom. It is one thing to hold an opinion; it is another to seek to impose that opinion on others, to prevent them doing something that may be properly conducted and legal.
I mentioned that I represented a constituency having two packs of staghounds. It has also two of the finest herds of deer in this kingdom. It is no accident that the two go together. Lloyd George required the reintroduction of staghounds to the Quantocks during the first world war, to protect and preserve the stags there—which were in danger of extinction. That herd survived and now flourishes.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, because I did not know that he was going to speak about stag hunting, so I missed what he said. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke of the subtle balance. That was
1324
the subject of a very good video, "Guardians of the Deer", for which Ludovic Kennedy did the commentary. The farmers and hunters on Exmoor and the Quantocks feed and protect the deer. There were deer throughout the country at one stage. Venison is a valuable meat. Once the hunt goes, the poachers and the guns arrive and the deer are threatened. The noble Baroness gave some worrying figures for National Trust land on the edge of Exmoor where hunting has been banned.
Anyone who is familiar with Exmoor will know that the deer are the pride of that national mark, which is symbolised by the fine head and antlers of a red stag. It is no coincidence that the all-party pro or anti-hunting Exmoor national park committee and the pro-hunting/anti-hunting all-party Exmoor society, dedicated to the conservation of deer on Exmoor, say that one cannot ban stag hunting on Exmoor without an alternative deer management strategy. Otherwise—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle—we shall be condemning the magnificent deer herds on Exmoor to potential extinction.
That is a difficult argument to explain. Many people cannot understand that hunting, which they think as killing, serves to protect in a community of interest. For a farmer, one of the worst experiences in one's life is the prospect of as many as 100 deer coming down from the top of the Quantocks to graze on one's stocks. Unless one has a sympathy for the herd and a real identity of interest one will not tolerate that happening. The National Trust is having to pay out larger and larger funds in compensation to farmers on the Honeycut and other estates because of the banning of hunting and the number of deer eating the crops of tenant farmers. That will be reflected across 280 farms within the perimeter of the Quantocks and on Exmoor.
In a wise speech, a former Speaker called for wiser counsels to prevail in another place as well as in your Lordships' House. We are holding this debate at a time of the greatest depression in rural areas in my lifetime. People have said that there will be real anger if Parliament and the Government take unwise decisions. I do not support direct action but there is a sense of despair and anger. The Minister responsible for the decision is the Minister for Rural Affairs, so he has no excuse for saying that he does not know the gravity of the current situation. The decision that the Government will take on this matter is not without consequences. I hope that they will think hard. I have supported the status quo but tonight I shall support the middle way in the hope that we can at last find a sensible and constructive way of resolving this difficult issue in a way that can unite our country again.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in addressing noble Lords this evening I have to declare a total lack of interest! I find it impossible to understand why someone apparently in his or her right mind would get up on an ugly great animal and go out on a cold, wet and windy day in order to gallop across fields accompanied by yapping dogs in pursuit of a quarry they rarely see and do not always catch. But I find it hard to understand

1325
the pursuits of many of my fellow men and women. In this country many of us are eccentric to a degree that is just about this side of sanity. I give an example. Tomorrow evening I shall sit in front of a television set wearing my lucky red and white scarf and hope that it helps Arsenal beat Juventus.
But whatever the eccentricities or oddities of our fellow citizens, they are none of my or our business. Anyone devoted to the liberal empiricist tradition of our country knows that full well. The presumption must be that people should be free to go their own way and to get pleasure how they will. The trouble is that within our society we have the busybody tendency. I refer to those who with nothing better to do poke their noses into a variety of activities with which frequently they have no direct connection but which they are convinced ought to be banned. I am reminded of the great L Mencken's definition of "Puritanism" which noble Lords will recall is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
The case that is put forward is that the activities we are discussing are offensive. The reply to that is twofold. First, from a philosophical standpoint, one cannot go logically from, "I find X offensive", to "X should be banned". One simply cannot do that logically. History is littered with the appalling consequences of arguing in precisely that way. Secondly, if not giving offence is the criterion, one wonders what will be left for any of us to do except to watch the mindless rubbish put out on television. As I find that offensive, perhaps that ought to be banned too.
Apart from enunciating the classical liberal position, we also have to ask ourselves: what is this really all about? I noticed that in the other place one honourable Member said that it was all about the Prime Minister's way of reigniting socialism
"red in tooth and claw".
I am a much weaker character than anyone else in this House. If I thought that was a possibility, I would abandon my liberal position immediately and go back to all the traditions of the great party to which I belong. But I do not believe that is on offer at all.
I believe that this is the first step in a much more powerful busybody tendency—various other noble Lords have already mentioned this—which will lead us to banning all sorts of other activities. It will clearly lead to the banning of game shooting, angling and many activities of that kind. Taken logically, it will certainly lead, so far as I can see, to the end of all farming with animals and so on. It will also lead—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made this point—to the complete abandonment of the use of animals in experiments, no matter how beneficial the results of those experiments may be for human beings. My own judgment is that you must interpret this as a first step. I believe that the role of Parliament is to try to stop it now, not much later, when the argument will be, "You banned fox hunting. Now let's ban this, this and this". The list would be endless.
1326
Finally—in the great desire to be brief and to get the vote over and done with—I turn to the constitutional position. One day, when we have legislation before us, we may be threatened with the Parliament Act and, if we do not behave, with the abolition of your Lordships' House. Whatever happens then, the constitutional position today—by "today" I mean at this very minute—is different. We have a free vote. I believe that the duty of noble Lords—every one of us—is to vote not for what the Commons has told us we have to vote for but for what we ourselves believe is right. We must do no more but surely no less. In my case, that means that I shall vote against an outright ban and in favour of statutory control.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. Unfortunately, my request to be put at the proper and lowly place at the bottom of' the speakers list led to my immediate elevation to an inaccessible place at the top. I want to make one point, about which I feel very strongly as a lawyer.
As the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Peston, pointed out, this is not a question of whether one likes or does not like hunting; it is a question of whether one bans it, and whether one does so by making it a criminal offence. Surely that would be a fundamental misuse of the criminal law. Whatever Miss Widdecombe may have said in another place, the criminal law exists to enforce generally accepted principles of behaviour. It is not there to impose the views or ethics of the majority—or of an alleged majority—on a sizeable minority. The acts that constitute criminal offences are those that virtually everyone regards as being wrong in principle. There may be doubts about the details. Everyone agrees that there must be a limit on how fast one can drive, but they may argue about how fast that should be. However, the criminal law criminalises acts that the world—or the country—at large agrees are unacceptable.
It is because of those principles that I argue that the criminal law is not there to forbid the minority its activities. Those are the reasons why we have decriminalised homosexuality and why we do not make smoking or adultery—if that remains a minority activity nowadays—criminal offences. If it is logical to ban hunting because the majority of people in the country do not approve of it, we should go back and ban homosexuality, smoking and so on and—probably—return to puritanical law.
I therefore urge noble Lords to remember that this is not a matter of individual taste; it is a matter of whether the criminal law should be invoked to impress the wishes and ethics of some on other people, who are right-minded citizens.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: M y Lords, early in our debate, my noble friend Lord McNally said that he doubted whether anyone would change their mind during our debate and vote differently. I am

1327
grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who, although he did not change his mind this afternoon, at least admitted to changing it in the course of time from supporting a ban to supporting the middle way.
That is particularly interesting in view of the attitude of those noble Lords who opposed any change when we previously debated the matter. If noble Lords at that time had dug their heels in a little less and been more willing to opt for the middle way, as we have heard today they are now willing to do, we should not be having this debate. I was very disappointed by the way in which they voted last time. I shall with pleasure join them in the Lobby this time to support the middle way. They should be under no illusions—for people such as me, that will not entail simply supporting the status quo by another name. I shall be looking to amend any Bill that comes forward under that option so that the hunting of hares in all forms, including hare coursing, and, indeed, the hunting of deer, will not be an option. I believe that that is the message from the Burns inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, found serious compromises for animal welfare in many areas. In fact, I believe that the only area where he considered that there could be justification for hunting was in relation to foxes in the uplands. In that case, he found it to be a reasonable method of pest control. It would be a great shame if anyone were to behave like the lizard's tail, continuing to twitch when detached from the body of evidence before it.
Where noble Lords did manage to reach a degree of consensus—whether they were for a ban or against it—was on the matter of the evolutionary approach. My noble friend Lord McNally said that everyone, in his own time, would reach a conclusion as to what was appropriate. I believe that some of the differences between my noble friend and me may be accounted for by the possibility that he is further forward on the evolutionary scale than I am. I also respect those who are vegetarians because I believe that they are even further forward on that evolutionary scale. However, that does not mean that trying to reach a consensus little by little is wrong.
I turn now to the reasons against a ban, mentioned by various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Those noble Lords said that a ban would be unenforceable. I believe that many noble Lords agree that the criminal justice system is experiencing an extremely difficult time. If we should opt for the middle way, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to say that the enforcement of such a system will be given careful consideration.
Several other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned the difficult issues faced in Scotland by the hasty introduction of legislation.
1328
On the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, believed that we were perhaps grossly exaggerating the issue of social activity. I believe that hunting is a social activity—it is a natural meeting place for the like-minded. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is exaggerated. My experience last Saturday illustrated that point. My husband and I were out walking across the Somerset moors when we came across a meeting with a pack of beagles. We noticed that on the passenger seats of the shiny, mud-free cars were open road atlases. That did not exactly suggest that only locals were meeting for the afternoon.
However, the main issue raised by many noble Lords was that of species management and the framework within which it could be progressed. The Government must address that matter, whichever way the issue goes. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who set out in great detail the issues of deer management on Exmoor, in particular.
Another issue which the noble Lord may have noted, and about which I am sure he is most knowledgeable, is that of damage caused by deer. It is estimated that the cost of such damage to each farm-holding is approximately £500 a year and that in the order of 40,000 highway accidents occur each year. Thus far, the Government have resisted bringing forward any legislation to give a statutory framework to deer management, but I believe that such legislation will be essential.
There is also, of course, the issue of badgers. At present they are protected but they also cause an increasing problem in many areas, not least urban areas where the foundations of houses are affected. In rural areas, again, badgers are a road hazard and, indeed, are killed on roads. There is also the ongoing issue of TB in cattle. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the Government bring forward some means of managing the various species which will no longer be hunted.
Many noble Lords also mentioned the unacceptable aspects of hunting, such as digging out, hare coursing and hunting. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, suggested that we get rid of those unacceptable practices. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, suggested that we should not throw them in as a trophy. I fundamentally disagree with that. It is not a new problem. Looking back, I notice that in 1848 the Hare Act facilitated hunting. In 1892, the government of the day had to pass the Hare Preservation Act.
What we are looking at is balancing minority rights against animal rights. I know that some noble Lords like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, deny that animals have rights, but I believe that they do. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for his kind remarks about my noble friend, Lord Steel. It is a question of balance. Today's debate should have been helpful to the Government.
The reasons mentioned against statutory legislation by noble Lords have been more red tape. If the process is managed properly, that should not be a difficulty.

1329
I shall try to be brief, in order to get to the vote, which I know noble Lords are anxious to have. The noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, all mentioned different forms of cruelty.
Hunting is certainly no more cruel than keeping unfortunate animals in cages as pets to be overfed or poked at by their owners—often small children encouraged to own such pets. Nor is hunting more cruel than condemning chickens to life in battery cages for cheap eggs. We are still able to do that because we have not addressed that problem sufficiently.
We have been caught between an upbringing on a diet of Beatrix Potter and Wind in the Willows belief. The noble Lord, Lord Monson and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford both mentioned how we anthropomorphize animals—where Ratty and Renard are animals with human wishes and feelings. Yet, in a globalised world, we are able to ship animals over continents, so they suffer for days, not minutes or hours.
Noble Lords will be aware of the cruelty caused by carelessness when we flush hormones down our lavatories which threaten to wipe out whole species of fish and molluscs by changing males into females. This is not intentional cruelty, but is cruelty by carelessness, nevertheless.
Within such a context, we should not be diverted into a belief that banning all hunting will make this country a much better animal habitat. That will be done by the less headline-grabbing work of habitat restoration and its maintenance to support the creatures who live within it.
The Government took some first steps last year by implementing the Countryside Rights of Way Act, especially Part III. They need to progress that work and bring in species management. They need to support a consensual approach to all this work in the countryside. I do not believe that will be achieved by banning hunting with hounds. I do believe it will be achieved by voting for the middle way.
5.38 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is nearly a year since I stood at this Dispatch Box and wound up our last debate on the future of hunting. Last time 60 noble Lords spoke, today there are only 46. That is modest progress.
Much has happened in the last 12 months. The Government called a general election. I admit I did hope to be speaking from the Benches opposite today, but the British public, in their wisdom, took a different view.
The Labour Party in its manifesto promised a free vote in this Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue again in your Lordships' House. It is an issue not just about hunting, but about individual civil liberties and tolerance in a democratic society.
I should like to make clear what my beliefs are. I remind your Lordships that I speak for myself and not for my party. I support hunting; I hunt. I have to
1330
say to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that I bought my hunt coat at his fine emporium. I shall shortly be taking it back for repair at the end of the season. Since the previous debate, the important issues which surround hunting have not changed. In that debate, my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, a distinguished vet and a member of the Burns committee—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his place—reminded the House that the Burns report did not state that hunting was cruel. Nor did the report recommend a ban.
It used some words which have perhaps become candidates for the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations when it stated that hunting "seriously compromises" the welfare of the fox. The report went on to say that death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once a fox is caught. It also states that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty.
When a farmer sends an animal to a slaughterhouse, it compromises its welfare. It is no different from netting a fish in the sea, catching a trout in a river, shooting a game bird or having lamb for lunch. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that a compromise involving welfare has been made in all of those situations.
The important issue that must be addressed is whether the chase is intentionally cruel. Does it cause unnecessary suffering to the fox? Hunting is the pursuit of the quarry in its wild and natural state, a quarry that encounters nothing outside its natural repertoire of defences. The hounds do not put the fox under stress except only in the final moments.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that if hunting could be shown to cause unnecessary suffering and the alternative methods of control less suffering, the argument for a ban would have some merit. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, the Burns report does not make that case. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, acknowledges the point but does not agree it. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, conveniently always ignores the point when pressed on it.
Even the Scottish Parliament, in its somewhat bizarre and I believe unworkable Act, accepts that the chase does not cause unnecessary suffering. In the future in Scotland, it will be legal to hunt a fox with a pack of hounds provided that an attempt is made to shoot it at the end of the chase. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose pointed out that the Scottish Parliament rejected all the recommendations from its own rural affairs committee and produced an Act which had nothing to do with the welfare of the fox but seemed to be more an attack on those who followed hounds on horse.
I turn to the veterinary profession. As we have heard, the majority of vets are quite clear that a ban on hunting would represent a serious threat to the welfare of the fox population. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford reminded the House that, sad as it may be to some, foxes do not live to a happy old age in semi-retirement. They have no upper house to depart to. Sadly, they die of disease, or are run over on

1331
the roads, or die of starvation—a threat which does not often face your Lordships. Would the fox population be better off if there were no hunting? It is clear that the fox would gain nothing from the abolition of hunting.
Moving, if I may, from vets to vicars, I trust that your Lordships have read the letter from "Clergy in Field Sports". It is clear to me that there is no moral or spiritual case for banning hunting. The speeches in the debate last year by the four right reverend Prelates all put the case better than I can and they all voted against a ban. Today, we have heard from the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Hereford, Portsmouth and Chelmsford, who once again gave us their guidance, both spiritual and moral, on hunting and spoke out against a ban.
We have a history of tolerance in this country. We accept different religious beliefs and different customs. Some in this country disapprove of the religious slaughter of animals but it does not follow that that practice, central to the life of Jews and Muslims, should be banned. Equally, some in the country violently campaign against animal experiments. But Parliament has accepted the need for humanely conducted research using animals, subject to proper regulation. Some in this country protest violently against hunting. Indeed, it is sad to see how some organisations have been taken over by those promoting animal rights rather than animal welfare, using threats, intimidation and violence to achieve their aims.
The English countryside is a common possession. All of us benefit from the richness and diversity of our countryside. It is largely man-made and tended by those who live in and care for it. It is our common inheritance. Indeed, it occupies a favourite place in every English person's image of their homeland. It is criss-crossed by footpaths, bridleways and byways. In many different ways, we all have a responsibility for it if we use and enjoy the countryside.
Many who live in the countryside have had a tough time during the past year. As we have heard from many noble Lords, farmers' incomes are as low as they have ever been. The countryside was closed to all during the terrible epidemic of foot and mouth disease. Rural businesses suffered, tourism declined, fuel duty increased, country people felt under threat. The last thing we need now is another crisis and greater rural unemployment.
I do not want another crisis in the countryside. When we last voted, many noble Lords were nervous of the middle way proposals. They asked: why regulate something that is working well and smother it with red tape? I voted against the middle way last year. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I have changed my mind. I will vote against a ban; I will vote for the middle way; and I will abstain on the third motion, self-regulation, providing the middle way vote is carried.
I should like to explain the reasons why I have changed my mind—apart, of course, from hearing the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, who
1332
always convinces many of your Lordships when she speaks in this House. The reason I have changed my mind is that, as a result of the dreadful time we have had with foot and mouth disease, for the past two months we have had licensed hunting in this country. Every hunt has been licensed under permit by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Licensing has worked well.
I should today like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and in particular his officials. His department has received much criticism in recent months, but the officials at the Reading DEFRA office could not have been more helpful. They had to deal with 22 local hunts, all of which received their licences efficiently and quickly. I thank them for that.
We have a unique opportunity today, even though last night another place voted for a ban. Because a significant number of Members from all parties in another place voted for the middle way, we have a chance to find a workable compromise. The time has come for compromise on all sides. I recognised that compromise will not satisfy those who want a ban. I recognise that my limited powers of persuasion will not change the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I also recognise, reading his entry in Dod's, that he is a member of the Worshipful Company Of Butchers.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that if I had had the opportunity of a motto, it would have been, "Make both ends meet".
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an interesting motto. In that case, the noble Lord will be interested to know that the NFU Wales reported that while hunting was banned because of foot and mouth disease in Wales, farmers who normally lost five or six lambs to foxes saw the number jump to 40 or 50. That shows how important hunting is in those upland areas.
Even if I cannot persuade the noble Lord, Lord Graham, opinions can be changed. My noble friends Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Vinson described how no less than four senior executives of the League Against Cruel Sports left that organisation, concluding that a hunting ban would be bad for animal welfare. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, promote a ban and offer the alternative of drag hunting. Drag hunting is not an alternative. No drag hunt could ever take the risk that, should the hounds cross the line of a fox or hare and decide that that was a more interesting scent, it would be breaking the law. It would not be possible, day to day, to take out packs of hounds for drag hunting.
Licensed hunting—the middle way—will not allay the concerns of those who support hunting and see the possibility that a Bill could be hijacked by wrecking amendments in another place. Nor will it allay the concerns echoed by my noble friends, Lord Boardman and Lord Peel, that a Bill with licensing could impose so many conditions that hunting would be practically impossible in most parts of the country. Those are serious issues that we would face if a Bill were to be

1333
introduced. If a Bill contained conditions that made hunting impossible in most parts of England, we should throw it out.
I believe that licensed hunting has a future. It could enable the public to have confidence that hunting was properly conducted and regulated. I hope to persuade those on both sides of the argument that we have the opportunity to take conflict out of the countryside and create a future in which the Animal Liberation Front will no longer have an excuse to threaten Members of Parliament. We have heard that the Government face more important issues. However, they have shown a willingness to listen to all sides of the argument and seek a solution. I commend that.
In some ways, I had rather a deprived childhood. I was not brought up wearing a CND badge, so I never had the opportunity to march regularly, as many noble Lords opposite have done. I must admit that I rather enjoyed the Countryside rally and march. I have done that now, and I hope that we will not need to march again. However, we will march again, if necessary, and in greater numbers, to make sure that our voices are heard.
This is a free vote. We have the opportunity today to send the message that this House can take a sensible view, balancing civil liberties and individual freedom with sensible and reasonable legislation. We are a revising Chamber, and we have the right—the duty—to ask another place to think again, if we wish. I hope that noble Lords who voted for a ban last time will now seriously consider voting for the middle way. They would show that they understand that there should be a difference between disapproving of something and wanting to ban it. They would be showing tolerance and voting to prevent strife and division. They would be demonstrating respect for the countryside. They would be voting, as I hope, to take conflict out of the political issues in the countryside.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. I said that I was here as a facilitator, rather than an advocate, but one or two matters have provoked me to make a few remarks on the debate.
It has been a more interesting debate than I had anticipated. It has been remarkable that, although many noble Lords made more or less the same speech as they made last time—and revealed more or less the same commitments and prejudices—we have ended up with an entirely different conclusion. I would hope to see that in a benign way. I hope that, at last, a majority of Members who would otherwise go to the last ditch to defend hunting as it is, recognise that that is no longer a tenable position, that there is a different view among the great British public than is held by most Members of this House and that a consistent majority in a democratically elected House—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some are still in denial, but no position in favour of carrying on hunting as it is—as opposed to making some change—can be defended.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the recent national poll clearly showed that more people than ever before support the continuation of hunting. Recent polls do not confirm the Minister's comments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, none of the polls that I have seen support the status quo. A vast swathe of those who have defended hunting today defended the status quo in the previous debate. Many have shifted to what is known as the middle way. I hope that, by doing so, they have recognised public opinion and the importance of at least taking strong note in this House of the repeated view of the democratically elected Chamber.
Therefore, compared with the position two or three weeks ago, we have an unexpectedly large amount of support for what is being called the middle way. One might almost call it a mass conversion. The trouble with mass conversions—as I am sure those on the Bishops' Bench will confirm, with their knowledge of ecclesiastical history—is that some converts are more convincing than others. There is a range in what people think the middle way might be and what it might deliver. In order to avoid provoking anyone on the Opposition Benches, I shall mention just two of my own colleagues.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has been rightly acclaimed by many noble Lords. In a very consistent piece of advocacy, she effectively said that the third way would be similar to acquiring a fishing licence. Although conditions are attached to a fishing licence, they are, in season and within reason, reasonably easily met. My noble friend Lord Plant, however, if I understood him rightly, said that, to justify hunting along the lines of the middle way, one would have effectively to prove that it is important for pest control. Getting through that particular eye of the needle involves a much tighter passage, particularly since, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hoyle, very little control of pests and foxes is achieved by hunting with hounds.
Many inconsistencies have emerged in this debate, and much of the emotion and difficulty in reaching understanding between the points of view remains. There has also been some disingenuousness about the nature of cruelty. The fact that other practices may be cruel is not necessarily a reason for maintaining cruelty in this sphere—particularly when the cruelty in many of the examples given is a by-product of the main objective, whereas in fox hunting much of the cruelty emerges from the motivation for and the exhilaration of the chase. I believe that there is a difference that has to be addressed in one way or another.
I was particularly struck by another inconsistency. I wish that this same tolerance for activities that bring excitement and exhilaration to a significant minority of the population had been exhibited in our discussion a few years ago on Section 28. I think that, in respect of a number of Members of this House, there are minorities and minorities. I believe that we do have to respect the position of minorities. However, the position of the majority also must be taken into consideration.

1335
The Government recognise that we have had a significant debate and that there has been significant movement. The Government will have to take account of that in their proposals on the next steps. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, we do not have a fully developed alternative approach that we are about to present to a surprised nation. However, we shall take account both of this debate and of the discussions that my colleague Alun Michael has been having with the various interest groups involved in the issue, and make a statement on the next steps towards resolving the issue. As I said, we shall make the statement before Easter.
We shall not, however, take account of one set of issues which have been alluded to, albeit obliquely, by some noble Lords: the not very veiled threat of civil disobedience.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, no one in this debate has said anything about civil disobedience. What they have said is that there will be a demonstration, which is the right of all freeborn Englishmen. If the noble Lord cannot tell the difference between civil disobedience and the right to demonstrate, he should not be occupying the Government Front Bench.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl should read the text of some of his colleagues' pronouncements today.
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all right; he should not. He can remain in a state of ignorance if he wants to. His contributions often demonstrate that. I believe that noble Lords indicated that if we go down the road of a total ban, there would be illegal hunting and problems of law enforcement. A number of noble Lords referred to that. It has been referred to outside this House and obliquely within it. I am not referring to the right to demonstrate. Half a million, a quarter of a million or a million people on the streets does not alter whether an issue is right or wrong.
The Government will have to take a decision in the light of all arguments; of what is felt in the countryside and by the population as a whole and of what is legally possible and legally appropriate. We shall take all those matters into account.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government will have to take a decision. I wonder whether he can clarify what he means by the statement about the way forward? His colleague in another place was asked that precisely. He said:
"I intend to make a statement on the way forward before the Easter Recess".
He went on to say:
"My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a fairly narrow window of opportunity between now and next Monday, let us say, and it will be within that time frame".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/02; col. 53.]
1336
I am not clear about what will be the way forward and whether we shall have a statement. I fail to see how it is possible to take account of the views expressed in another place and here, to have proper government consultation and to make a Statement before next Monday. That is disturbing to a number of noble Lords.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that another place rises two days earlier than this House. Therefore, the timescale between now and Easter is between now and Monday. The statement, which will be made at some point in that period, will relate to the next steps, how we shall take account of the debates here and how we shall come back to Parliament at a later stage. That will not be the end of the matter necessarily, but it will indicate clearly how the Government now intend to take account of all these pressures, including in particular this debate and the one in another place yesterday in reaching a conclusion. That will be, therefore, before the end of Monday. I have probably said enough.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of at least three people on my Back Benches. It is therefore important that the House now moves to a vote. I hope that in so doing it will be recognised that the Government will weigh that vote heavily in their consideration. As has been said on all sides of the House, we do not want this occasion or, indeed, the next steps, to be the excuse for the possibility of widening the gap between town and country. I do not believe that it is the Government who have widened that gap. In many cases it has been those who have tried to make fox hunting the symbol of the difference between urban and rural areas who have opened the gap. That was never the intention nor the reality either in urban or rural areas. If noble Lords opposite think that fox hunting is the most important issue in the countryside, they do not have the true interest of the countryside at heart. I commend the Motion to the House.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 331.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Andrews, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barker, B.

Craigavon, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bhatia, L.

Dholakia, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blease, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

1337

Dubs, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Fookes, B.

Mitchell, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morgan, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Orme, L.

Grocott, L.

Pendry, L.

Hamwee, B.

Radice, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hattersley, L

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tope, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Walmsley, B.

Jones, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitty, L.

Laird, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Levy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Buscombe, B.

Ackner, L.

Butler of Brock well, L.

Acton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Byford, B.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carrington, L.

Attlee, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bagri, L.

Chadlington, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Barber, L.

Chorley, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bell, L.

Cobbold, L.

Belstead, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Colwyn, L.

Best, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Biffen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Birt, L.

Cox, B.

Blackstone, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blackwell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blaker, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Croham, L.

Boardman, L.

Cuckney, L.

Borrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bowness, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brennan, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bridges, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brightman, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Deedes, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Denham, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Brookman, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Burnham, L.

Elles, B.

1338

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Elton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Errol, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Liverpool, E.

Feldman, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Fellowes, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas, L.

Flather, B.

Lyell, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Fowler, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Freeman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Geddes, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Geraint, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Glenarthur, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Glentoran, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Golding, B.

Mallalieu, B. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Mancroft, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Marlesford, L.

Goschen, V.

Marsh, L.

Grabiner, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Greengross, B.

May of Oxford, L.

Greenway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Grenfell, L.

Methuen, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Hanham, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Monson, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Montrose, D.

Hayhoe, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Hayman, B.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Henley, L.

Moran, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Moser, L.

Higgins, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Moynihan, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hogg, B.

Naseby, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Holderness, L.

Newby, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Home, E.

Noakes, B.

Hooper, B.

Northbourne, L.

Hooson, L.

Northbrook, L.

Howe, E.

Northesk, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Onslow, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Palmer, L.

Hylton, L.

Palumbo, L.

Inglewood, L.

Parekh, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Jeger, B.

Parkinson, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Patten, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Jopling, L.

Peel, E.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Kelvedon, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Peston, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Kingsdown, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kingsland, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Plumb, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Lane, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Prior, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Puttnam, L.

1339

Pym, L.

Strange, B.

Quinton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taverne, L.

Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Renton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rix, L.

Tenby, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rogan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rooker, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Roper, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Tombs, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Turnberg, L.

Saatchi, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Vinson, L.

Vivian, L.

St Albans, Bp.

Waddington, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wakefield, Bp.

Sandwich, E.

Wakeham, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Selborne, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Selsdon, L.

Walpole, L.

Sharman, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Sharples, B.

Warnock, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Weatherill, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Weidenfeld, L.

Simon, V.

Weinstock, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Slim, V.

Wilcox, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wilkins, B.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stern, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Hunting with Dogs: Hunting under Licence
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That this House considers that the hunting of wild animals with dogs should be required to be regulated in accordance with arrangements similar to those set out in Schedule 2 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons in Session 2000–01 [Bill 2] (Hunting under licence).—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 366 Not-Contents, 59.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Christopher, L.

Ackner, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Acton, L.

Cement-Jones, L.

Addington, L.

Cobbold, L.

Ahmed, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Alli, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cox, B.

Andrews, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Craigavon, V.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor, V.

Croham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cuckney, L.

Attlee, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Bagri, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Barber, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

David, B.

Barnett, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Belstead, L.

Dealing, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Deedes, L.

Best, L.

Denham, L.

Bhatia, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Biffen, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Birt, L.

Donoughue, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Dundee, E.

Blaker, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blatch, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Elles, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Borrie, L.

Elton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Erroll, E.

Bowness, L.

Ezra, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Falkland, V.

Brennan, L.

Feldman, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fellowes, L.

Bridges, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brightman, L.

Filkin, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Flather, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Fowler, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Freeman, L.

Brookman, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Geddes, L.

Burnham, L.

Geraint, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Glentoran, L.

Butterworth, L.

Golding, B. [Teller]

Byford, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Caithness, E.

Goodhart, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Goschen, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Grabiner, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Greengross, B.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Carter, L.

Grenfell, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hanham, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Chan, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chandos, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Chorley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

1341

Hayman, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Henley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Mishcon, L.

Higgins, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Monson, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Montrose, D.

Hoffmann, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Holderness, L.

Moran, L.

Hollick, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Moser, L.

Home, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hooper, B.

Moynihan, L.

Hooson, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Naseby, L.

Howe, E.

Newby, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Noakes, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Northbourne, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Northbrook, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Northesk, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Hylton, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Onslow, E.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Palmer, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Palumbo, L.

Jopling, L.

Parekh, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Kelvedon, L.

Parkinson, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Patel, L.

Kimball, L.

Patten, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Kingsdown, L.

Peel, E.

Kingsland, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Peston, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Lane, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Plumb, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lindsay, E.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Lipsey, L.

Prior, L.

Listowel, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Liverpool, E.

Puttnam, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Pym, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Quinton, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lucas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Rees, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Renton, L.

Richard, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Rix, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Rogan, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Rooker, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Roper, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Marsh, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Saatchi, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

St Albans, Bp.

Methuen, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

1342

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Sandwich, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Tombs, L.

Selborne, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharman, L.

Varley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Vinson, L.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Waddington, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wakefield, Bp.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wakeham, L.

Simon, V.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Slim, V.

Walpole, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Warnock, B.

Stern, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Weinstock, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Wilkins, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L

Tebbit, L.

Wolfson, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Tenby, V.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Sand well, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bach, L.

Harrison, L.

Barker, B.

Haskel, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hattersley, L.

Billingham, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blease, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jones, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Laird, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Levy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dixon, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Fookes, B.

Pendry, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Goudie, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Tope, L.

Grocott, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hamwee, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 366 names, the Clerks recorded 365 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Hunting with Dogs: Supervision
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That this House considers that arrangements for the supervision of the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be given statutory effect by provision similar to Schedule 1 to the Hunting Bill as introduced into the Commons in Session 2000–01 [Bill 2] (Supervision).—(Lord Whitty.)
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Best, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Bhatia, L.

Listowel, E.

Blackwell, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blaker, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Blatch, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monson, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Byford, B.

Moran, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Noakes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbrook, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Palmer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Parkinson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Patten, L.

Crathorne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Deedes, L.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Dundee, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prior, L.

Elles,B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Elton, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Feldman, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sharman, L.

Fowler, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Greenway, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hanham, B.

Stewartby, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Strange, B.

Home, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Waddington, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Wakeham, L.

Kimball, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

1344

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Addington, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Alli, L.

Hollick, L.

Andrews, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barker, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Birt, L.

Laird, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bridges, L.

Lofthouseof Pontefract, L.

Brightman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Carter, L.

Methuen, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Chan, L.

Mitchell, L.

Chandos, V.

Morgan, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Moser, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newby, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Onslow, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Palumbo, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pendry, L.

Dholakia, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dixon, L.

Radice, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Roper, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Flather, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fookes, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Freyberg, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gale, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Stallard, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Greengross, B.

Tope, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grocott, L.

Walmsley, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Wedderbun of Charlton, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hattersley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.

Hunting with Dogs: Supervision
  CORRECTION
  At col. 1066 of the Official Report for Friday, 15th March, the speech of the Lord Monson was wrongly attributed to the Lord Monro of Langholm.
  Legislation: ECHR Compatibility
  Legislation: ECHR Compatibility
  Public Guardianship Office
  Public Guardianship Office
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Firearms Consultative Committee Report
  Firearms Consultative Committee Report
  Policing White Paper
  Policing White Paper
  Pension Funds: Changes to Corporation Tax
  Pension Funds: Changes to Corporation Tax
  Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
  Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
  Angola: UK Business Representatives
  Angola: UK Business Representatives
  GATS: Exhaustion of Natural Resources
  GATS: Exhaustion of Natural Resources
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  Green Claims Panel
  Green Claims Panel
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Northamptonshire CHCs
  Northamptonshire CHCs
  Sickle Cell Disease
  Sickle Cell Disease
  Future Healthcare
  Future Healthcare
  NHS Cord Blood Banks
  NHS Cord Blood Banks
  Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis
  Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Hypoglycaemic Reaction in Pupils
  Hypoglycaemic Reaction in Pupils
  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mixed Sex Wards
  OECD Documents
  OECD Documents