Sitting of 15 May 2002

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 22 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Poverty Reduction Strategy
    Mr. David Rendel: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her poverty reduction strategy in reducing poverty. [54737]
    The Secretary of State for International Development: The Government's strategy for reducing global poverty is set out in the 1997 and 2000 White Papers on international development. Our commitment is to mobilise the international system to meet the international development targets and to work to make globalisation work for the poor by making international governance more equitable. These are massive challenges but progress is being made.
    Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State will know that education plays a very important part in the reduction of poverty. What discussions has she had with the International Monetary Fund with a view to including within public spending targets the freeing up of any charges for primary education, so that we can have universal primary education by 2015?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the countries where we have driven forward and supported local efforts to get progress towards universal primary education—Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania and Rwanda, for example, have made significant progress in recent years—dropping all charges is absolutely key. In very poor countries, when there are charges, poor children are excluded from school. At the recent spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, there was an agreement for
    758
    10 major countries to work together in the international system to fast-track progress. Our recommendations also included no charging, so we are moving forward.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, recently, the interim chemical review committee of the United Nations Environment Programme recommended that there should be strict international controls on asbestos because of the risk associated with that material? Will she therefore, at the Monterrey conference on financing development, and at the world summit in Johannesburg on sustainable development, press for a ban on the use of asbestos in projects in the developing world as part of a strategy to tackle poverty? The use of asbestos causes ill health, deprivation and poverty.
    Clare Short: I confess that I was not aware of that ruling by the United Nations body to which my hon. Friend refers. The Monterrey conference has taken place, but I take very seriously what he said. I went to Sverdlovsk in Russia, where asbestos is still being mined and its extraction and export is still being promoted. I tried to tell its mayor that that is not approved of in our country, and he had never heard of the argument that asbestos is damaging to health. Clearly, therefore, a great deal remains to be done to strengthen international controls. I shall look into the proposals that my hon. Friend has made to see what can be done.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Would the Secretary of State agree that those who suffer most in a corrupt society are the poor, and that her poverty reduction strategies are torpedoed by the poor governance, ineffectiveness and corruption of Governments in the developing world? Will she underline to the House her determination, which I know is strong, to ensure that developing countries' Governments take responsibility for their actions, and that they do not always blame donor countries for their poor actions?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that corruption corrodes economic growth, means that resources are misused, and leads to debt problems. The poor pay the price in terms of poverty, suffering and lack of public facilities. Corruption is a two-way street: companies from countries like ours have corrupted, bribed and helped to bring about some of the imploded and corrupt state institutions that exist in some countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention now makes it a crime to offer a bribe to a public official abroad, and bribes are ceasing to be tax deductible in those OECD countries where, to our disgrace, that used to be the case. Under the poverty reduction strategy, we are giving financial support to Governments to help them with development if they tighten up procurement and management of the public finances. We are therefore putting much more focus on that, and we are getting progress. I agree that that is crucial.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the way in which the Secretary of State has focused the Department's attention on poverty reduction, and particularly the role that country strategy papers have played in that. With particular reference to the Cameroon

    759
    country strategy paper, which has focused on forestry as a key way of bringing people out of poverty in that country, will she comment on the importance of assessing natural resources such as the forest, and the bush meat that it contains, when considering how best to bring some of the poorest communities in west and central Africa out of poverty?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Forests are crucial to Cameroon. The country has a long history of terrible corruption, but we have been working on the issue of forestry for some time. Some types of tree are unique to Cameroon and they are of value to the whole international community. We have made progress recently. We have learned from what has happened in Nepal, Cameroon, Indonesia and other places where we support forestry that the way in which to protect the future of the forest is to empower the people who live in the forest and on its resources. In most parts of the world, criminal and corrupt groups misuse the forests. However, when one changes ownership and control of the trees and the animals, people live better and conserve the future of the forest. That is what we are trying to achieve in Cameroon.
    John Barrett: Will the Secretary of State outline what can be done in post-conflict countries? Some of the poorest people live in countries where it is most difficult to get aid through to the most needy.
    Clare Short: Yes, indeed—although it has to be said that people living under conditions of conflict are even more oppressed and in trouble. We have to do better at resolving conflict. Some 20 per cent. of the population of Africa live under conditions of conflict. Often that conflict is not a war in the classic sense, but reflects the problems found in weak states with rebels and semi-criminal groups. We have to bring such conflicts to an end and start building the institutions of a state so that the economy can be properly managed and that people have a better future. We are doing that in Sierra Leone, where elections took place right across the territory and the conflict is over. However, there is much more to do in Sierra Leone.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we work only in countries where there is an orderly Government to carry out development, the wretched of the earth will not be helped. We must be better at ending conflict and helping build decent institutions in post-conflict failed states, so that the poor of the world have a better chance in life.

    Universal Primary Education
    Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on progress towards the goal of universal primary education. [54738]
    The Secretary of State for International Development: Recent World Bank analysis indicates that 67 developing countries have achieved universal primary education or are making sound progress. However, 88 countries—34 of them in sub-Saharan Africa—are not on track to achieve this goal. We agreed at the spring meeting of the World Bank in April that 10 countries would be selected for an international effort to fast-track progress. I am very concerned to try to ensure that we should select countries where we face a major challenge, such as
    760
    Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan and India, and not, as has been suggested, countries such as Uganda, Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania where we are already making progress.
    Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend has half answered the question that I was about to ask, so I shall push her further on the issue. It is estimated that Africa will have 75 per cent. of the world's out-of-school children in the next decade so how will she consult the less-favoured countries there that have not made progress until now? How will she involve them in the 10 fast-track programmes? Ensuring that those countries become involved and can construct education plans is the best way to get universal primary education in Africa, which is where it is most needed.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. One in five children of the world and half the children in Africa are not in school. Africa is in deep poverty, and the future will be poor if children cannot get to school and improve their lives. It is often said that the only problem is a lack of aid, but there is a lack of will in many countries to prioritise universal primary education. Education resources are spent on higher education for the elite, and there is no primary education for poor children.
    We must not only provide money for the reformers—that is the easy part—but push the countries that are not reforming and that are not leading to make progress. For example, Ethiopia, which is terribly poor and very populous, is just beginning to make such progress, and we must back its efforts. Nigeria is the big worry: one in five of all Africans are not making progress, and we certainly need a big effort in Nigeria
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State knows that the 2015 goal of universal primary education is unlikely to be achieved unless finance for development increases rapidly and substantially. Although I welcome the assurance that the United Kingdom's development assistance will rise from 0.33 per cent. of GNP by 2004, does she not agree that the figure is misleading because it includes all debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries, including the Export Credits Guarantee Department debt that currently stands at £1.1 billion? The actual increase in aid will be much smaller than it seems. Is that not another example of double counting by the Government?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is half right. There is no subterfuge on the part of the United Kingdom Government. She is aware of the budget increase of £2.2 billion to £3.6 billion, which I hope will rise significantly as a result of the comprehensive spending review. All that money is under my control: it is disbursed by my Department, and there is no double counting. But the OECD development committee is responsible for keeping the international statistics on aid, including what counts as overseas development assistance and how much each country deploys. It has decided that when debt is written off, and half of the debt of the heavily indebted poor countries is ECGD debt or the equivalent, that counts towards overseas development assistance. So the figures for all countries are growing as debt is written off without

    761
    extra money being spent on aid. There is no subterfuge in the UK, hut the figures look better than the income for disbursal.
    Jean Corston: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the many schools in this country on calling to the attention of students—this country's future electors—the importance of the drive to ensure that there is universal primary education by 2015? In particular, will she join me in congratulating children from St. George community college in my constituency who came to the House a fortnight ago and met me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to press the importance of the drive to educate all the children of the world by 2015?
    Clare Short: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the children from St. George community college in her constituency. When I visit schools, I find that our children are globalising themselves. They are looking at the world not in terms of nation states, but in terms of the planet and the interdependence of people, both morally and for the good of the poor. They are aware that if we do not do better on poverty, the future is dangerous for them all.
    We have incorporated in the national curriculum the idea of global citizenship because children are entitled to understand the world that they are inheriting and to take some control over its future. We also have twinning schemes between schools in the UK and overseas which are enormously popular. It is moving to see the generosity and curiosity of our children, and their determination to have a more equitable and safe world for the future.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: How confident can the Secretary of State be that British Government aid that is allocated to assist with the provision of primary education, especially in Africa, is not syphoned off improperly as a result of corruption so that it never gets to the children who need educating? She will be aware of the estimate that 75 million Commonwealth children lack basic education. The Government announced a Commonwealth education fund to assist with the aim of educating those children. That is fine in theory, but only £10 million is involved, which works out at 15p per child. Is that anything more than a political gimmick?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is so graceless, and always wrong. First, we have tight systems in place and do not put funding into the budgets of countries to support their primary education systems without helping them with procurement and public sector financial management. The prize of that is that our money is secure and they have better systems for their own resources. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take enormous care.
    Secondly, as ever, the hon. Gentleman has not read his facts properly. Since 1997, the UK Government have committed £650 million to driving forward universal primary education, and we will do more. The Chancellor announced a £10 million scheme to mark the Queen's jubilee—graceless, again, to attack that—to back British non-governmental organisations that work in countries where there is a lack of progress so that we help
    762
    marginalised children and increase the demand for progress in universal primary education. That is what the £10 million is for.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the G8 summit in Canada later this year. Will she ensure that she backs the calls by the Canadian Finance Minister for a review of the HIPC initiative so that poverty reduction and educational programmes are put in place, which will free up more money? She is of course aware that, post-11 September, the fall in commodity prices, for example, has made a big difference to debt sustainability in the poorest countries. Will she throw her weight behind the calls to review the HIPC initiative to make it work for the world's poorest?
    Clare Short: Those calls come not just from the Canadian Government; the World Bank, the IMF and all of us have been saying not that HIPC should be reviewed but that we must ensure that it is properly funded. It has a formula for debt sustainability which takes account of what a country earns in exports to pay its foreign currency debt. Because of the falling commodity prices, Uganda, for example, has exited because the process is not sustainable and the old formulas do not work. We need an extra £1 billion of resources to get sustainability, and we are working hard on that.
    I hope that the argument about the replenishment of the International Development Association facility, the concessional lending arm of the World Bank, results in a grant being allocated which will solve the problem. I am hopeful that that will be done by the time the G8 meets, but I cannot be certain.

    Tanzania (Air Traffic Control Equipment)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the IMF and World Bank assessments of the contributions to Tanzania's development of air traffic control equipment supplied from the UK. [54739]
    The Secretary of State for International Development: It is clear that Tanzania needs a civilian air traffic control system to ensure safety in the country's air space. The issue is whether the proposed system meets Tanzania's needs, and represents value for money. The Government of Tanzania and the World Bank await the report of the International Civil Aviation Organisation on whether the BAE system best meets Tanzania's needs.
    Dr. Cable: First, may I acknowledge the Secretary of State's role in resisting pressure from the defence industry and from her own colleagues on that project? Will she confirm that at present £80 million of aid to Tanzania is being withheld because of her reservations about the project? Will she explain how the financial promoters, Barclays and BAE Systems, managed to circumvent very strict IMF rules on commercial lending to seriously indebted countries?
    Clare Short: I have been looking at the figures for total UK arms sales to Africa. In 1999, the value of those sales was some £60 million, and in 2000 it was £120 million, out of total British arms sales of about £6 billion. We could afford to tighten up our scrutiny of arms sales

    763
    to some of the poorest countries, and I hope that as a consequence of the discussions about Tanzania that will happen.
    The aid that I have withheld from Tanzania is £10 million. I hope that once we have the report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and assuming that Tanzania responds to it in the best way and in the interests of the country and of poor people, we will be able to give it more help to solve its problem.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: under the HIPC initiative, countries cannot borrow unless the loan is concessional. Somehow a loan from Barclays Bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance—so squashing some of the rumours—that the civil aviation air traffic control system will not be used for the control and movement of military aircraft?
    Clare Short: We have not seen the new International Civil Aviation Organisation report, but an interim report suggested that the system is dual use. Much of the expense on it is military, and the system does not cover the whole country. Tanzania does not have many military aeroplanes, and that is part of the problem.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State optimistic that aid to Tanzania will be resumed relatively soon? Looking forward, does she agree with Dr. Janet Hemingway, the director of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine, who came to speak to the all-party Tanzania group on Monday, that the biggest blight on the people of Tanzania, malaria and HIV/AIDS, is best dealt with by channelling that aid into building many local diagnostic centres and training doctors? For every three doctors trained, only one lives to be in practice because the other two die of AIDS in the meantime.
    Clare Short: Tanzania is doing very well. It really is reforming; inflation is down and economic growth is up. It is beginning to move forward on universal primary education and to make schooling free so that many poor children can enter school. Apart from the blight of the BAE system, then, Tanzania is making progress. We are the biggest provider of aid to the country, and we have provided large funds this year. We are holding back the £10 million so that we get a decent outcome once we have the report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman—more children die of malaria in Africa than of any other illness. There is a great deal that we could do. If people slept under impregnated bed nets, that would save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of ill health. We have to build up local systems to deal with malaria and HIV/AIDS, and we must train people to work locally, rather than inciting doctors to leave their country when it has too few of them.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: We have just heard a relatively rosy assessment of Tanzania's economic potential, but I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts
    764
    that depriving a poor country of £10 million is bound to have an impact. Does she accept that a question hangs over the logic of her decision to withhold aid and thus punish the Tanzanian people for a decision that was sanctioned not only by the Government of Tanzania, but by her own Government?
    Clare Short: No, I am afraid the hon. Lady does not yet properly understand development. If countries have weak procurement systems and they purchase projects that do not give value for money and are not beneficial to their country, they undermine their economic development.
    One of the consequences and benefits of the argument is that Tanzania has tightened up its procurement systems. When it completed its debt-relief process, Tanzania gave an undertaking to the World Bank board that it would review the contract, but the Government of Tanzania came under pressure to break that undertaking. We have said that we will hold back the £l0 million and that when we have the report and if we can get a good outcome for Tanzania, we will assist Tanzania to take forward the process. That is the right thing to do. We do not give aid unconditionally where there are bad procurement and bad contracts and so end up using aid money to subsidise a bad contract that is damaging a country.

    EU Aid
    Tony Baldry: When she next expects to meet Commissioner Patten to discuss the proportion of the external affairs budget which is allocated to poor countries. [54740]
    The Secretary of State for International Development: I meet Commissioner Patten and his colleagues regularly. He and Commissioner Nielson are committed to reforming the EC development systems to increase their effectiveness, but they are not convinced that budget funds should be allocated to reduce poverty. EC spending in Asia, where two thirds of the poor live, is therefore very small.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that if EU aid were properly focused it could be an enormous power for good, but that a system in which more money is given to Poland than to the whole of Asia is simply unsustainable? We have a collective responsibility to persuade political colleagues in Europe, whether they are Christian Democrats, Liberals or Socialists, that EU development aid must now be poverty-focused. We all know the problem; it is time that we all collectively shared responsibility for work to find a solution.
    Clare Short: I agree completely. The EC spends 3.38 euros per head in the Mediterranean, but only 0.15 in Asia. That is a disgraceful misallocation of resources, but we need co-operation across the EU and across all parties to put it right. I agree also that if Europe, which is the world's largest single market and the biggest destination for developing countries' exports, and which accounts for 60 per cent. of the world's development

    765
    assistance, could focus its aid well, it could be an enormous force for good in the world. We must try to achieve that.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State knows that 15 per cent. of the EU's money goes to the middle east even though only 1 per cent. of the world's poorest people live there. None the less, when working on reform of the system, will she bear in mind the fact that some of that money is vital to rebuild the Palestinian Authority and repair the damage done to Palestinian refugee camps? Will she state the Government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that EU aid continues to be received by the Palestinian Authority and that the money is used to rebuild and to further peace in the area?
    Clare Short: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute undertaking in respect of both my Department's budget and that of the EU. We must help the Palestinian people to survive and provide the humanitarian relief that is needed, but how much better it would be to direct those resources to building the new Palestinian state—a competent state that cares for its people, manages its resources well and is a good neighbour to Israel. That is the work that we all want to undertake.
    Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatridge and Chryston): When my right hon. Friend meets Commissioner Patten, might she not find that he is a little envious, given that, although he was a Minister responsible for international development, he was never appointed to the Cabinet because the then Prime Minister did not regard the matter as seriously as today's Prime Minister rightly does? However, as Commissioner Patten is a fair man, will my right hon. Friend encourage him to encourage European nations and those who seek membership of the EU to set a date for the achievement of the 0.7 per cent. of GDP UN aid target?
    Clare Short: Mr. Patten was later appointed to the Cabinet, but not in his role as Minister for Overseas Development, which he said was the best the job that he had ever had in politics. I should not be telling the House that, but it is a fine job. We can do a lot and it matters enormously. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard what my right hon. Friend just said about UK resources for development.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Select Committee report is intensely critical of the European overseas aid programme, and the Secretary of State shares in the criticism about the priorities upon which the money is spent, yet her Department is set to increase the amount that we spend through Europe to more than £l billion by 2003–04. Does the right hon. Lady agree that although the Council disposes decisions in Europe, the decisions are made by the member states? If the Secretary of State maintains that she has a strong voice in Europe, it appears that Europe is simply not listening.
    Clare Short: No, I would not agree. There has been agreement in the EU that present practices are inefficient and that there has to be major reform, and a major reform agenda has been set in place. At the last review of the amount of EU development assistance, we kept the rise to
    766
    1 per cent. Under the Conservative Government the increase was 180 per cent., and unfortunately there was no reform effort. I am trying to clean up the mess.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Five days ago, we learned that the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Foreign Secretary saying that a "clear majority" of the people of Gibraltar were "opposed to the negotiations" being carried out by his Government and the Government of Spain. Will he therefore now seriously consider the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that those negotiations should be suspended forthwith?
    The Prime Minister: No, we will carry on negotiating in the way that we have described, as set out under the Brussels process that began in 1984, initiated by the Conservative Government.
    Helen Southworth: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the staff, volunteers, parents and children of Westy sure start, which has just celebrated its first anniversary? I have been privileged to join them in the past 12 months and it has been a lot of fun, but it is fun that underpins a serious aim—to promote the physical, social and intellectual well-being of babies and young children in a disadvantaged part of my constituency. It is breaking the cycle of disadvantage and giving them opportunities to flourish at home and at school. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend make sure that many more children have the opportunity to have a sure start in life? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that Conservative Members do not approve, but sure start is now helping 400,000 children throughout the country. The Conservatives may scorn such measures, but sure start, investment in education and the new deal for the unemployed are important measures; if we are taking strong and tough anti-crime measures, which we should do, measures that tackle the causes of crime are important too.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Why are there now more managers than beds in the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: We have increased the number of beds. The number rose in the last year for the first time. I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he is

    767
    saying that good management in the NHS is not important. It is important, and one reason why last Friday's figures show not just every single section of in-patient waiting lists down, but out-patient waiting lists down below the levels that we inherited, is good management within the health service.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should remember what he actually said. In his 1997 manifesto, he said:
    "And a greater proportion of every pound spent will go on patient care not bureaucracy."
    The NHS now has 210,000 managers, but fewer than 200,000 beds, so he has failed. It is small wonder that if looks at his own Office for National Statistics report, he will see that it tells us today that productivity in the health service has been declining since he took over. Will he now confirm that half the extra money that he has put into health care has not gone into improved treatment for patients?
    The Prime Minister: The report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—I think that it is the ONS report about which there were newspaper reports this morning—deals with the position up to 1999. It also makes it clear that it does not take into account improvement in the quality of health care. I believe, as the recent NHS Modernisation Board report showed, that the quality of health care is indeed improving. That is why, although the right hon. Gentleman used to be able to say to me that waiting lists were up for this month or that month, or that out-patient lists were above the inherited level, virtually every single indicator is now moving in the right direction, precisely because of the extra investment that we are putting into the health service, which he opposes.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: After all that nonsense, no wonder the Prime Minister is being sponsored by the owner of the Fantasy Channel; it is absolutely idiotic. He knows that the public do not believe any longer that there will be any significant increase or improvement in health care. What they want to see is guaranteed treatment within four weeks, as in Denmark, no waiting lists, as in Germany, and the ability to choose their hospital, as in France. Will the Prime Minister answer this very simple question: will he tell us now whether we will get European standards of health care for European levels of spending by the next election? A simple yes or no.
    The Prime Minister: We have set out precisely the targets that we will reach by the next election and we have set out when we will hit, and, indeed, exceed the European Union spending average. However, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about bed numbers and waiting in the health service, let us remember that the Conservative Government cut beds by 60,000 and saw waiting lists increase by 400,000. They ask what we have been doing for five years; I will tell them. We have half a million more operations and 1.3 million more out-patient appointments, and waiting times as well as lists are falling against every indicator. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we have to do far more to get our health care standards up. That is why we are prepared to put additional investment into the national health service. Can we have a response from him on this question: is he in
    768
    favour of that additional investment in the national health service or not? If he is not, all his protestations about his concern for health care are just hot air.
    Ian Lucas: In Wrexham and north-east Wales there are 400 retired miners who have registered compensation claims for emphysema and are still waiting to be medically examined. They are elderly and vulnerable, and some of them are very ill. Will the Prime Minister, as head of the Labour movement, give me his assurance today that until all those men are seen, their local fixed-site testing centre in Wrexham will remain open?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the sensitivity of that issue in my hon. Friends constituency. Of course, it is only as a result of our introduction of compensation for miners in such a position that the issue arises at all. I have heard exactly what he has said, and if he will allow me, I shall look into the matter and correspond with him.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In his television interview last night, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the state of the railways today is worse than when he became Prime Minister. Will he address the obvious question: why is it that, five years after the shambles of privatisation, a Labour Government have not done more to redress the situation?
    The Prime Minister: I also explained why we did not take Railtrack back into public ownership in 1997. I explained, too, that the main issue that has arisen since 1997 has been what Hatfield revealed—that is, the need to restructure and re-engineer virtually entire parts of the track on British railways. It is precisely for that reason that it is important that we move away from the old Railtrack situation, whereby it was looking after its shareholders before its passengers. That is precisely why it is in administration at the moment. In addition, we must ensure that we get the investment into the railways for the future. That investment will deliver results, but it will take time.
    Mr. Kennedy: Obviously, none of us would want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that will take place into last week's terrible accident. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister will acknowledge, as will the whole House, that the public want, expect and deserve safe, reliable and affordable rail services. Given that the timetable for implementing the recommendations for greater safety has been delayed, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to say that he will put fresh pressure on Railtrack to bring forward those recommendations sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: First, the whole House would want to express its sympathy to the families who lost loved ones in the Potters Bar accident. Our thoughts are with them today in particular, as some of the first funerals of the victims of that accident are being held.
    Secondly, without in any way minimising what took place at Potters Bar or the need urgently to make sure that we understand the lessons from it, it is important to stress—as, indeed, people from within the industry have been stressing—that, looking back over the past 20 years, overall safety on the railways is improving, not declining.

    769
    Over the past few years, for example, collisions are down by some 12 per cent. and derailments are down by more than 20 per cent. The number of signals passed at danger—SPADs—is the lowest ever recorded. None of that detracts in any shape or form from what has happened, but it would be wrong to say that the whole railway system is in a state that means we need to fear for its safety.
    Thirdly, in relation to the Cullen recommendations, the majority are either being introduced or have been introduced—or, where particular problems have arisen, we are working with the industry to introduce them. Of course, I certainly accept that they have to be introduced.
    Rachel Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first sailing, later this week, of the super-fast Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry from my constituency? Does he agree that that will be a real boost to the Scottish economy and tourist industry? Does he further agree that Rosyth's redevelopment would not have happened without partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish and European Parliaments, which, along with Fife council, Forth Ports and Scottish Enterprise Fife, have in five years transformed an area that had been left devastated?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the initiative that my hon. Friend describes. I understand that the existence of the ferry as a means of transport will relieve something in the region of 2.4 million lorry miles, so it has a beneficial environmental impact as well. My hon. Friend is of course right to congratulate all those who brought about the initiative. In particular, I know that she would want to point out that as a result of the measures taken by all the bodies that she mentioned, unemployment has halved in her area in the past five years.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will the Prime Minister at last recognise the need for a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic, especially as foreign travel has now resumed, not least between Britain and South Korea, where this week there was an outbreak of that disease?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that I have explained many times before. I believe that the inquiries that are under way will provide the lessons that we need to learn.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Has my right hon. Friend read articles in the newspapers this week and last week about European Commission proposals to vet eurozone member countries' budgets before they are put to their Parliaments, and to reinterpret the Maastricht treaty more strictly in future? United Kingdom deficits arising from the Chancellor's recent increased spending on health will be well outside current eurozone limits. Does that not make a strong case for remaining outside the eurozone for the foreseeable future?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: Plenty of support over there—but I am afraid that I cannot agree. Only yesterday, the
    770
    Commission congratulated the Chancellor on his exceptional, prudent and brilliant management of our economy.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister talks a lot about using the benefits system; recently he suggested using it to punish criminals. Last year he launched a scheme to cut benefits for criminals who breached their community service orders. Can he tell us how many criminals have had their benefit cut?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many criminals overall have had their benefit cut. However, I can tell him that the combination of orders, not only those to which he refers but antisocial behaviour orders, reparation orders and action orders for young people, too, run into many thousands.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer is only 39. The Prime Minister said, as he is fond of saying, that the scheme would make criminals serve the sentences that they were given. How many criminals have completed their community service orders?
    The Prime Minister: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that as a result of our measures, crime has fallen whereas it doubled under the Conservatives. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it doubled. Not only the community service orders but the new supervision penalties for those serving community sentences, halving the time it takes juvenile offenders to get to court, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and our other measures to toughen up the criminal justice system are making a difference. The Conservative party opposed them all. The orders to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are an important part of magistrates' and courts' powers.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should try telling that to the British people, who know that violent crime is rising, not falling. The answer to my question, according to his latest figures, is that 40,000 criminals have failed to serve their sentences—yet only 39 have had their benefits docked. So that was just another gimmick. The public know that violent crime is increasing. Instead of gimmicks, would not it be better to do what they want, and put real police back on the streets, not confine them to their police stations?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about police numbers, but in the few years before we came to office, they were falling, not rising. The Government have increased police numbers to the largest ever. I agree that there is a genuine problem with street and violent crime.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Do something about it.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Do something about it." That is precisely what we are doing. I shall tell him what we are doing, and find out whether he supports it. We are increasing the number of police officers; he opposed the necessary investment. We say that persistent offenders should not be bailed if they are on drugs; he opposed that. We say that the proceeds of drug dealers' crimes should be taken from them; the

    771
    Conservatives also opposed that measure. We say that there should be more community safety officers to help the police; the right hon. Gentleman opposes that. He also opposed the measure to halve the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court. There is a problem, but the difference between us is that we are dealing with it, and he is simply exploiting it.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see, hear or read reports of the happy and peaceful scenes in Sierra Leone yesterday when many people voted in their parliamentary and presidential elections? After 10 years of bloody civil war, does not Sierra Leone's return to peace and democracy in four short months show that Britain's decisive military intervention, backed up by United Nations peacekeepers and democracy-building organisations such as our Westminster Foundation for Democracy, can give hope and encouragement to other countries in Africa and elsewhere that are currently riven by conflict?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to his work in helping people in Sierra Leone. It is moving that as a result of work by this country, and by our armed forces in particular, Sierra Leone was returned to democracy. People there value their democracy. I agree that that sends the right signal across the world about the prospects for Africa, and that is as important as anything else. I hope that, as part of the partnership initiative that we take to the G8 this year, we can get stronger measures to deal with some of the outstanding conflicts in Africa that blight the lives of people, notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sudan.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I agree with him that fuel poverty, which results when people have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on heating, is unacceptable and should be eliminated. Does he agree that council tax poverty is equally unacceptable? Under his Government, why do more than 1 million pensioners have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax? What is he going to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: What we have done is to increase the amount of money going to councils by some 20 per cent., whereas the hon. Gentleman's Government were cutting it. As for fuel poverty, most people remember that the Government of whom he was a member introduced VAT on fuel. I do not think that pensioners liked that. What is more, the Conservatives opposed the £200 winter allowance and the additional sums of money going to pensioners, so I am afraid that I cannot take his protestations very seriously—although I thank him for agreeing with me.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday the House debated the modernisation of its procedures, and in particular, the replacement of the Committee of Selection with a
    772
    Committee that would not consist wholly of party Whips. The Prime Minister did not record a vote yesterday. May I ask for his views on the issue?
    The Prime Minister: I support the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but there was a free vote—as the House would expect on such issues—and the House has spoken.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Faced with overwhelming evidence of IRA involvement in the promotion of terrorism in Colombia, what action does the Prime Minister propose to take against the IRA as part of his war against terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that that is a serious issue, and that is why we are making it quite clear to Sinn Fein, and to any paramilitary organisations, that such behaviour is unacceptable. However—[Interruption.] I ask Conservative Members to reflect a little—when they oppose every single stage of what happens in Northern Ireland—on how much the last five years have brought Northern Ireland, and on how totally irresponsible it would have been if we had broken the bipartisanship that we used to offer the Conservatives on this issue. That included not criticising the Conservative Government when it was revealed that they were in secret talks with Sinn Fein and the IRA. I would have hoped that the same responsibility that characterised our relations with them when they were in office would characterise their relations with us, but I am afraid that I am disappointed.
    Denzil Davies: Following his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that there is a common monetary policy in the euro area while budgetary policy is, in the main, still in the hands of the 12 nation states, it is not unreasonable for the Commission to argue for more of a common budgetary policy? Otherwise, economic convergence in the euro area will not continue, and the currency will not be stable on the international markets.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the position that is presently being taken in Europe about the degree of co-ordination, but I would point out to my right hon. Friend—as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North a moment ago—that the Commission has supported this Government's Budget. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that we obviously differ on the issue of the single currency. The Government have an established position on that issue, and it is important that we recognise that the single currency is a reality today, and that we deal with that reality.
    Mr. David Chidgey: What reply would the Prime Minister suggest that my colleagues and I give to the dozens of our constituents who complain that each of them must be one of the only two whom he claims are unfortunate enough to have been waiting more than 15 months for an operation?
    The Prime Minister: In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in others, health service spending has been increased hugely, far beyond anything that people thought of before. The waiting list figures are drawn up

    773
    on precisely the same basis as they were under the Conservative Government, and they are now below the levels that we inherited in 1997.
    I would say first to people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as I say to people elsewhere, let us not exaggerate the number who have to wait. In fact, 75 per cent. of operations are now performed within three months, and the health service has much to be proud of. Secondly, I would say that we agree that there is still a problem with access. The only answer is to increase capacity in the health service. We are doing that with the investment that we are making, which is far in excess of anything that the Liberal Democrats ever wanted us to invest.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: The Prime Minister will know that this is Christian Aid week, and that all over the country people are uniting in support of the Trade for Life campaign to help developing countries. As part of that campaign, I am due to present the Prime Minister with thousands of postcards from my constituents. Will he tell them today that he supports their campaign, and—because it is both morally and economically right—will he do all he can to persuade other world leaders that we must cut a fairer trade deal for people in the developing nations?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I hope very much that as part of the agreement on Africa at the G8, we can secure better provision for access to western markets—to wealthier countries' markets. I also strongly support the work that is being done during Christian Aid week. As the Chancellor has pointed out to me, because of the tax relief available under gift aid the money now goes much further. I am very proud of the work we are doing on aid and development, and I know that it has huge support in the country.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Leader of the House that there is now a centre of gravity in favour of reform of the House of Lords? Will the Government put a proposal in respect of the elected component of the reformed Upper Chamber to the Joint Committee? However, when there is a free vote in this House, will it be like the free vote that took place last night?
    The Prime Minister: There will certainly be a free vote, because there are hugely different views across the House. It would be very foolish of anyone to say that there was unanimity in any political party—either in this House or in the other place. We have chosen this way of proceeding because it is what was put to us during consultation by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. We listened, we have engaged with the process, and there will be a free vote at the end of the day—but I ask Members to realise that we will be deciding on the basis of what happens not just for this generation, but for future generations. I think we should act responsibly.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of when the dossier, which I believe that he says he has, on the situation relating to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
    774
    will be published? I think it very important for us to have full information before a decision is—we hope—made in the House of Commons.
    The Prime Minister: It would certainly be right to publish the dossier before any action was taken. We have not decided when to publish it, but if my hon. Friend or any other Member wants to know what Saddam Hussein has been up to—not the full details, which we can provide in due course if necessary, but the basic case against Saddam—he can already read the published information from the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq, which covers vast amounts of chemical and biological weapons as well as attempts to establish nuclear capability. As I always say, how we deal with the issue is open, but it is without doubt an issue, and there is enough published information to convince anyone of that.
    Hywel Williams: The Prime Minister is a "vision" sort of guy. What is his vision for Welsh manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: The vision is one of stability, and investment in skills and education. I think that despite the problems that manufacturing has experienced in Wales and elsewhere, for obvious reasons to do with the strength of the pound and the weakness of the euro, the single worst thing we could do is either lose control of Government finance or return to the old days of boom and bust—with 15 per cent. interest rates, and 10 per cent. interest rates for a year—or to the days when vast numbers of jobs and a vast amount of output were lost in manufacturing during the two recessions that we experienced under the Conservative Government. My vision is also of continued Labour government in Wales.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend join me and other hon. Members who represent seaside and coastal towns in welcoming the decision of the English Tourism Council to renew a marketing role? Will he go further and renew his focus on tourism so that by the time he comes to Blackpool for the Labour party conference in the autumn some of the anomalies in the standard spending assessment that discriminate against seaside towns will have been dealt with?
    The Prime Minister: We shall deal with the issues concerning the SSA in due course, as my hon. Friend knows. He is right about tourism, and that is why English local authorities have been given some £90 million to improve their ability to attract tourists. I am delighted to say that despite all the difficulties of last year and the year before, we have a thriving tourism industry and we shall do all we can to support it.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Is the Prime Minister aware that in recent years my home town of Kendal in Cumbria has not only suffered the impact of the foot and mouth crisis, which devastated tourism, to which he has just referred, but lost 352 jobs at AXA, 289 jobs at K Shoes—including 64 last month—and just

    775
    yesterday 210 jobs at Scottish Provident? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to consider the case for urgent extra help for that town?
    The Prime Minister: At least the hon. Gentleman did not ask for a public inquiry. The loss of jobs in his and other constituencies is terrible for the people concerned. I understand that. It is precisely why we have taken so many additional measures in the Employment Service and the new deal to make sure that people who lose their jobs
    776
    are given the chance of finding new ones. I do not think that we or any future Government will be able to tell people, "There is no way you can lose your job. We can protect you." We cannot say that, but we can say, "If you lose your job we will give you the best chance of getting a new one." That is what we are doing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other constituencies up and down the country, and that is why today there are about 1.5 million more jobs in the economy than there were five years ago.

National Cancer
3.31 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cancer services and to establish priority for the treatment of cancer in the allocation of resources within the national health service.
Right hon. and hon. Members could reasonably ask why there is a need for such a Bill, given the Government's positive moves in national health service and cancer services funding since May 1997. Indeed, there are those who argue that we can sit back and wait for it all to happen—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly please?
Dr. Gibson: There are those who argue that even if the diagnosis rate of one in three becomes one in two, given the increased longevity of the population in this country, we will be covered by current plans. It is also possible that cancer will become a chronic disease, we will live longer with it and advances in medical science will allow us to contain it for longer.
The Government reacted with determination to the Select Committee's July 2000 report on cancer services. They invested in radiotherapy equipment and set up the National Cancer Research Institute, incorporating charities, industry, research councils and Government Departments in a new, exciting partnership that has concentrated on a national strategy to improve cancer services, set up new research programmes, scrutiny of those programmes, advance clinical trials and arrange treatment in our cancer centres and hospital departments.
The Select Committee report also said that long-term continuity of purpose underwritten by an Act had served cancer research well in the USA. On the other side of the big pond, the National Cancer Act 1971 is now the subject of a campaign for revision by the US Senate. It is a robust Act that has stood the test of time. It has ensured that, year in, year out, the US health budget for cancer services and research is ring fenced and given bypass budget status. It has ensured long-term planning independent of bureaucratic delays and battles over funding.
The Bill would, I hope, provide the same in the UK and ensure that we have a truly national cancer programme. It would strengthen and solidify the authority of the National Cancer Research Institute, placing its funding on a statutory basis, thereby enabling it to tackle current problems of the postcode lottery, drug approvals, clinical trials and cancer registration, which is a thorny problem.
To ensure delivery, we might take a leaf from the USA, which is setting up a network of tsars—cancer quarterbacks, as they are called over there—whose remit is to ensure that each patient throughout the nation is guided through the cancer journey, from diagnosis to treatment and care. The success of the USA's programme—to which the need for this Bill is related—involves paying off the debts of medical and nursing
778
students to get them into the system; the training of new researchers, nurses and other groups; further regulation of tobacco sales; and new screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. The list goes on and on.
Although it is true that the financing systems in America are different, I do not mention America because it has a different system of health care provision. Such an initiative should prove easier in this country, because we have just one system: our national health service. American legislation ensures research and clinical development, so treatment and care merge into one another to give better patient benefits. Bill Clinton says that cancer deserves the same respect as the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism and the war effort at home. We might decry his use of military terminology in respect of cancer, but the House will get the message.
Year on year, we need to address the problems and to match the excellence achieved in cancer hospitals such as the Royal Marsden and the Christie. As an ex-medical colleague said to me the other day:
"The best cancer services in this country are provided by dedicated cancer hospitals, such as the Marsden, the Christie, etc. In these hospitals people get faster and better investigation and treatment, usually with newer drugs and types of treatment than are available elsewhere. The physicians at these hospitals are the engine room. of clinical cancer research in Britain. They provide treatment which cannot be bettered anywhere in the world.
At present, UK clinicians cannot compete with their US colleagues because they are working with their hands tied. It is hard to enter patients into trials."
With national cancer legislation to support the National Cancer Research Institute, we could set up clinical trials comparable with those in the United States. In 1999, America set up breast cancer trials, and had the luxury of being able to compare drugs such as tamoxifen and raloxifen. The Americans put us in the shade with programmes that merge clinical research and treatment.
There is now great confidence—precipitated by the activity of this Government—in the cancer movement and community in this country. What is required is the surety of an ongoing funding mechanism. which would result in the better survival rates and treatments for which we are aiming.
The Bill would provide the necessary stability to ensure that existing cancer structures are funded, and that new initiatives are encouraged year on year. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Ian Gibson, Joan Ruddock, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Jane Griffiths, Dr. Desmond Turner, Mrs. Patsy Calton, Jonathan Shaw and Sandra Gidley.

National Cancer
  NATIONAL CANCER
  Dr. Ian Gibson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for cancer services and to establish priority for the treatment of cancer in the allocation of resources within the National Health Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 137].
Opposition Day
  13TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Post Office Closures
    Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.38 pm
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
    That this House is deeply concerned that, with 10 months left for the transition to automatic credit transfer for the Post Office's 16 million benefit and pension customers, there is great uncertainty and confusion hanging over the network; believes that, in the absence of new sources of income to replace the lost £400 million, many post offices will close, including a third of all urban post offices; is alarmed by reports that new initiatives promised under the PIU Report are failing, in particular that the Your Guide programme is being downgraded and that planning of the Post Office Card Account is well behind schedule; has little confidence that the commercial banks have the ability or motivation to meet the financial needs of many of those Post Office customers expected to migrate to the use of bank accounts; notes that the network's problems coincide with growing losses in Consignia and the threat to its mail services and to the universal service obligation; and calls on the, Government to set out a clear policy and timetable for heading off a potentially disastrous collapse of the rural and urban network.
    There have been several debates and statements in the House in the past few months on the state of the Post Office, Consignia's losses, job losses, the impact on the universal service obligation, and competition. However, I want today's debate to focus on something that, arguably, is as important, or more so: the future of the network, which comprises 18,000 sub-post offices and their 28 million customers, 16 million of whom depend on the benefit system that operates through sub-post offices.
    A big national project is looming—in 10 months, there will be a changeover to the automated credit system. I do not want to be melodramatic, but the project is very big. The technical and commercial challenge is probably on the scale of metrication, or of the millennium bug. It is appropriate for the House to take stock of where the Government have got to with their planning, and of what the consequences will be.
    In my business career I was taught never to predict the future but to think in terms of scenarios. I do not know whether the project will be a success or not. It could be a brilliant success, but we need to think of alternatives.
    The optimistic view was set out in the performance and innovation unit report at the end of 2000. I supported it, as did most other hon. Members. It was ambitious and forward looking, and dedicated to finding alternative sources of income to make up for the £400 million that will be lost to the network as a result of the introduction of ACT. If the PIU report is implemented in full, or something approaching that, the changeover will have a relatively positive outcome.
    According to a different scenario, however, that £400 million in income to the network will not be replaced. Hon. Members who are new to the House might be interested to learn that the consequences of that were set out most graphically in a parliamentary answer three years ago to the former hon. Member for Birmingham,
    780
    Erdington, now Lord Corbett. He achieved what no one else, before or after, has been able to achieve: he secured a constituency breakdown of the number of post office branches, and got the Post Office—and the Government, I guess—to analyse the implications of a loss of income from the post office network of £400 million.
    The overall conclusion was that there would be 40 per cent. fewer branches, but results were very skewed. Constituencies such as mine would lose very few branches, but rural constituencies—especially in Wales, Scotland, Devon and Cornwall—would lose a great many. The biggest casualties would be the urban post offices in areas predominantly represented by Labour Members. In some cases, such areas would lose between 70 and 80 per cent. of their post offices.
    That was the bleak, doomsday scenario, but a lot has happened since. The PIU report has been published, and we need to take stock of where we have reached.
    A problem with the PIU report, and its follow-up, is that it is rather unclear about what is happening. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry evaluated the PIU report, it gave the rather pithy summary that "much remains unclear". Almost everything that the Select Committee found unclear—the amount of income that the Post Office will get, the way in which the Post Office card account system will be phased in, and the nature of the contract and of the technology—remains unclear and uncertain today. I shall take the Ministers present today through the various steps indicated by the PIU report, and I hope to be able to ask them questions about the matter.
    The first point concerns the most interesting, ambitious and forward-looking idea—the "your guide" scheme. Under the scheme, postmasters and postmistresses would become general practitioners dispensing advice and help to customers. They would have the advantage of advanced technology. They would be properly trained and have access to a computer system that would give them local and national data, and they would help people with their transactions.
    The system was tested, quite properly, by means of a pilot scheme centred on the constituency of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, among others. The feedback has been rather positive, and shows that some 130,000 people have used the system over the six months during which the pilot has been in operation.
    In the past few days, however, I have heard a report that the "your guide" scheme is being ditched because the Treasury has pulled the plug on it. I am anxious to hear the Government's reaction to that.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry indicated dissent.
    Dr. Cable: I see that the Secretary of State is looking both mystified and negative. I hope that she will be able to reassure the House that the report to which I referred is completely wrong. However, the version given to me by people close to the project is that the Government propose to introduce a system called UK Online. I am not a computer buff—other Members may be more familiar with the significance of this—but UK Online is the Government portal for accessing Government information. It does not have the GP service, the advisory service or the transaction work. If the Secretary of State does not accept this version—judging by her body

    781
    language, she does not—I hope that she will reassure us that it is completely wrong. As a result of talking to people close to the project, many post office employees and people in the network have been persuaded that it will happen. I sincerely hope that they are wrong and, from a sedentary position, Ministers seem to suggest that that is the case.
    The other, very important, part of the package is the idea of the universal bank and the use of alternative facilities by which people could be paid cash at the post office—a combination of the post office card account, agency facilities for people who have bank accounts and the basic bank account. The importance of this has always been to honour the Government's promise that people should be paid in cash. Whether that would provide a large amount of replacement income was never clear, but perhaps we shall receive clarification on that point today.
    Information is available about what the new system could mean for customers. A very good academic study has been carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions. Elaine Kempson and Claire Whyley have performed a detailed analysis of post office customers, what they can cope with and what they expect.
    To summarise a complicated study, there are essentially three groups of people who use the network. About 40 per cent. will have no problem with automated credit transfer. They are fully familiar with banking—they use banks, they will not be greatly inconvenienced by the new system and the money will be paid into their normal bank account. These are mainly people who receive child benefit and who are mobile. ACT will not present them with a problem, but it will present the post office with a problem, because those people will, in all probability, stop using their post office branch. That figure of 40 per cent. represents a lot of people—about 8 million.
    Another 30 per cent. of people have no problems coping with the ACT idea—they know about banking and have bank accounts—but are very attached to the post office. These are the younger pensioners who may be rather conservative in their habits. They find it convenient to use the post office and want to continue to do so. They want the choice of using the post office, even though they would be perfectly able to use a banking arrangement. If those people are to be accommodated within the new system, there needs to be an efficient arrangement whereby the agency banking, which I believe has been worked out, operates in full. Will the Minister explain how people who want to use the post office as a bank to cash their money will be able to do so?
    The technology involved is complex: it means marrying the Horizon technology, which the Government inherited some years ago, with the new technology of the banks. How will that mesh? We are talking about 10 months, which is a short time away. We need reassurance that the system will work and that that 30 per cent. of customers will continue to be able to use the post office as a banking facility without being steered away from it.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: In his researches, did the hon. Gentleman stumble across the civil service phrase "actively managed choice"? I gather that that is now the Government's policy for ensuring that, rather than having a level playing field, people will be channelled into choosing
    782
    a particular bank account. Does he agree that that makes a complete nonsense of the Government's removal of the so-called cap on the number of post office accounts?
    Dr. Cable: It does. I have heard that phrase, which is beginning to percolate through the post office network. The scripts being prepared for customers, which some people have seen, make it clear that unless there are strongly extenuating circumstances, people will be expected to move to a banking service. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that.
    The policy affects the people to whom I referred, but the effects would be even greater for the remaining 30 per cent: people who really need the post office. They do not have bank accounts, or they may have a savings account that they do not use for cash transactions. They are often extremely old and frail and are, in the words of the DWP report, "difficult to move".
    The DWP study suggests that the number of people in that category is about 5 million. They cannot realistically be expected to move over to a banking system. The concept of the post office card account—a simple alternative—was developed with such people in mind. However, the problem is that the Government have set a target of 3 million such accounts to serve about 5 million people. That may answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention about active management.
    What will happen to the 2 million people who want to continue using the post office much as they have always done and who do not want to use banks? How will they cope in the new environment? I think that "active management" means that many of those people will be steered or encouraged to open a bank account, even if it is only the PAT 14, the basic account developed by the banks in recent years.
    Kate Hoey: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Does he agree that many of our most elderly and vulnerable pensioners find it extremely difficult to deal with any type of officialdom at any time? Does he share my anxiety that money will be spent on trying to force those people to change over and stop collecting their pension in cash every week? It is a form of coercion. Does he agree that it would be wrong for a penny of Government or Consignia money to be spent on making people—especially the elderly—give up that choice?
    Dr. Cable: The hon. Lady is right. I can add nothing to her comments. We are talking about choice on a level playing field. We need reassurance from Ministers that the undertaking given two years ago by the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the current Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions—will be honoured. There are grave doubts about that.
    Mr. Richard Page: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. What happens if the pendulum swings a little further and a vast number of people—more than 3 million—realise that the basic account would be cheaper to run than their normal account and decide to open one? Who will pay the extra costs involved? Will that not worsen the situation and result in even more expense for the Government?
    Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman touches on a real dilemma. The assumption is that the banks will contribute

    783
    to that process. However, there is much evidence to show that they are not enthusiastic about that—to say the least. It costs them between £60 and £70 a year—that is not the customer service charge—to run such an account. An account is viable for the banks only when it contains a minimum of £1,300, and they have made it clear that they are not really interested in running those basic accounts.
    If the Government have any doubts about that point, they should consult the useful blind study carried out a couple of weeks ago by the consumer panel of the Financial Services Authority. It investigated how people shop around between banks and found that only one of the 10 banks even mentioned a basic bank account. Four in 10 people who tried to open a bank account were turned down with no reference to the fact that the basic bank account was on offer. The banks are not interested in the scheme; they do not want to undertake it but the are being pushed into it—that is where the scheme will fail.
    Why should the banks be involved? Why have they undertaken to give that service, even though they are reluctant to provide it and their customers are reluctant to take it up? I suspect that it has something to do with some of the points under discussion yesterday in the Select Committee on the Treasury. A group of bankers were interviewed about the Cruickshank report and so-called excess profits in the banking system.
    I suspect that the banking community was very worried two years ago that the Government would propose tough regulation through Paycom and perhaps even a windfall tax on the banks. The Government promised to do that, but it never happened and the pressure is now off the banks, as was reflected in the somewhat arrogant tone that their representatives adopted during yesterday's Treasury Committee sitting. The banks are now in a much stronger position in dealing with the Government, but that explains why that process was once encouraged. However, it is difficult to understand how the basic bank account system can accommodate the needs of that substantial group of people.
    Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another indirect way in which people are being coerced to change their accounts? For example, just a mile away from here the Elephant and Castle branch office was said to be closing about three years ago. The decision was then deferred, but the closure was announced again. Those involved consulted wrongly, so they had to do it again. The staff were telling people all the time that the branch may not be open in the future, so people were being persuaded to move their accounts elsewhere. Of course, that is self-fulfilling. At the end of an exercise in which an urban post office is threatened with closure, the number of people using it decreases significantly so the case for its staying open is significantly reduced. That is another example of death by 1,000 cuts, which is surely exactly why we need to have clear policy, clear commitment and a belief that people, particularly those without other accounts, should be encouraged to use the Post Office if they wish to do so, not discouraged from doing so.
    Dr. Cable: That was a very helpful intervention. I shall come a little later to what is now rather euphemistically
    784
    called the urban renewal process—the urban closure process would be a more accurate description—and my hon. Friend's comments are highly germane to that.
    Let us stick for the moment to the problem of banks. If large numbers of people at the bottom of the income scale move into the banking system with varying degrees of coercion, or voluntary acceptance, a lot of problems will confront them. We know from the work of the FSA and others that there are all kinds of hidden charges—for example, when people are late with direct debits. Vulnerable members of the community can confront all sorts of practical problems if they use banks, but not if they use the Post Office.
    Let me take an example from my constituency experience. Two or three years ago, I dealt with a very elderly lady—she was 93 and blind—who was used to using the Post Office for most of her transactions, but who had an account with the Halifax. She sent her carer to a branch of the Halifax to collect some money for an irregular and unusual transaction. The bank staff said, "Sorry. We will only dispense money to people in person. If you are a carer, that is not satisfactory. If you produce a letter from a lawyer, we will release the money to you. Under no circumstance will we release it on any other basis."
    Those letters cost £75. I fought the case with the company. I eventually dragged the Halifax through the Daily Mail and, with some reluctance and ill-grace, the chief executive gave up. There is no tradition in the banking system of helping vulnerable customers, carers and people who genuinely need help. Very large numbers of people who have been pushed—I think that the phrase is "actively managed"—into the banking system will encounter that problem over and again.
    Pulling the threads together, we have been largely considering the affects on the customers, but we have to go back to the fundamental issue: income. How much income will post offices derive from the universal bank and from "your guide"? I have never heard a figure cited for how much money will come in. It could be as little as £50 million, which is the fee paid for the post office card account, but it may be more. Will the Minister tell us, at the end of the negotiations that we have had for 18 months, how much of the £400 million income will be replaced?
    If the income is not replaced, or even if it is replaced in part, there will be substantial post office closures. So we now need to consider what is happening in terms of those closures. The fact is that closures have been taking place. In 2000–01, there was a record number of closures—547. The figure fell substantially last year, and the Government drew a lot of encouragement from that, although the sub-postmasters to whom I talk say, "Yeah, sure, we are not selling." They are not selling because they are expecting compensation and because they cannot find buyers. None the less, the Government may well feel justified in the short run in drawing some consolation from the promise of the PIU programme.
    What is happening in terms of closures? First, the Government have given an undertaking that they will prevent rural closures, beyond those described as unavoidable. The Labour party manifesto says:
    "the Post Office is now obliged to prevent closure of rural post offices except in unavoidable circumstances, with £270 million to help achieve this and recruit sub-postmasters."

    785
    The problem is that closures are still happening. Despite the Government's assurance, in the last two years, 80 per cent. of all closures have been in rural areas. There is a programme providing £2 million of help to rural post offices, and several of my colleagues have asked parliamentary questions about that. At the last count, only seven projects had been approved—perhaps the Minister will update us on that—which accounts for a tiny fraction of the £2 million sum.
    Malcolm Bruce: On the law of statistical averages, my constituency is clearly a blip. We have had 5 closures in the last 12 months. In every case, the Post Office said that they were not permanent, and that it would do everything that it could to replace them. None of those post offices has reopened, and nobody believes that they will. That is the reality—nobody will take them on because it is not worth the money.
    Dr. Cable: That is what unavoidable closures means—the process of closures is continuing, will continue, and once the emptiness of the follow-up to the performance and innovation unit report has been demonstrated, the process of closures will accelerate on a very large scale, and it will happen in rural areas. I hope that the Minister will clarify one aspect of the Labour manifesto statement that I do not understand. It says that £270 million was set aside in the comprehensive spending round for rural post office development. My understanding—which I hope will be corrected—is that £180 million of that has now been siphoned off to compensate postmasters in urban areas. Is that right? Is that money, as was pledged in the Labour party election manifesto, going to sustain the rural network? That is a very important question, as in many cases the rural network is teetering on the brink of collapse. If there is money to sustain it, there is hope, but if there is Enron-type accounting, and the money is being shifted somewhere else, large numbers will collapse. I hope that, at the very least. clarification of that basic point will be given today.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, as an extension of what he is saying, we are seeing uncertainty blight on the ground? Postmasters wishing to retire simply cannot sell. This is not just a rural problem; it is now becoming a suburban problem. Corner shops and the post offices that have sustained them are disappearing left, right and centre. That is due entirely to the uncertainty generated by this lack of policy.
    Dr. Cable: That is absolutely right. The uncertainty is spreading into the suburbs and the towns.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is vital that we retain post offices, whether in rural areas or in the inner cities, for some of the reasons that he has outlined. Many pensioners and disability groups rely on the local post office, particularly in villages where it can be the focal point of village life.
    Dr. Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, and I take his intervention as constructive. I want to mention one small problem in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who has
    786
    pointed out that one of the sources of uncertainty is that it is not always terribly clear whether the post office being talked about is urban or rural. She has a village in her constituency called Shalford, which I think has been reclassified as urban to permit a closure to proceed. There may be a conspiracy theory at work, but anyway the post office, which would have been protected under the rural programme, is now being exposed to closure. That kind of device is being used everywhere.
    In towns, the Government have an urban renewal programme, which, when it was announced, seemed attractive. We now know, however, as many postmasters have had letters in the last week, that 3,000 of those 9,000 post offices are likely to be closed. In some cases, there may be commercial logic to that. Some post offices are close together, but many of them are not. In Twickenham two years ago, a post office closed for six months after a problem of dishonesty had been discovered. No bus service was available and that meant that many pensioners had to walk a mile in one direction or a mile in another direction to reach another branch. That problem will be repeated many times in urban areas when a third of all branches close.
    We now know that the label for the Government's urban renewal programme is desperately misleading. The programme is about closures, and who will decide whether a branch should shut? There will be an arbitration process that will be looked after by Postwatch, but how will that organisation evaluate 3,000 appeals in two years? It does not have the resources, so it cannot be expected to handle that number. Many branches will close willy-nilly.
    I would like Ministers to address, in particular, the issue of funding. Under the comprehensive spending review, £270 million has been pledged to the network, so will they explain exactly where that money has gone and where it is going? There is enormous confusion among the beneficiaries about that.
    On the general strategy, we are dealing with a big project that could go well—I do not wish to prejudge matters—but it could be a disaster. Let us therefore have a proper system of planning and of targeting objectives. At the moment, there is an enormous lack of clarity about fundamental issues—the technology used in the universal bank and the fees that will be paid. All that should be spelled out much more clearly.
    If, as we gather from inside the problem, the problems are as serious as they seem, are the Government giving any thought to spreading the plans for automated credit transfer over a longer period? The Horizon project, which the previous Government introduced, is a precedent. It had to be abandoned at short notice six months before it was due to come in even though the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) still endorsed the project. The technology did not work. That could very well happen again. Would it not be sensible and would it not help if the Government adopted a much more measured and deliberate approach to the introduction of the programme to ease much of the uncertainty and pain that is now felt by postmasters and postmistresses?
    4.7 pm
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    `applauds the Government's decision to accept all 24 of the PIU recommendations in its June 2000 report "Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network"; notes that Consignia is committed to preventing avoidable closures of rural post offices and has drawn up a code of conduct on how this is to be implemented in conjunction with the consumer watchdog, Postwatch; further applauds the decision of the Government to grant the greater commercial freedom to Consignia that management and unions had long called for; welcomes the action of the Government in appointing a new chairman of Consignia and a new chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and to enshrine in legislation the primary duty of the regulator to preserve the universal service; further applauds the commitment of the Government to a national network of post offices; and further notes the commitment by Post Office Ltd. to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile.'.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has reminded the House that the Post Office and the post office network, in particular, are venerable institutions that have long played a central role in communities the length and breadth of the country. In that, at least, he is in agreement with the Government. The Post Office touches lives like no other industry. It has a turnover of more than £8 billion, it delivers 80 million items of post every day and, every week, 28 million customers visit their post office to take advantage of more than 170 different products and services.
    I pay tribute to the men and women who work for the Post Office and the post office network. It is no exaggeration to say that the Post Office is one of the strands that helps to bind together our communities, whether urban or rural, across the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Gentleman raised several points, and I shall endeavour to address them in my response. I shall try to cover the major issues that he raised in the order in which he raised them. I shall first focus on the network and touch on management, in particular, before addressing the implementation of the performance and innovation unit report. I shall then discuss "your guide", the universal bank and the urban network in particular.
    No one doubts that the Post Office faces major challenges. Its tradition of work needs to respond to the challenging and changing requirements of customers, to changes in society and to the opportunities arising from new technology. The hon. Gentleman focused his remarks on the post office network so I shall try to set in context the programme of work that has been taken forward on that.
    The Post Office is the largest retail network in Europe and more than nine out of 10 people in this country live within a mile of a post office. It has unrivalled coverage, with more than 17,500 branches the length and breadth of the country. Two thirds of people live within half a mile of two or more post offices. Yet although local post offices are still important to many people, as customers, they are not using them as often. In recent years, there has been a steady decline in the volume of transactions undertaken at post offices as a result of changing habits and lifestyles, changes in customer preferences and new ways of doing business. I have two examples of that. First, the number of telephone bills paid at the post office is down from 39 million in 1996–97 to 32 million in
    788
    2000–01. Secondly, the number of postal orders issued is down from 37 million in 1996–97 to 32 million in 2000–01.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I note the Minister's comments on the decline in business. However, he will recall that that decline, especially in rural areas, spreads beyond the post office, particularly to banks. He may also recall that, a year or so ago, a strong attempt was made—and partly carried out—to get banks that were closing local branches to transfer over-the-counter services to local post offices. That was a great idea that we all applauded and encouraged. Does the Minister realise, however, that the charges made to local post offices for installing, supporting and filling automated teller machines are prohibitive, so that the arrangement costs them money and is falling apart? I asked questions on that in the House and received bland replies about the information being commercially confidential, but post offices are the business of us all, and not just a commercial interest of the Post Office.
    Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I am reminded of his contribution to the debate on the Postal Services Act 2000 in which he made it clear that he had long argued from Liberal Democrat Benches
    "for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, and at last such a policy is being set out by the Government".—(Official Report, 7 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 28.]
    It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it is inappropriate for Post Office Counters Ltd. and independent banks to engage in commercial negotiations on decisions about ATMs. I have some sympathy with his point, however.
    More than 3,000 post offices closed between 1978 and 1997. During the 1990s, the number of post offices declined by 10 per cent. By way of comparison, banks and building societies declined in the same 10-year period by 25 per cent. and the number of petrol stations declined by 30 per cent. It was therefore vital after those decades when the Post Office was a neglected national resource to develop a strategy and an action plan to secure the future of the post office network, which I believe we all want to see. That is why, in October 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit to develop the strategy that we are discussing. The specific challenge for the report was to consider how best to harness the full potential of the network to ensure a viable and vibrant future for the network.
    In response to the statement to the House on 28 June 2000 that marked the publication of the PIU report, the hon. Member for Twickenham was kind enough to welcome it, and he acknowledged:
    "A similarly comprehensive approach adopted 20 years ago at the beginning of Conservative rule might have prevented the closure of many of the 4,000 branches which have closed."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 912.1
    The report made 24 recommendations and the Government accepted each of them. Working closely with the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, we are implementing those measures as we advance our goal of ensuring the future of the national network.
    Dr. John Pugh: I have an advantage because I have a Labour party briefing prepared by the

    789
    Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which says that it is the Government's desire to create bigger, better post offices. Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion in that statement? Bigger is not necessarily better because it may be more remote and anonymous with longer queues.
    Mr. Alexander: The no doubt well-written briefing was making a serious point. Some urban post offices face a challenge fundamentally different from that facing rural post offices. The nature of the challenge in a rural community where the post office is perhaps the last retail outlet in a village is fundamentally different from the plethora of retail outlets available on an urban high street. It is therefore particularly important that we ensure that the retailing experience of people who visit post offices in the urban network is outstanding. Frankly, judging from many of our own constituency experiences, it would he fair to say that the urban network has not kept pace with many other retail networks in ensuring exactly such an experience.
    Simon Hughes: I accept what the Minister says, and that is the experience of many of us and of our constituents. Will he therefore, after the debate, consider the example that I cited to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)? The local community has proposed making a branch office into a sub-office, with a local business leading. Another community, the Latin American community, and other retail businesses would be involved. However, the Post Office will not tell the proponent and the community on what grounds it is rejecting her proposal to run the business. It would be an innovative business, it stems from a desire to regenerate, and it would be a flagship for the Post Office. Yet we are told that it is unacceptable, for no published reason. Will the Minister consider that matter, because the Post Office really must do better?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly I am concerned by the example that the hon. Gentleman cites. I will be more than happy to make representations directly to the Post Office management, if information that rightfully should be shared with the community is not being shared. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in a newspaper article our ambition to see exactly that kind of innovative solution being devised to address the needs of the modern network.
    Perhaps I could focus the debate by moving it on from the issue of spending, which I shall return to when I deal with the specific points raised. Alongside the commitment of resources, £270 million, we have in recent months moved decisively to strengthen the management of Consignia. As is well known, in March, the Secretary of State announced that Allan Leighton had been appointed the new chair of Consignia. He is now responsible for driving forward the management strategy to meet the challenges of stemming the company's losses, reforming its industrial relations and developing its strategy to strengthen and sustain the network. As a former chief executive of Asda, Allan Leighton has the proven track record of success in business that I think will find favour with the Post Office. He has the determination, drive and energy needed to transform the management of the Post Office. As the interim chair and a non-executive director of the company, he has seen at first hand many of the challenges that it faces.
    790
    In addition, last month we appointed David Mills to the newly created post of CEO of Post Office Counters Ltd., with a seat on the board of Consignia Holdings. He joins the network from HSBC, where he was general manager of personal banking. For far too long, the network's management failed fully to realise the commercial and retailing opportunities offered by the reach of the country's largest retail network.
    Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister has named the gentlemen from Asda and HSBC who joined the board of Consignia, but does he accept that much of the post office network is made up of small sub-post offices, and those gentlemen do not necessarily have the business experience to get them up and running and keep them going?
    Mr. Alexander: I shall try to answer that general question with a specific answer. In one of my first conversations with David Mills after his appointment as CEO of Post Office Counters Ltd., he drew a clear parallel between the present availability and range of products in sub-post offices and those in an equivalent banking facility. To sustain the margin for sub-postmasters in rural communities, which often have small outlets, we must ensure that the margin is appropriate for the number of products stocked in the institution. To that extent, exactly the expertise and leadership that David Mills has brought to bear within the bank could be of direct relevance to some of the individual sub-post offices about which the hon. Gentleman expresses concern.
    I would make a further point, however. It is a matter of regret that, over time, relations between individual sub-postmasters and the management of Post Office Counters Ltd. have not been as fruitful and co-operative as they might have been. Among other things, I hope that David Mills will rise to the challenge of ensuring that there is confidence throughout the network of sub-post offices that someone in Consignia is batting for them and arguing the case for the network. That is why the Secretary of State ensured not only that, for the first time, we appointed a chief executive to the network, but that he had a place on the main board of Consignia.
    Geraldine Smith: My hon. Friend rightly holds strong views on the management of the Post Office, and he wants to ensure that it is very good. Does he have any views on the postal regulator, Postcomm? Have the Government responded to Postcomm's consultation, or do they feel that the consultation has nothing to do with them?
    Mr. Alexander: When I was before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently, I narrated precisely the arrangements that were established as a result of the Postal Services Act 2000. One of the elements of that package, which, I remind the House, was supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives as well as Labour Members, and recommended by the Trade and Industry Committee in a previous report, was that greater commercial freedom be given to the Post Office. Consistent with that greater commercial freedom was the recognition of the need for a regulator to balance the new public policy framework that was set down.
    I note in passing that at the time of the passage of the 2000 Act, the Communication Workers Union urged the Government to establish "as independent as possible"

    791
    a regulator at the time that the new framework for postal services markets was established. It is therefore entirely appropriate that, consistent with my responsibilities in e-commerce where I have an informal but continuous dialogue with Oftel and its director general, David Edmonds, I meet the chairman of Postcomm regularly and informally.
    On the other hand, it would be unwise of the Government to get themselves into the position of trying to second-guess the challenge that Postcomm faces. Let me make that challenge clear. In the Postal Services Act, we set down two principal responsibilities for the regulator: first, to maintain the universal service obligation, and thereafter to introduce competition to assist consumers, cognisant of that primary duty to uphold the universal service obligation.
    Geraldine Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Alexander: If my hon. Friend will allow me to answer her question in my own terms, I will give way to her afterwards, if she thinks that that will be helpful.
    I emphasise the fact that in my discussions with the regulator I have made it clear that the Government consider the regulator to be obliged to uphold its responsibilities, in particular in connection with the universal service obligation. On the other hand, Postcomm's deliberations are based on a wide range of information: representations have been received from the CWU and from Consignia itself. It is therefore essential that a clear evidential basis be established for the decisions that Postcomm ultimately reaches, and we have been keen to communicate to Postcomm the importance of a fruitful dialogue between itself and the company from which many of its figures are drawn. On that basis, there are grounds to be optimistic that a fruitful dialogue is now taking place between Consignia, not least about the volume of market that Postcomm is contemplating opening up, and that Postcomm is fully cognisant of its responsibilities, consistent with its duties set down in the Postal Services Act.
    I emphasise that the proposals outlined by Postcomm at the end of January were precisely that—proposals—and that further discussions have since taken place between all of the interested parties.
    Geraldine Smith: All the universal service obligation demands of the postal service is that there is one delivery and one collection each day. Will the Minister make it clear that he expects the service provided by the Post Office to be far greater than that? Currently, there are several collections a day from urban post offices, and two deliveries a day in urban areas. Is the basic one delivery and one collection a day all that the Minister is demanding through the universal service obligation?
    Mr. Alexander: The obligation under which Consignia operates is set down in the licence granted by the regulator Postcomm. However, in my conversations with Consignia I have consistently made it clear that, given that competition is starting to come to its business, it is vital that it offer outstanding service to its customers. It is precisely the sort of innovation in services to customers
    792
    that is now being discussed that will give Consignia advantages. Based on the universal service that is currently enjoyed, there is considerable scope—given appropriate management who have the capacity to recognise the opportunity—to tailor services to the needs of individual customers. That is why it is essential that in the network and in Consignia itself there is leadership that is capable of driving forward that agenda and realising the full potential of the company that I described at the beginning of my speech.
    Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Weir: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Alexander: I have been generous in giving way so far, and consistent with my obligations to the hon. Member for Twickenham, I should make some progress.
    The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the "your guide" pilot. As he said, the Post Office has been piloting the concept of post offices as government general practitioners in Leicester and Rutland. The aim is to test the concept of the post office acting as a one-stop, first-shop facility providing advice and access to transactions within a range of public and voluntary sector organisations. The Government invested £25 million in that major pilot, which ran from July last year until March this year.
    During the pilot, the post offices concentrated on a number of limited key services to their core customers, which included advice, information, transactions in broad areas of retirement, seeking work and local information. The service includes advice and information on pensions, other benefits, job vacancies, local transport, interface with local government and many more services besides.
    The Leicester and Rutland pilot takes forward the recommendation in the performance and innovation unit report. The outcome of the pilot is now being fully evaluated by the Post Office with those organisations participating in the pilot and by the Government. The evaluation is examining the extent to which the "your guide" concept can deliver services that citizens really want and need, and the extent to which "your guide" can provide value for money for Government Departments and other organisations using it as a channel to offer their services directly to the public. That includes examining the extent to which those organisations achieve efficiency savings and the extent to which "your guide" services can improve the ability of Government Departments to meet their service objectives.
    The evaluation process has included gathering data, manually and electronically, the conduct of surveys within and beyond the pilot area, and the gathering of qualitative data via focus groups, discussion groups and feedback sessions involving the public, sub-postmasters and stakeholder organisations, including central and local government.
    All the evidence has been drawn together by a central evaluation team, which includes members of the office of the e-envoy. As the Minister responsible, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for UK Online, I fear that there may be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Twickenham as to the role that those services can provide. We are confident that there is at least potential to draw on the expertise of the e-envoy's

    793
    office in exactly this type of service provision online in evaluating the "your guide" pilot. I simply do not recognise the kind of conspiracy that the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting in drawing from within Government exactly the expertise that we need to make effective the evaluation that is being carried out.
    Dr. Cable: I agree that we should put conspiracies behind us. Do I take the Minister's endorsement as an indication that the Leicester pilot study will now be rolled out across the country?
    Mr. Alexander: I make it clear to the House that, consistent with remarks I made in the Adjournment debate on 18 December 2001, the evaluation will be completed by June. Given all the complaints that I have heard from Liberal Democrats today about the need for effective project management, it would be irresponsible to prejudge exactly the kind of evaluation that was absent from the horizon project for all those years, causing such profound and real problems. A full and robust evaluation of the pilot outcomes is necessary to inform future planning for the network. Given that a range of departments and organisations are involved, and that they would pay for the national service, the decision must, by definition, be made collectively. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I would argue that full evaluation in line with best practice, project management and public procurement cannot be rushed. There are rules to which we must adhere for any major project of this kind.
    Let me deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham and set out how the management of Post Office Ltd. will drive forward innovations necessary for the network. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about banking. Universal banking services, together with the Post Office's plans for an expansion of network banking—the provision of counter services for ordinary current accounts—should lead to a substantial increase in the range and volume of banking at post offices, tapping into a much larger customer base than benefit recipients alone. David Mills' long experience in the banking sector equips him well to lead those developments.
    The trend for existing network banking already shows strong growth. Excluding Alliance and Leicester's post office business, the average daily number of transactions grew from under 20,000 in April 2000 to more than 40,000 at the end of 2001–02.
    Mr. Weir: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Alexander: I am keen to make some progress.
    Management is also keen to provide new financial services, such as household insurance, which proved a huge success in a recent pilot project. The Post Office management sees this as only the start and is in discussions with all the major banks to expand and improve the network banking services.
    On the specific issue of universal banking services, progress is being made and the work is being taken forward for their introduction next year when the migration of benefit payments to ACT is scheduled to begin. The Department for Work and Pensions, given its key role in delivering pensions and benefits, is co-ordinating the work to modernise the payment of
    794
    pensions and benefits along with the introduction of banking services through post offices. The Department of Trade and Industry continues to be responsible for progressing the universal bank project in relation to the post office network and the DWP for the benefits being paid efficiently.
    The Department for Work and Pensions, together with the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, is now finalising contractual terms with the Post Office for provision of the post office card account. All the major banks have agreed to make their own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. Of course, that agreement is now subject to detailed commercial negotiations between the Post Office Ltd. and the banks about wider access to their bank accounts.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned yesterday's Treasury Committee hearing. It is at least worthy of note that the chief executives of the big four banks—Matthew Barratt of Barclays, Bill Doulton of HSBC, Peter Ellwood of Lloyds TSB and Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who hails from my part of the world in Paisley—gave evidence to the Committee. According to press reports, their evidence affirmed those banks' commitment to offering basic bank accounts and providing funding for universal banking services. With respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the transcript when it becomes available, given the anxiety that he has expressed about the banks' commitment to the project.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous in doing so. Will he confirm that his Department now has a policy of so-called actively managed choice? What does that mean?
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was about to make. Simultaneously with the commercial negotiations that are being taken forward with the major banks, the Government are now developing a detailed migration and marketing strategy for the transition to ACT. The emphasis of the ACT migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. Conventional and basic bank accounts offer more services and do not have the limitations of a post office card account, so they are likely to be the best option for certain people.
    Our operational assumption as we progress universal banking services—the hon. Member for Twickenham alluded to this point—is that about 3 million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a post office card account, but I reiterate that there will be no cap on numbers or eligibility criteria for such an account. The choice of 3 million people as our operating assumption reflects the fact that that is broadly the number of current benefit claimants who are without a bank account that is capable of receiving payments by ACT. I know that a number of points have been made about that issue, but it is worth pointing out that, in accordance with our desire to advance social inclusion, we are keen for people to move from a sector that is unbanked and into the banking sector so that they can enjoy the other benefits that currently fall only to people in that sector.
    I regret that the hon. Member for Twickenham talked down the urban post office network. In preparing for this debate, I noted that he was quoted on 17 December in

    795
    The Birmingham Post as asserting without any apparent evidence that there was a serious threat to basic services such as house-to-house delivery, the uniform tariff throughout the UK and the network of sub-post offices. Those remarks strike a very clear contrast with the words of Colin Baker, general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, who dismissed as "rubbish" recent newspaper reports of mass post office closures. Regrettably, such newspaper reports appear to be precisely those on which the hon. Gentleman relied for his speech.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: A terrible smell is emanating from the Labour Front Bench this afternoon—that of hypocrisy. Back in 1997, the Minister and I campaigned to prevent the Tories' proposed privatisation from going ahead. Some 4,000 post offices had closed. Under Labour, 1,405 post offices have already closed in five years and there are 3,000 more to go. How on earth can he justify that? He should intercede and start to bat for rural communities and the post offices that are closing all the time.
    Mr. Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague was generous enough to recognise, we took specific steps that were consistent with the PIU report to advance the sustainability of the rural network. That is why rural transfer advisers are working throughout the country where there is a threat to such a post office. It is also exactly why we have established the £2 million fund that I shall happily talk about later and strengthened the management as necessary to provide exactly the retailing opportunities that we need. I give greater credence to the further remarks of Colin Baker, who said:
    "Talk of mass closures is scaremongering and wide of the mark".
    He went on to say:
    "It is wrong to criticize the industry for being out of date and in decline and then create panic when we are doing something about it"
    I fear that that is exactly the sort of panic that the Liberals seek to stimulate. There may he mergers or relocations of branches as a result of the progress that is being made—that will allow sub-postmasters to invest in exactly the kind of improved services for urban areas that I mentioned—but only in urban and suburban areas that are densely populated with post offices and are experiencing duplication of services. In fact, as a serious contribution to the debate, the PIU strategy identified particular needs of the network in both rural and urban areas.
    The rural post office network had been slowly contracting for the previous 20 years. The Government are committed to ensuring that it is maintained. The importance of rural post offices cannot be underestimated. Often, they are the last remaining local shop, providing a vital service and acting as a focal point for the local community, as I said in response to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). To protect rural post offices, the Government placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices. However, despite their best endeavours—it is important to be clear about this with the House—neither the Government nor the Post Office can guarantee that no post offices will ever close.
    796
    Even the Liberal Democrats would think twice before making such a commitment. It very much depends on the local community that is using the facility and the willingness of a sub-postmaster to continue to run the business or to achieve its sale on the basis of its being a going concern.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about the £2 million fund to support volunteer or community initiatives, and I am happy to give him the information he seeks. I have to say that the thinking behind that scheme gave me concern, on the basis of the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The fund was established to maintain or reopen rural post office facilities. Let me give the latest figures. At the end of April this year, 88 applications had been submitted. Of those, 46 grants to a total value of £390,000 have been approved. The fund is expected to provide the impetus for maintaining or reopening up to 200 offices nationwide over a two-year period.
    I point out to hon. Members that, in direct contrast to the uniformly bleak picture painted by the Liberal Democrats, over the last financial year from March 2001–02 there has been a significant and welcome reduction in the number of closures. In the year to the end of March 2002, there were 262 net closures, compared with 547 in the previous year.
    The Government recognise that it is not just in rural areas that post offices play an important community role. We want to maintain convenient access and to improve the quality of post offices in our towns and cities, as well as in the countryside. Under pressure from the changes in the pattern of retailing that I described, the quality of many post offices and associated retail businesses has declined in urban areas over recent years. I am sure that that point will be well taken by many hon. Members in relation to their experience in their constituencies. We believe that the best way to address that is for the Post Office to work closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to reverse the years of underinvestment, as the PIU recommended.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about the urban reinvention programme. The purpose of that programme is to ensure that there are post offices equipped to offer the quality of services that customers need in the right locations to serve urban communities, where at present some two thirds of the population live within half a mile of two or more post offices. Indeed, in some areas there can be up to eight to 10 post offices within a single square mile, some located within a few hundred yards of each other.
    I first inform the hon. Gentleman that the programme has not yet started. Decisions on individual offices will be based on detailed, local studies, the preferences of the sub-postmasters concerned and the outcome of consultation with Postwatch and those sub-postmasters. I should add that the programme will be carefully tailored to the circumstances of each locality to ensure that post offices meet the high expectations of customers and that they are in the right locations for their communities. Special provision to sustain and improve vulnerable offices in deprived urban areas is being made under a separate fund operated by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Funding for the programme is subject to approval under European state

    797
    aid rules and scrutiny by Parliament. Indeed, before the programme starts there will be the opportunity for Parliament to debate it.
    Dr. Cable: Can the Minister clarify the specific point about the funding arrangements? Will the £180 million compensation package come out of the £280 million that was pledged for the renewal and sustenance of the network, or is an additional sum?
    Mr. Alexander: The £270 million that was allocated in the previous comprehensive spending review was to implement the recommendations of the PIU report. They included a range of working programmes. One was urban reinvention, and another was the pilot that I mentioned. It is worth £25 million in terms of "your guide". Further work to support the rural network will be done, and we are determined to ensure that, if additional support is necessary, there will be a process whereby it can be considered as and when it is required.
    There is no dispute about the fact that, in every part of the operation, the Post Office needs to adapt to new challenges. The public want it to provide world-class postal services and a thriving post office network fit for the 21st century. The Government want a universal service on which everyone can rely, with faster, more reliable mail deliveries, a strong network of modern post offices, and an effective partnership between management and the unions. We want a better Post Office for people to work in.
    Standing still, as some suggest, is not an option. The business must move forward, tackle its shortcomings, and tailor its services to changing customer demands. The Government are implementing the terms of the PIU report and underpinning that by committing resources and strengthening management.
    We cannot turn the clock back, but, with the right management, proper investment, the right support and the backing of customers and communities, we can realise the full potential of the Post Office in future. I urge the House to support the amendment.
    4.40 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: So we have yet another debate on the Post Office, or Consignia, as we have come to know it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the discussion. It is unusual to hold regular debates about a company in the private sector; it is even more unusual when that company is doing well. However, despite the hot air about commercial freedom, the Post Office remains mired in the public sector and its attitudes to innovation and service.
    The Independent got it right when it stated:
    "The problem is that this Government has spent too much of its time trying to make public entities like the Post Office behave like private companies and private companies such as Railtrack behave like the old nationalised industries. Such contortions suggest at the very least that, for all their unhealthy closeness to businessmen and wealth entrepreneurs, New Labour does not really understand business and enterprise."
    I am sorry to see that the Post Office's sole shareholder has left us, doubtless for something that she considers more important.
    Another reason for continually holding such debates is that the Post Office is, sadly, in deep trouble. It is a failing
    798
    company. That was not always so: the Post Office made a profit in every year of Conservative government. As The Guardian stated:
    "Less than 10 years ago, the Post Office was perceived as the best of its kind in the world. Unlike its European competitors it was profitable, its delivery performance was top of the international league table and its then Chief Executive boasted of the workforce as his '200,000 in-house consultants' and 'ambassadors to the public', for whom the 'postie' was trusted and respected."
    The postie continues to be trusted and respected, but the Post Office is in deep trouble.
    The Post Office loses £1.5 million a day and plans to shed at least 30,000 jobs. It has endured dreadful industrial relations and continues to miss its delivery targets. Some parts of the country go for days on end without a delivery. The Post Office is scrapping the second delivery and the early collection. If that were not bad enough, it is losing I million items of mail a week, according to the watchdog. It has been suggested that only one delivery a day should be made to private addresses at or around lunch time. That will affect hundreds of thousands of small businesses especially badly.
    One of the most worrying aspects is the deterioration in the network of sub-post offices, which have been closing at an ever increasing rate with a record number of closures—547—last year. An average post office branch could lose 40 per cent. of its turnover overnight when benefits payments cease next April. The closure rate has decreased in the year to April 2002, and that is welcome, but the Government should not take too much comfort from that because there are problems of disposal and sale, and people are hanging on in the hope of receiving compensation. Of the 262 post offices that closed, 194 were rural sub-post offices. This is therefore a network in decline.
    What has the Government's reaction been? They have set up a programme of so-called reinvention of the urban network. They have not, of course, fulfilled conclusion 6 in the PIU report, which proposed the production of a report by autumn 2001 about the future of the rural sub-post office network. I would like the Minister to tell us when we can expect those proposals to be brought forward.
    The sad truth is that most of the money that has already been earmarked, particularly for the urban network, is actually being used to close it down, rather than to keep it open or even to expand it. The most serious problem, however, is that the Government have, as yet, no clear strategy to deal with the future of that network.
    Dr. Pugh: I am having difficulty following the thread of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He began strongly by saying that he thought the flaw in Consignia was that it was not acting sufficiently like a private company, and that it was too wedded to a public service ethos. If it is going to act exactly like a private sector company, should it not be released from the burden of a universal service obligation—private companies do not have such obligations—and left free to close what branches it wishes, if it is to work as a commercial operation? We would argue that neither of those things should happen, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be capable of arguing that.
    Mr. Waterson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following my speech closely enough. He seems

    799
    to be confusing two things. Overwhelmingly, the network of sub-post offices has nothing to do with Consignia; most of them are owned by private individuals who have opened them up using their own savings, perhaps from redundancy payments or whatever, collected over some years. Those are the people we are talking about.
    The hon. Gentleman made a rather more important point on the universal service obligation, but he must remember that, at the moment, the Post Office is not meeting that obligation in some parts of the country. It is certainly not meeting its obligation on next-day delivery of first-class mail. Under the Postcomm proposals, any new private company entering the post office market would, I am sure, be equally obliged to fulfil the universal service obligation.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael rose—
    Mr. Weir rose—
    Mr. Waterson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Carmichael: To whom are you giving way, Sir?
    Mr. Waterson: Let me see. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
    Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to answer a question that I asked him when this matter was last debated in Westminster Hall. Is the Conservative party in favour of the deregulation proposals that Postcomm currently has out for consultation?
    Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman has indeed asked me that before, and he will get almost exactly the same answer—I hope—which is that we think that the Postcomm proposals contain a lot of interesting issues. It is for the Government to form a view on them, but most importantly, it is a matter for the regulator.
    Mr. Carmichael: What is your view?
    Mr. Waterson: I shall deal with Postcomm's proposals in some detail, so if—unlike some hon. Members—the hon. Gentleman can stay for most of the debate, I may be able to assist him. The reality is that we do not know what kind of shambles we shall inherit after the next election. It is clear, however, that by then Postcomm's proposals will long since have been implemented in the postal system.
    Mr. Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Waterson: I want to make a little more progress, then I shall be happy to give way again.
    The Government seem to be involved in managing the decline of the network, and this process is being supervised by Postwatch, the consumer watchdog. I would like the Minister to deal with an issue raised, I think,
    800
    by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Does he think that Postwatch is being properly resourced to carry out that task?
    We have 10 months in which to complete the transition to automated credit transfer. Most people in the industry are very dubious as to whether that will be possible, from a technical point of view, within that time scale. The reality is that an awful lot of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have to be trained, and their customers have to be put in a position to be able to use the new equipment. At the same time, however, despite the Minister's repeating the promise that there is to be no cap on the number of people holding post office accounts, we have now discovered that the Government have a working figure of 3 million, by contrast with the 16 million potential customers, on existing figures.
    We also know that the Government are now pursuing a policy of actively managing choice. That is a wonderful civil service phrase, but to me it sounds a hit like persuading people—possibly elderly or vulnerable—that they need one sort of account rather than another. If the Government are successful in their policy of actively managed choice, that means that, on any view, the footfall for the average post office will not return to anything like the levels of the recent past.
    I think there are serious concerns here, and so does the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The Minister enjoyed quoting some things said by Mr. Colin Baker of that organisation, but in its briefing for the debate the organisation also says this:
    "We shall campaign vigorously against proposals to influence people's choice or make pensioners and child beneficiaries justify why they want a post office card account".
    It goes on to say:
    "We share the concern of many parliamentarians that the Universal Bank may not be in place by April 2003, in time for the introduction of ACT".
    Those are very worrying statements.
    The NFSP also says:
    "Twenty-eight million customers currently make 45 million visits to post offices every week."
    The briefing concludes:
    "The UK's 18,000 SubPostmasters remain extremely worried about their future and their continuing ability to provide their services to 18 million customers."
    I can only assume that the Minister was quoting a different Colin Baker.
    Kali Mountford: Earlier in the debate, the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness mentioned yesterday's Select Committee meeting. When questioned, the big four banks admitted that doing business through the post offices and universal bank, and new basic bank accounts, was very good for them and would extend much further a banking system that had been retrenched in recent years. Would that not help the post offices?
    Mr. Waterson: I think it would if that were genuinely the case, but I have formed the same impression as the hon. Member for Twickenham—that this is not the sort of business the banks really want, or would seek if they were not being put under intense pressure to help the Government out. Once they get wind of the fact that the

    801
    Government are trying to cajole people into going for the bank rather than the post office option, the matter may well be reopened by the banks themselves.
    We should remember that the regulator was established by this very Government, as an independent regulator. We should also remember that two aims featured in all the detail of the Postcomm proposals. The first is improving services for consumers. As I said earlier, in many respects Consignia—the Post Office as it currently is—is not fulfilling even its current service requirements. The second, although it does not seem to be seen in this way, is safeguarding the future of the Post Office, or Consignia.
    In its briefing, Consignia says:
    "We accept that greater competition will spur us on to be innovative, improve our customer service and become more efficient."
    The only issue between it and the regulator seems to be the pace at which the market is to be opened. The regulator takes the view that competition will encourage efficiency and innovation. That has certainly been true in other countries where postal services have been opened up, and in other parts of our own national life and economy.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Now that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the subject of the Postcomm proposals, and given his signal failure to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), may I put the question in another way? I accept that, as a member of an Opposition party, he is entitled to say, "We do not answer questions now; we will wait until we are in government". In the case of these proposals, however, he can do something. He, like anyone else, can put his views to Postcomm. Has the Conservative party put its views on the proposals to the regulator, and if so, what was the content of its representations?
    Mr. Waterson: If I thought about it, I would be rather flattered by the desire of hon. Members on both sides—albeit with similar accents; hence my initial difficulty in identifying the hon. Gentleman—to know our policy. It cannot have escaped his attention that barely a year ago we lost a general election, but let me remind him that we are firmly on record as saying that we are in favour of competition, although for better or worse the Ministers here today will have to deal with Postcomm's recommendations. I should add that many of the submissions from Consignia and from the union that oppose the Postcomm proposals seem pretty threadbare intellectually.
    Despite all the problems, the Post Office had one priceless asset that could not be destroyed even by inept management, bolshie unions or interfering Ministers—the brand. The names of the Post Office and the Royal Mail were recognised throughout the country and the world. They were up there with Coca-Cola and Microsoft. So the Post Office decided to destroy the brand at a stroke by renaming itself Consignia—at a cost of £2 million, to boot. Now even the chairman of Consignia and the Secretary of State admit that it was a mistake. In an article in the Daily Express only yesterday, the Secretary of State made the same point again. It is inconceivable that Ministers did not give their approval to the name change.
    802
    We have heard pious words of concern from the Secretary of State, who seems finally to have woken up to the dire problems facing the Post Office. As she said in yesterday's Daily Express:
    "The Post Office has simply failed to adapt to modern life… more changes will be needed, affecting the consumer as well as staff."
    I am sorry to upset the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), but the Secretary of State also said:
    "I think consumers would accept it if it guaranteed one reliable delivery every day."
    She also mentioned the possibility of a pay rise, and her great new idea to save the Post Office from its losses of £1.5 million a day:
    "postmen could collect and deliver cash…and sell stamps"
    on the doorstep. That should make all the difference.
    Little did Post Office managers or workers or the British public realise that while the Secretary of State was uttering pious sentiments about improving the Post Office, she was secretly planning to flog it off to the highest bidder.
    Earlier this year, my noble Friend Baroness Miller pressed DTI Ministers in another place. In reply to her question on 21 March about whether there were negotiations on selling Consignia to TPG, which operates the Dutch post office, Lord Sainsbury said:
    "I have heard of no such suggestion."
    In answer to a subsequent question from Lady Blatch he said:
    "I know of no negotiations which are taking place to sell the post office network, which I assume is the point of the question. I have no indication that any negotiations have ever taken place on that"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 1471–73.]
    The following week, reports surfaced about the TPG group's interest in Consignia, and on 26 March the Secretary of State replied to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) as follows:
    "There are no proposals to sell Consignia Holdings, its mails business, Parcelforce or the network of post offices."—[Official Report, 26 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 800W.]
    She could not have been clearer.
    Unfortunately it emerged later that that answer was not strictly accurate and that Lord Sainsbury had been even less accurate. He had to admit to the Lords on 30 April:
    "I believe that the answer now is 'Yes, there were merger discussions. However, as I explained then, I was not aware of those discussions at the time."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 569.]
    Of course, we must give Lord Sainsbury the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is right to say that he knew nothing about those negotiations. However, it is equally clear that detailed talks on selling Consignia—our Post Office—to the Dutch post office took place for some eight months.
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend seems to be making a very serious allegation. Is he saying that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a less than full answer to his question, which could be described as misleading and economical with the truth?
    Mr. Waterson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not trying to put words in my mouth, but the phrase
    "There are no proposals to sell Consignia"
    is pretty uncompromising. As I said, we now know that serious and detailed discussions took place for some eight months. Even if the Dutch post office is now out of the frame, one wonders about other negotiations that might involve selling Consignia to Deutsche Post or to any number of other interested organisations.
    The sad truth is that the Government cannot find a buyer for our Post Office. The ultimate humiliation is that, under their stewardship, no one wants to buy it. As the Post Office staggers from crisis to crisis under this Government, it will not be long before it cannot even be given away.
    5.1 pm
    Geraldine Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I commend the Liberal Democrats for bringing these matters before the House. I have no doubt that the provision of postal services and the long-term viability and survival of Consignia hang in the balance. Having examined the Liberal Democrats' proposal, I can find nothing wrong with it, so I will join them in the Lobby.
    The postal industry faces ever-increasing competition from various forms of electronic document transmission, a slowdown in the growth of traffic and the impending liberalisation of postal services throughout Europe, and it needs to undertake a radical review of its entire operation to meet those challenges. All who work in the industry are aware that change is inevitable; indeed, they have grown accustomed to it, given that the postal industry has been changing continuously for the past two decades. The industry would have faced such changes and challenges regardless of whether the Post Office had remained a publicly owned corporation, rather than a publicly owned plc.
    The restructuring of the loss-making parcels business and the transfer of the universal parcel service back to Royal Mail is long overdue. I have every sympathy for the staff who will be affected by that change, but the initiative is nevertheless welcome. Parcelforce was split from Royal Mail under the previous Conservative Government simply in order to be sold off, and it was right to bring the two back together. Much has been said today about the radical review and restructuring of the counters network, which is being developed in close co-operation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is critical to the prosperity and sustainability of the network, and although some of the changes will prove difficult, they are necessary.
    Those are just two brief examples of the changes and challenges that the postal business has undergone for many years, and which would have occurred regardless of the operating company's status. It is important to remind ourselves that, despite the difficulties and continual changes that postal workers have faced, in terms of cost, range of services and reliability, they have literally delivered for us the best value-for-money service in Europe. Since 1993, the cost of a first-class stamp has risen by just 7 per cent. and the price of a second-class stamp has not risen at all. Given that the retail prices index has risen by 25 per cent. over the same period, that is a remarkable achievement, and a credit to British postal workers.
    804
    I understand that Consignia is currently contemplating asking for an increase of 1p in both first and second-class postage, although it has not made a formal application. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness will clarify the matter. However, I urge Consignia to apply for the increase without further delay.
    The company should use the additional revenue to improve the terms and conditions of British postal workers, who are very poorly paid and work extremely unsocial hours. Hon. Members may work late into the evening, but not many of us would relish getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning to start work, six days a week.
    I have been at pains to point out that many of the challenges facing Consignia have nothing to do with its move from public corporation to public limited company, but it faces a number of challenges that are a direct consequence of that change. Beyond a doubt, those are the challenges that cause me the greatest concern.
    I refer, of course, to the competition proposals made by Postcomm, the postal regulator. I am not opposed to the principle that competition should be introduced into the reserved postal sector, but I certainly oppose the introduction of any competition that threatens Consignia's universal service obligation or its financial viability.
    Consignia has made it clear that it would welcome the introduction of increased competition, provided that the approach adopted was the gradual and controlled approach evident across the rest of Europe, where there has been a progressive reduction in weight and price limits in the reserved or licensed sector. Consignia believes that, under that model, the impact of each successive step in the process on the system's ability to maintain the universal service can be assessed before the next step is embarked on.
    Mr. David Borrow: My hon. Friend has said that she is worried about the recommendations from Postcomm. She and I served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Postal Services Act 2000, which established the Post Office regulation system. She supported the measure, as did I. In retrospect, however, does she now think that there is something wrong with the regulator? If she is not in favour of the current system for dealing with Post Office regulation, would she prefer the regulator's role to be amended or changed?
    Geraldine Smith: I certainly believe that it is important to have a Post Office regulator, and I supported the Postal Services Act. However, the regulator has to be accountable to someone. I cannot sit back, say nothing and allow the regulator to make proposals that could jeopardise the future of the postal industry, just because I believe in the principle of having a regulator. That would be quite wrong.
    As I said, Consignia has made it clear that it would welcome the gradual introduction of more competition. The impact of each step in the process on the ability to provide a universal service must be assessed before the next step is undertaken. I fully support that.
    The gradual approach is acclaimed across Europe and was supported by the Government at the Council of Ministers in autumn 2001. I believe that it is the appropriate model for the UK too, especially as the Government have

    805
    determined that the achievement of essential social obligations such as the universal service and the uniform tariff structure should override the introduction of a fully competitive market.
    Although other companies should be allowed to collect, sort and transport mail for delivery over "the final mile" by Royal Mail's nationwide network of delivery offices, Consignia should be adequately compensated. The price that Consignia gets for such access should be in line with the principles set out by the European Commission in its draft postal directive, which is supported by all postal operators throughout the European Union and all member state Governments. That approach recognises that the access price should be set on the basis of standard public postal prices, minus the savings made in the long run as a result of Consignia having avoided costs in the collection, sortation and transportation of mail. That retail-minus basis will ensure that rivals taking advantage of access to Royal Mail's delivery network have to be efficient.
    Deliveries are by far the most expensive part of Royal Mail's operation. Access prices would depend on the weight and size of individual items as well as where they were posted in the network. For a basic letter weighing up to 60 g, posted in Consignia's network immediately prior to final delivery, the level of access price would need to be about 20p at today's prices. That, most importantly, would ensure that Consignia could continue to meet its universal service and uniform tariff obligations. However, Postcomm is silent on this crucial issue; it has not said a word. Nor has it yet defined precisely what will be protected by the universal service and tariff obligations. Will the Minister clarify what we are talking about? Are we talking about a basic one delivery and one collection per day under the universal service obligation? If so, that would represent a greatly worsened postal service for many people.
    The regulator has not yet announced the pricing system within which Consignia will be expected to operate. However, Postcomm has misinterpreted the Postal Services Act, although I am not sure whether it has done so through dogmatic arrogance or incompetence. When I and a number of colleagues from the House met representatives of Postcomm, they displayed little knowledge of the workings of the postal industry and failed to answer the many pressing questions that we asked. They appeared to display a dogmatic arrogance, they appeared incompetent and they appeared not to understand the postal industry.
    Postcomm appears to believe sincerely that it has a duty to introduce competition into the reserved area wherever it is possible to do so. It does not have such a duty, only a requirement to introduce competition where it is appropriate, after ensuring that the universal service and tariff obligations are secure.
    Postcomm's first obligation is to protect the universal service, yet its approach is to reverse the criteria and put the introduction of competition at the top of its agenda. To this end, it has made proposals that threaten the universal service and tariff obligations and introduce competition further and faster than the rest of Europe, thereby making Consignia vulnerable to foreign competition because it does not have reciprocal arrangements.
    Postcomm has introduced proposals that target the most profitable areas of the postal business and could, indeed, lead to the collapse of Consignia. The profitable areas of
    806
    the Post Office support the rural network. Competitors will not step in and take over the small rural post offices, which do not make much money. They are not the part of the Post Office that private competitors want. The cross-subsidy keeps the Post Office in business, and it is so important.
    Postcomm's proposals have been based on a financial model that had built into it woefully inadequate and incomplete data and assumptions about future growth, revenue and cost that bordered on the ridiculous. They were arrogantly presented to Consignia, with a wholly unacceptable period of only six weeks allocated for the company's response.
    Where was the consultation with the general public? Where was the consultation with district and parish councils? Many parish councils in my constituency were not even aware of Postcomm's proposals. That is wrong. When I tabled parliamentary questions on Postcomm, they were not even answered because Postcomm is, supposedly, an independent regulator—but it is also accountable to Parliament, so why can we not obtain answers to our questions?
    There is no doubt that if the proposals are implemented they will be disastrous for our postal services, for many of my rural constituents living in villages and for many of my constituents who currently receive a good service from the Post Office. The Post Office is not in a shambles—it is not in a mess; all it needs is the ability to raise prices. If the regulator allows it to increase prices so that it can once again be profitable, we will have the postal service that our constituents want and deserve. Postcomm's proposals are disastrous and they should be opposed.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: I do not often have reason to praise and thank the Liberal Democrats, but I do so today. Under the auspices of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) they have initiated debate on an important subject that will not go away; the House will return to it time and again until the Government of the day provide a solution.
    In that spirit of generosity, which will not last long, may I turn to the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and even to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I do not blame the right hon. Lady for the mess that Consignia is facing—it is not the Government's fault. In politics, as we know, the guilty party often moves on and someone else is left to sort out the mess—[Interruption.] To set the minds of Liberal Democrats at rest, I acknowledge that many of today's problems actually started in the early to mid-1990s. I am not sure whether the Labour party had undergone its butterfly transformation to new Labour by then, but the House may recall that the then Labour Opposition, supported by between 12 and 15 misguided Conservative Members, resolutely blocked any move by the Conservative Government to introduce competition in our postal services. Let no one forget that: the Government were blocked from doing what was necessary. If we had taken that path in the early to mid-1990s we would not face our current difficulties.
    The only crime that I could possibly lay at the door of the Secretary of State is that she may have agreed to the change of name to Consignia. My hon. Friend the

    807
    Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made a most important point: in any form of selling or marketing, the brand name is the most important thing. To throw away the name "Post Office" shows that someone has no grasp of what is needed to sell things in the modern world. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness will tell us who pleads guilty to that crime.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Although Consignia's name has great entertainment value and is an easy target, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the organisation effectively continues to do business under its two brand names "Royal Mail" and "Post Office"? We should not confuse the rebranding of the whole group with the services given to customers.
    Mr. Page: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, but when one is trying to advertise something it is helpful if it has only one name rather than two or three. Everyone agrees that the Consignia issue has muddied rather than cleared the waters.
    I was convinced when we were in office and afterwards that the way ahead was for a BT to be done on our postal services. In 1988, I made that point to the Minister for Pensions, who was then a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He responded by drawing the House's attention to my general shortcomings. He has done so regularly, and I fully accept that; I am used to it. Apart from doing that, he said:
    "we are rebuilding a Post Office from the wreck left by the previous Government. From day one of this Government we have made the Post Office a priority, and we shall continue to do so."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 499.]
    Well, that gave me so much confidence, but what have we got at the moment?
    Four years or so on—five years after day one of that commitment—the Post Office is losing substantial sums of money, post offices are closing at a record rate, and there are worrying levels of inefficiency. Massive redundancies are coming. A national strike was narrowly averted, and the Director General of Postcomm was warned off introducing any form of competition.
    Dr. Pugh: I have listened to that litany of failure. I understood the hon. Gentleman's initial point to be that, if the process had been completed earlier, it would have been done better in some ways. I have not heard him amplify that point. All those things could have happened if he had had his way, but they would have happened a lot earlier. Why should that not have been the case?
    Mr. Page: I do not in any way mean to be condescending, but the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. If he had been here just a little longer he would realise that, if we had started to introduce competition earlier, we would have beaten what is happening on the continent with the Dutch and German Post Offices and we would have managed to achieve improvements and to introduce competition earlier. We did that with BT; we caught the continental countries cold.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Page: Hold your horses.
    808
    We enabled BT to become a world player because we were first on the list. BT had been well behind, but it did a fantastic job when it was privatised. If we had started earlier with the Post Office, we would have done much better.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: Perhaps I shall give the hon. Gentleman a chance to be really condescending to a new Member from the 2001 intake. Does he support the current Postcomm proposals? Will he give a clear answer, yes or no?
    Mr. Page: As a humble Back Bencher, with no responsibilities whatever—I have no position from which I can be removed or sacked—I can say that the director general of Postcomm is going in the right direction. I only wish that we had moved in that direction much earlier, as I told the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is fresh to the House.
    Kali Mountford: I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has been most generous in giving way. As a humble Back Bencher claiming visionary times for the previous Conservative Government, does he not accept that those proposals failed because they were deeply unpopular with the people of this country? We are accountable to the people, and they simply did not want those proposals.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In saying what she says, she pays tribute to an intensive, clever, smart and focused campaign by the Union of Communication Workers, in which it suggested that any form of privatisation would involve losing sub-post offices. It so confused the issue in people's minds—it was not the clearest of explanations—that they were very unhappy about going forward.
    I pay tribute to the union: as a political exercise, it did a fantastic job. Whenever I can, I pay tribute to the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions who used to be the general secretary of that union, for the skill with which he conducted that campaign. I am prepared to do that time and again; he did a fantastic job. The campaign misled the people of this country and it set our Post Office back years, but he won, and perhaps the Labour party thinks that that is all that counts.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial differences between then and now is that, then, the Post Office was contributing £1 million a day to the taxpayer, and now, it is losing £1.5 million a day, and the Government are in the humiliating position of having to give it its dividends back?
    Mr. Page: With his usual sagacity, my hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point. That was the time to have made the change. Now, it is going to be more difficult and more painful. A total of 30,000 redundancies are being talked about. I shake my head in sorrow at the size of those figures.
    Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Page: I will give way just this once; otherwise, I will still be talking at 7 o'clock and no one will be able to wind up the debate.
    Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has referred to 30,000 redundancies, and we have heard

    809
    reference to the importance of the people working in the postal system. We may not be paying enough attention to that. Much has been said about Post Office Counters, but the work force are another priceless asset. If we lose that work force, their skill, their knowledge and the social service that they provide, we will never replace it.
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All Members have visited their local post offices and sorting offices and have seen the bank of knowledge, good will and caring for the people of this country. The staff there know when somebody is not answering their door or taking their mail, and they will call the emergency services. I do not want that to be destroyed, and neither does any other hon. Member.
    We must find the right way forward. Unfortunately, five years on, with the privilege of this Labour Government, we are no further forward. The post office system seems to be collapsing around our ears. I do not know what to believe. Going back to 14 May 1998, the Minister for Pensions, who was then the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, said:
    "The terms of reference are unequivocal. The Post Office will remain in the public sector".—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 505.]
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne says, however, that there were negotiations to try to do a share swap deal with the Dutch post office. If that is trying to remain in the public service, I am a Dutchman—[Laughter.] That came to me on the spur of the moment. I apologise for it. Unfortunately, we cannot go back.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, both sides of the House agree that sub-post offices are an essential part of the fabric of our society. They supply all the services that we need to drive ourselves forward. They help the older as well as the less-well-off customers. As I said, I want to pay full tribute to the daily work of sub-post offices.
    A vital concern is that sub-post offices continue to expand and develop, but as we all know, they have been contracting over the past 20 years. That has been partly due to changes outside the control of the Post Office—new technologies and new patterns of work, the difficulties of finding new recruits when a sub-postmaster decides to retire, and the lack of profitability of operations in some rural and urban areas. All those factors come into play. No Government or postal provider could have compensated for or counterbalanced those factors entirely. The process of contraction, however, is now taking place at an unacceptable rate.
    Despite the Government's promises back in 1997, the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, in his former capacity as the Minister for Competitiveness, commented more than once on the fact that the network was under-utilised and not properly promoted. He told the House in January 2000 that the measures that the Government had in mind would attract new business to the post office network. He did not mention the fact that they would remove 35 per cent. of the income of sub-post offices through the introduction of ACT. In a debate in the same month in Westminster Hall, he said that attracting banking back to rural areas and taking advantage of computerisation would allow the random effects of the previous 20 years of erosion to be tackled. He was equally clear in the Committee that
    810
    considered the Postal Services Act 2000, on which I had the privilege to serve, about how that would be achieved. I have great respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not share his faith in the Government's powers of prophecy or their ability to deliver.
    One has only to consider the number of sub-post offices that closed last year to realise that the organisation is in meltdown. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses cannot sell their sub-post offices when they want to retire because no one has any confidence in the levels of income that they will earn. People who have sunk their savings and their pensions into the business or who have borrowed money are now saddled with a sub-post office. There is nothing that they can do. The measures in which they put their trust—the creation of the universal banking service with post office card accounts for people receiving state benefits, basic bank accounts and access to current bank accounts via the post office, the provision of information on Government services, the routing of transactions through the "your guide" scheme and so on—look more like a coherent strategy in theory rather than in practice. The sub-post office network is melting away.
    I understand from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that the Government are working on the assumption that 3 million people will opt for post office card accounts. When I asked the hon. Member for Twickenham whether that would be the figure and what would happen if it were even higher, he expressed the alarm that I share. People might say, "This is a useful method. I will transfer out of the banking system and have a post office card account because it is a system for which I do not pay any charges." However, the pressure is on the clearing banks to provide the moneys to subsidise the service. Unless the banks are careful, they could face considerable difficulties.
    How will the Post Office be able to offer basic bank accounts to the several million people who have poor credit histories and perhaps county court judgments or bankruptcy orders set against them? Will those people be able to set aside the orders and take money out? Is it true, as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters alleges, that the Department for Work and Pensions will actively discourage people from opening post office card accounts?
    If the sub-post office is to become the vehicle for basic and current bank accounts, we want to know who will be the beneficiaries. Will it be the people who open the accounts or will it be the banks? Perhaps the service will cost the banks so much money that they will call a halt and the whole system will collapse like a pack of cards.
    Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous in giving way. However, does he not recognise the possibility of a win, win, win situation? Some people are kept out of the formal economy because they do not have access to hank accounts. It will benefit them to be in the formal banking system and to be able to run their affairs appropriately. Such a system could also benefit post offices, because they might benefit from the extra services that they can offer the public and will be better able to sustain themselves. The banks also believe that the system will be commercially viable. Once they have a new customer, they rarely lose them. Customers stay with the banks

    811
    for life; 85 per cent. of people never change their bank account. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that everyone could benefit from the proposal?
    Mr. Page: I can see many advantages, but I have pointed out that there could be some disadvantages. What is incredible is the Government's insensitivity in announcing to all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, "By the way, you will lose, on average, 35 per cent. of your income. We will come along sometime in the next two or three years and let you know how we will supplement it through this universal banking scheme." The details of the universal banking scheme are not universally clear. I hope that the hon. Lady is right and it is win, win, win, but sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses do not share her optimism. The difficulty of selling on sub-post offices is a serious worry. If it is such a win, win, win situation, why are they closing at record rates? Perhaps she will ponder that reality of life. Rural post offices are closing at a worrying rate and before funding is allocated to tackle the problem.
    There are rumours of a plan to allow sub-post offices to close until they number about 12,000, when each will have enough income to make them viable. The hon. Member for Southport talked about the move towards bigger sub-post offices, but if they have a limited throughput of work, there will be fewer of them. When I mentioned the 12,000 figure, the Under-Secretary shook his head. At what number does he think the sub-post office network will stabilise? When will it reach an equilibrium? The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is giving him advice, no doubt using words to the effect, "Don't you dare give an answer because it will be too embarrassing." I see that the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is shrugging, and it is clear that they do not have an answer. We are obviously flying into the wild blue yonder.
    We also need to understand how the £15 million fund to support post offices in deprived rural areas is functioning, because it is shrouded in mystery. The Government remove money quickly, but it is less than clear how they are going to replace it.
    Postal services are being opened up to greater competition, which I welcome, but sub-postmasters want to know how likely it is that Consignia will ensure that local sub-post offices continue to hold cash deposited by businesses. If financial difficulties force the organisation to put its cash handling out to tender, will the new postal services be encouraged to locate their boxes at or in existing sub-post offices, where the flow of customers may be critical to their survival? Those are not academic issues.
    We heard that handling costs will determine whether sub-post offices survive or die. Handling charges have to be realistic and set at the right level. Only today, however, someone approached me to say that the sub-post office charge for handling payments for her utility services had gone from well below £1 to more than £1. She is actively considering whether to make those payments in a different way.
    My constituents have made their views clear. I have a petition from a small post office run by Mr. John Hayden in Tudor parade, Moneyhill, in my constituency. It is just
    812
    three short of 300 signatures. Everyone who signed it is concerned about the closure of sub-post offices, the fact that they are losing 35 per cent. of their income and that more than 500 closed last year. They want to know where the line will be drawn. I hope that I get specific answers to my constituents' concerns on those wider issues. However, experience has taught me that I must not raise my hopes too high.
    In recent years, the Post Office has become a symbol of the confusion at the heart of the Government's strategy for the public sector. We had a Post Office that was the envy of the world, but instead of a brave new world of modern services and commercial and financial freedom, what have we now? We have a Post Office that, in the words of the former general secretary of the Labour party, is suffering from inherent faults and crippling levels of inefficiency.
    It is too much to expect Ministers to accept any blame for the situation. I have noticed that this Government are prepared to accept only credit, not blame, but the country, and my constituents, will hold them to account. We have to reverse the decline in our sub-post offices and put them back on the map, with security, and that is what my constituents are looking for.
    5.40 pm
    Mrs. Betty Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I am committed to a publicly owned and publicly managed universal postal delivery service, and to the maintenance of a comprehensive network of well equipped post offices.
    That said, I am greatly disturbed by the style and standards of much of the management of Consignia that I have encountered since I entered the House in 1997. I know that Consignia's statistics demonstrate that postal delivery standards are improving, but my postbag, like those of other Members, deals with individual cases, not statistics. My experience is real, not statistical, and it includes loss, delay and misdirection.
    The management style of the Post Office seems frozen and unyielding. The Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has several times taken evidence from the Post Office. On the most recent occasion, a list of post offices in Wales was requested from the company. It provided the list, but clearly with some reluctance because it asked that it should not be released to the public. That is a novel way to conduct business—to set up thousands of outlets but not let the public know where they are. Fortunately, the company agreed with the Committee that it was being over-zealous. Perhaps by then it had seen the list published, for all to see, in the Yellow Pages. The list that the company provided to the Committee appeared to be in an entirely random order; it was set out neither alphabetically nor geographically, so the post offices in my constituency were distributed throughout a 25-page list.
    I had earlier asked the management for a list of the post offices in my constituency. I was told that it was cost-prohibitive to provide it. In fact, from a list of all Welsh post office locations and their postcodes, it should he possible to produce such a list for all constituencies in Wales without any difficulty. It may surprise hon. Members that although the Post Office uses postcodes for the efficient delivery of mail, and an excellent system

    813
    it is, its management is incapable of using them in its business, so it is happy to tell me that post offices in Dyserth and Holyhead are in my constituency. That may surprise my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) because, as intelligent people will know, neither of those places is in my constituency. Those are just two examples of such errors.
    Other hon. Members have commented on the closure of post offices. In Wales, the Post Office has appointed rural advisers, but there are only four for the whole of Wales and they have yet to prove themselves. Closure also affects urban post offices, and they are outside the remit of the advisers. Post office closures are not always handled well by management. Standards of communication between management and sub-post offices appear to be less than satisfactory.
    I am aware that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has concerns about the future of the post office network, and I understand the remarks made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) about rumours. Let me quote a letter from one sub-post office proprietor, who said:
    "I am afraid the people at the top of the Post Office, who are the people who can actually make the changes and are often those who reply to you, seem to have little or no first hand experience of what actually happens at a Post Office counter. It is not surprising therefore to find that the real reason so many Subpostmasters are trying to leave the organisation is because they have such little confidence in the hierarchy. The ACT threat is of course very real, but most Subpostmasters also run another side to their business and are used to competition and challenges. It is when they see the constant floundering exhibited in the managing of the Post Office and the utterly disgraceful failure to develop the business to meet a long known about challenge that Subpostmasters become despondent about their future livelihood."
    That is the view of a practitioner delivering a service to the customer over the counter.
    Closure of the sub-post office in Mostyn street, Llandudno, was announced in November 2001, to take effect in March 2002. It was caused by the franchise partner deciding not to renew the contract. There was considerable local opposition to the loss in that town centre location. The mayor of Llandudno, Councillor Brian B. Bertola, and Llandudno town council raised a petition of more than 3,000 signatures. When asked to receive the petition from the mayor and myself in the town of Llandudno, management in Wales declined to do so. They also declined to receive it in Westminster, saying that it was
    "not cost effective to do so."
    I have used the expression Post Office rather than Consignia because the name Post Office is known to the public. In Wales, the Post Office has a long history of providing reliable delivery of mail to households, many of which are in remote locations. I have nothing but admiration for Post Office staff, who on occasion must deliver in weather that can be understood only by hon. Members with mountainous constituencies. The universal postal obligation is essential to my constituents. Mr. Martin Stanley, chief executive of Postcomm, knows of my concern through correspondence and early-day motions 797 and 827. Cherry-picking of rich urban areas must not be permitted.
    Equally important is that the management of the Post Office become more responsive to their staff, their sub-post offices and to the users of their services. So far,
    814
    management have hardly begun to demonstrate a willingness to do so. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that it is too simplistic to say that throwing additional funding at the issue will be sufficient. The attitude of management must change.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Robert Walter: I am sorry to have to speak in the debate, but although all rural Members are used to the occasional pub or filling station closure in their constituency, the closure of local sub-post offices in villages in my constituency happens too often. On 27 March, the post office at Bryanston, just outside Blandford, closed. On 12 April, I received a letter headed "'an essential part of everyday life' www.postoffice.co.uk" which read:
    "Dear Mr. Walter
    Winterborne Whitechurch Post Office Branch …
    We wrote in August 2000, advising of the temporary closure of the Post Office branch … At that time, we were unable to identify a suitable candidate or premises".
    That was the second time that that post office had closed in five years—they had previously found a suitable candidate. The letter continued:
    "The purpose of this letter therefore is to ask if you are aware of any changes".
    On the same day from the same gentleman on the same headed paper, I received a letter about the Glanvilles Wootton post office branch, which had also closed in 2000. It said:
    "Do you know of any changes in the circumstances within Glanvilles Wootton which may help us restore a service to our customers?"
    The first post office that I mentioned at Bryanston was located in a small village shop and its closure was involuntary. Everyone in the village knew where the post office was. Those who used its facilities knew that if they went to the village shop the post office counter was located at the back. But that was not good enough for those who run the post office network. They made it a condition that the person who ran that post office—for only a couple of days a week—would have to relocate the counter so that it was more prominent within the shop. The capital expenditure that would have been required for that would have been out of all proportion to the shop's commercial viability, so on that basis the postmaster declined to renew his contract because he did not have the resources.
    So far I have mentioned just three post offices, but the list is not complete. During the last five years, my constituency has lost post offices at Tarrant Gunville; Pimperne, where it has fortunately re-opened; Weston; Lydlinch; and Hazelbury Bryan, where I am also pleased to say that a year ago I was invited to cut the tape as we re-opened the post office. However, the net loss of village post offices is symptomatic of an underlying problem. The village postmasters are under pressure. Forgive me if the evidence is anecdotal; it is none the less valuable. Several village postmasters have told me that village businesses no longer buy stamps from them because they are being offered stamps at a discount direct from the Post Office.
    Car tax is a matter for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, not for the Post Office or the DTI, but in the interest of joined-up government, surely it would be good news for village post offices if the Government could give

    815
    some encouragement to the DVLA to allow all sub-post offices to sell car tax. A village garage in my constituency has within its premises a shop and a post office. One can buy a car, insure it and have an MOT done there, but one cannot buy a tax disc.
    The key threat, which has already been mentioned, is the changeover in the benefits business. Nothing in the Minister's opening remarks convinced me that the Government are sensitive to the threat that that poses for village sub-post offices. What I heard sounded like an urban agenda. Few of my rural constituents live within half a mile of a post office, which I think was the phrase that he used. The village post office is a key part of the social fabric of the countryside and the strategy for transferring the benefits business is confused for the sub-postmasters involved and for the public whose benefits will be involved.
    Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Walter: No.
    The result will be the closure of more vital village post offices. Too often have I received letters from the Post Office informing me of the closure of yet another post office and giving alternatives up to five miles away. Post office facilities affect the elderly and their closure is a disaster for the many in those villages who have no public transport and is usually soon followed by the closure of the village shop. It is devastating for the social fabric of our villages. I believe that the Post Office and the Government are indifferent to that and I pray that the Government will wake up to the damage that they are doing to rural Britain.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister will be aware that on many occasions I have raised with him problems with sub-post offices in my constituency and the postal services. He and many hon. Members present today will be aware that I have certainly not been slow to raise with Ministers, publicly and privately, concerns that have affected my constituency. Hon. Members speak up for local interests and try to resolve local difficulties as well as possible. But the difference between the approach that I and many of my hon. Friends try to adopt and that taken by some Opposition Members today is that, as well as trying to address some of the local problems and issues, we recognise that there have to be fundamental changes to the post office network and to postal services. Changes are taking place in the marketplace, in technology and in demand that cannot be simply wished away.
    I listened closely to the carefully crafted opening remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and read the Liberal Democrat motion, but at the end of the day I saw no real recognition that there are fundamental problems and changes that need to be addressed. Their approach today has been very much along the lines that something must be done and radical steps must be taken, but they are not sure what they are and there must not be any changes.
    The Minister charitably suggested that the Liberal Democrats would not oppose the closure of some post offices, but the line that they have taken today and on
    816
    other occasions has been to suggest that no post office anywhere in the country should ever close. If I do the Liberal Democrats an injustice I invite them to show me a single Liberal Democrat "Focus" newsletter anywhere in the country that has done anything other than condemn a sub-post office closure as outrageous, scandalous and attacking the fabric of the community. If I am being unfair and any of the diminishing number of Liberal Democrats here can show me such a leaflet, I shall be happy to give way to them.
    Mr. Allan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in the context of local campaigning, I have yet to see a single copy of Labour's "The Rose" or the Conservatives' "In Touch" saying, "We are happy with the post office closure." I think that we should accept that we are talking about the big issues of the future of the Post Office in our motion and that any local party of whatever persuasion is bound to campaign against post office closure. It is unrealistic to think otherwise.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I am touched by that refreshing honesty. In my constituency, I have a problem where two sub-post offices in one area are closing and I have done my best to campaign, with the assistance of the Minister, for the retention of those postal services. I accept that the best solution may be one post office in place of two, so we do not all take the hon. Gentleman's approach.
    Mr. Waterson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Liberal Democrat campaign document that advises candidates to "act shamelessly", "be wicked" and "Don't be afraid to exaggerate". It concludes with advice relevant to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, saying:
    "Oppose all service cuts. No cut is going to be popular and why court the unpopularity that goes with the responsibility of power".
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support on that point, but I now come to a criticism of his position on the matter. Although I enjoyed his quoting from the briefing of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, he showed, I believe, that it is always dangerous selectively to quote from a briefing that is sent to all hon. Members, as others are invited to draw attention to the other points that are made in that briefing. The federation has a realistic approach to the problem facing the sub-post office network, by contrast with Opposition Members. It states:
    "It is accepted that there is duplication and overprovision in some urban areas, making those post offices commercially unviable. There is an urgent need for restructuring."
    It goes on to state:
    "Tough decisions must be made in order to ensure a viable network for the future to create bigger, better and brighter post offices … The larger customer base for some offices following restructuring should enable sub-postmasters in many cases to invest in improved facilities, additional counter positions and longer opening hours."
    That is a realistic approach. Of course, the federation makes other comments, as one would expect from a lobby group whose role is to be critical of the Government and which is likely to demand action that they may not be able to support. The basic point, however, is that the federation supports the urban reinvention programme, and that should be emphasised in this debate.

    817
    A dose of reality is required when we discuss sub-post offices and postal delivery services. Of course, all hon. Members support the universal service obligation; the Government and every hon. Member who has spoken support it. The universal postal delivery service must remain. Along with many hon. Members, I have signed a number of early-day motions strongly criticising the Postcomm proposals, as I do again today. At the same time, we must recognise that times have changed since the postal service was the only way in which communities—remote ones in particular—could stay in touch with the rest of the world.
    Of course, the postal service still plays a vital role in communities throughout the country. We should be proud that, through the postal service, somebody in the Isles of Scilly can be in contact with somebody in Lerwick—or Leir-vik, as I believe we are meant to call it—just as easily and at the same price as somebody here in Westminster can communicate with somebody in the City of London a mile down the road. However, it is one thing to say that we should provide a cross-subsidy to enable people throughout the country and especially in remote areas to enjoy the same postal service as everyone else and allow them to stay part of the community and to stay in touch with friends and relatives, but quite another to say that we should give the same large cross-subsidy to enable direct mail marketing companies to send the same junk mail to everyone in the country—the sort of rubbish that finds its way into the bin whether it is delivered in Thurso or Truro, Edinburgh or London.
    That is the reality of the changing way in which the postal service is used. There are no easy solutions. I am not calling for the abolition of the universal post; far from it—I want it to be retained. However, we must recognise changes in the marketplace and in the role that the postal service plays in our society.
    The way forward is not to stay stuck in the past, but to rebuild a post office network to take account of changing needs, technologies and opportunities. The "your guide" initiative is an excellent scheme; like many hon. Members, I saw the display in Portcullis House. There are many opportunities to develop that system, perhaps by involving local government and other services that can be provided for communities.
    The Liberal Democrats' approach seems basically one of managed decline of the sub-post office network. They do not have the same grounding in reality as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. We are all concerned about change in our areas and communities, and all of us will speak up for the interests of our communities whenever they are threatened, but I recognise that fundamental change is necessary. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking that need seriously and putting in £270 million to back up what they say with actions.
    6.4 pm
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: A great deal has been said in this debate that I would like to pick up on, but I have one careful eye on the clock and I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall try keep my remarks within as narrow a compass as possible.
    There were interesting contrasts between the speeches of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale
    818
    (Geraldine Smith), who is unfortunately not in her place. If there is a race to achieve junior ministerial office, I suspect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will probably win it, but I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was a great deal more commendable.
    The closure of post offices has been an ongoing sore in my constituency for many years. It strikes at the heart of island communities—especially the smaller ones that I represent. Rural post offices in such areas bring with them another Government wage and eventually a pension—money coming in to an island that would not otherwise be available. As other essential Government services such as coastguards and Customs and Excise are withdrawn, taking with them jobs from rural and island communities, particular importance must be placed on the continuation of post offices in our communities.
    Barely a month goes by when I do not receive another letter from the Post Office telling me that yet another sub-post office is to close. It always happens because somebody has retired or is moving away, which is an indication of just how unattractive the job of sub-postmaster in a rural or island community now is.
    I shall focus on the current Postcomm consultation on deregulation of letter post—a subject that has exercised many of my constituents and causes grave concern throughout Orkney and Shetland. In March, I presented at Downing street a petition bearing some 5,000 signatures; since that time, a further 1,000 signatures have been added. I have an electorate of 34,000, so about 17 per cent. of my electorate were represented. [Interruption.] I hear barracking from behind me, but I remind hon. Members that were my constituency situated on the mainland, it would stretch from London to Harrogate, so 1 am not looking for any extra pieces to be added, even if that were possible.
    My main concern about the Postcomm proposals is that they are a licence for cherry-picking. I can see the great advantage of competition in attractive areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and other towns, but I cannot envisage much competition to deliver mail to Papa Westray or to Graemsay, which has a population of 17, or Papa Stour, which now has a population of 15. That is why the continuation of the universal service obligation is so important to my constituents and why we so desperately oppose the Postcomm proposals.
    The proposals are the thin end of the wedge, as once the Post Office monopoly is removed, the universal service obligation will also go as sure as night follows day. I do not understand how Postcomm can possibly say that its primary concern is the preservation of the universal service obligation when it chooses to conduct a consultation about it after the current consultation on deregulation. To my mind, that seems a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and I think that it gives the game away.
    We have had experience of deregulation in relation to parcel post. Hon. Members can now pick up any Sunday supplement and see in the mail order advertisements small print saying "Free delivery to all mainland areas of the United Kingdom". We already routinely expect to pay a supplement for our parcel delivery service.
    Postcomm's response to my concerns about the universal service obligation ending as a result of deregulation was to tell me, "Don't worry, old chap—we've thought about that

    819
    one and we've got it sussed. The people who want the universal service obligation are the banks, credit card companies and big mail users, and they won't let it go." The real tragedy of that argument is that it was made with a totally straight face—I could almost have believed that it was made sincerely. I cannot believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland, Mastercard and American Express will go to the barricades to save the universal service obligation in my constituency.
    The problems with Consignia have been well documented, and I am pleased that they are at last being taken seriously. Now, time should be given to allow the radical measures proposed by the Post Office in relation to the Postcomm consultation to bed in and take effect.
    I want to say a few words about Postcomm—the regulator on a mission. I am disappointed that the Government take such an extremely non-interventionist attitude towards Postcomm. The Government have a duty, where they see a regulator acting as perversely as Postcomm, to intervene and pull it back into line. Whatever the fine print of the law may be, the fact remains that this House must ultimately be accountable for postal services, and the Government cannot be allowed to duck the issue in this way.
    My other great disappointment over the past few weeks with the Postcomm consultation came from the body that one might have hoped would be prepared to take up the cudgels for the individual customers being served by the Post Office—Postwatch. When I met the chairman of Postwatch Scotland, he told me that it regards the big mail companies, banks and credit card companies as consumers as well, so it was prepared to represent their views as vigorously as those of my constituents. That unhelpful attitude leaves a big gap in the debate and a vacuum where there should be proper representation of constituency needs and wishes.
    I deeply regret the exceptionally poor relations, as I see them, between Consignia and Postwatch. Having those two bodies, regulator and provider, at each other's throats, as they have been since the end of January, is not in any way helpful. My plea to the Minister is this. Do not leave it to the regulator, because it has shown that it is following an agenda that will be to the detriment of communities such as those that I represent. Get in there, bang heads together and get it sorted out.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. David Borrow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We seem to have a similar debate every few months as we follow the Post Office's progress.
    Ministers are well aware of my concerns about the future of the Post Office. Many of its problems can be traced back many years. I want to separate the problems in postal services from those in the sub-post office network, as they are slightly different.
    I well remember discussing the structure of the Post Office during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2000. The dilemma that we faced was how to allow the Post Office commercial freedom while retaining its role as a public service. Under the model that we came up with, a Post Office regulator—Postcomm—was introduced. Since then, the frailties and inadequacies of the management,
    820
    operating under the old nationalised industry model, have become increasingly apparent, and their failure to cope with the change to a commercial freedom role has become increasingly obvious. I hope that the changes that have taken place since the introduction of Allan Leighton and David Mills to the Post Office's senior management will begin to make a difference.
    On Postcomm, having a regulator in a public service will remain a problematic issue whether it is a publicly owned company such as the Post Office or a privatised utility. Wherever it is necessary for the public interest to intervene in the markets, and there is a regulator, that imposes a great deal of responsibility on that regulator, which needs to be at arm's length from the Government. I fully recognise the difficulties faced by my colleagues on the Front Bench in intervening directly. The key decisions that Ministers make about regulation concern the brief that is given to the regulator and the individual or individuals who are appointed to regulate. Let us be under no illusion. If Postcomm messes up when it produces its final report, and the universal service is not maintained because it is not financially viable, the regulator will walk away and politicians will be blamed.
    I have noticed in discussions with privatised utilities that have moved through several regulation regimes that they are always dependent on the skill and knowledge of the regulator in being able to make a judgment on the degree of competition and. where relevant, of price fixing that it can impose on a monopoly or semi-monopoly. Postcomm has to make decisions on market access from other competitors and on whether to allow an increase in the price of first-class and second-class stamps. The job of a regulator is to make a judgment on whether the industry concerned is capable of making the internal reforms and changes that are required to meet external competition and price restraints. That is what happened in relation to many of the other utilities that were privatised. Getting it right places a great deal of responsibility on Postcomm.
    One of my concerns remains the quality of the Post Office's management, because the key information on which Postcomm will make its judgment when it has finished its consultation is that provided by the Post Office. If that information is not robust or is badly put together or inadequate, there will be a grave danger of real damage being done to the Post Office in terms of postal deliveries. I stress to my colleagues on the Front Bench that that is my main anxiety.
    I voted for the model that we established, but it depends on a Post Office management that can provide good and adequate information to the regulator, and a regulator who has skill and knowledge and is prepared to seek information to make an adequate judgment on the market in postal offices—on what it is and what it should be.
    I want to consider also the post office network. We have debated the matter endlessly, but I believe that the existing network will continue to decline irrespective of what happens to the benefits system. More and more people will transfer benefits directly into their bank accounts, and fewer and fewer will collect them from the post office. The drip, drip decimation of the post office network over the past 20 years will continue.
    We must also acknowledge and make it clear to our constituents that the post office network is, to all intents and purposes, a network of private businesses. It is not run, owned and controlled by the Post Office. If it needs

    821
    to he subsidised, robust and adequate systems need to be in place to assess reasonable and fair amounts of subsidy to ensure that a specific rural post office is maintained.
    David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend interested in the example that I would like to cite briefly of the post office in the largest town in my constituency, Coalville? It is not only rural post offices that experience commercial problems that lead to their collapse and create social difficulties. It has happened in Coalville and although there are other post offices in the urban fringes, the Post Office, or Consignia, appears extremely slow and not especially willing to find alternative facilities for a town of 30,000 people.
    Mr. Borrow: I shall deal with that shortly, but first I want to consider support specifically for rural post offices.
    The PIU report set out a way forward, but we need to ensure that systems exist to ensure that money reaches the places where it is needed. The Post Office must properly assess the sort of rural network that is sustainable and should be sustained.
    Similar problems exist in urban areas. I accept that where there are many urban post offices in close proximity, it makes sense to have a smaller network of larger and more viable businesses to serve the area. However, the trick is moving from the current position to where we want to be in dealing with private businesses. Sub-postmasters and mistresses say that they have never felt that Post Office Counters is good at communicating and working with them or at managing the system. Unless we get the right management to cope with the essential change in the urban post office network, it will not happen.
    Many of our problems are down to getting the right management to work in the existing structure and to use the funding properly to ensure the maintenance of the post office network and the right postal delivery service. My greatest fear for both is that we may have left it too late to appoint the right sort of management to make the necessary changes to the business. Our constituents will not only suffer poorer postal services, but hundreds of them in most constituencies will experience employment problems because of the difficulties of the post office for which they work and for which they want to continue to work.
    6.24 pm
    Mr. Michael Weir: In my short time as a Member of Parliament, this is the third time I have spoken about the Post Office on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. The direction appears no clearer, and we shall happily support the Liberal Democrat motion.
    The position of sub-post offices in Scotland and Wales is precarious and causes great anxiety. It has already been said that the Government's determination to press on with automated credit transfer means that some 40 per cent. of post offices' income will vanish. It is difficult to understand how they will be replace that.
    In opening the debate, the Minister spoke at length about network banking. However, the experience in my constituency is that banks, like many other businesses, have removed themselves from rural areas. In the past decade, banking services have retrenched out of rural
    822
    areas. It reached the stage where one big bank was running an advertising campaign to try to gain a lead over its rivals on the basis that it was not closing branches.
    In my constituency, several rural post offices have closed in the past few years. In the village of Farnell, the post office closed six months ago and is unlikely to reopen. The post office in Monikie keeps going simply because the current postmistress, who wishes to retire, has agreed to stay on in the hope that a new owner can be found. If that does not happen shortly, the post office will inevitably close. A third example is the post office in Marykirk, just over the border in West Aberdeenshire. It closed last month and will be converted into a house. The people of the village face a trip to Montrose in my constituency to obtain postal services. That may not seem a long way, but it is for those who do not have a car or are elderly or disabled.
    The Minister cited the statistic, which Consignia also gave, that nine out of 10 people live within a mile of a post office. That is disingenuous when one considers the population break-up of rural areas. People in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) face much longer trips to reach a post office.
    Much has been said about the closure of post offices in the United Kingdom. In a rare bout of charity to the Government, I must say that it is not entirely their fault—the trend began some 20 years ago. In 1980–81, there were 22,475 post offices in the UK. That figure fell to just below 18,000 last year. It has been said that 547 post offices were closed in 2000–01. I appreciate that the rate has slowed, but that may be for various reasons. It is worth looking behind the statistics because they contain alarming messages for Scotland and Wales.
    Most closures have occurred in rural areas, and 64 per cent. of all Scotland's post offices are in rural areas. In 2000–01, 89 per cent. of closures were of rural post offices. That is much higher than the UK average. The position is even worse in Wales, where 70 per cent. of post offices are in rural areas. That is the highest proportion in the UK. Last year's closure rate of 6 per cent. was again much higher in Wales.
    It is not only rural post offices that are under threat. Consignia' s latest restructuring plan, which was announced in March, foresees the closure of up to 3,000 urban post offices—one third of the total. The closure rate is higher in deprived urban areas. We cannot consider the Post Office purely in terms of business, balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. There is a social element to it, especially in rural and more deprived areas. That must be acknowledged.
    I should like to know more about the "your guide" proposals, which are innovative, although in some ways they seem simply a more electronic form of doing what many sub-postmasters have done for many years. Post offices have been the hub of the community.
    The motion also refers to delivery services and the universal service obligation, which is vital to Scotland and Wales. Both nations have large rural and remote areas, and delivery costs are higher to them than to densely populated urban areas. If the universal service obligation and the universal tariff are allowed to go, it will spell disaster for postal deliveries in those areas.
    The Government have previously said that they would insist on the retention of the obligation, but I would like the Minister to tell me how that would be workable in a

    823
    system with a multitude of operators. Many of the players will wish to go for profitable urban routes, and there is a clear danger that rural areas in particular will be left out in the cold. It does not seem feasible to insist that one carrier, Consignia, should have a universal service obligation when others do not.
    What would such an obligation mean to a carrier operating only in an urban area? It would be very easy to fulfil the universal service obligation and guarantee a universal tariff in such a location. It would be much more difficult, however, for a carrier operating only rural deliveries. Most hon. Members on this side of the House believe that Postcomm's proposals will ultimately lead to the end of the universal service obligation and the universal tariff.
    International comparisons give serious cause for concern. In Sweden, for example, prices have increased by 72 per cent., and deliveries in rural areas are made not to the door but to cluster points along the postman's route. The number of post offices in Sweden has halved over the past 10 years, and employment in the industry has fallen by 20 per cent. In spite of that, the Swedish postal service now runs an operating deficit approaching £20 million a year. Furthermore, postal deliveries to rural areas in New Zealand now take, on average, two days longer than before.
    When Sir Rowland Hill introduced the penny post in 1840, he did so to reform a system in which many carriers were operating services of variable quality and charging whatever they liked. Mail was paid for by the addressee, and if they could not afford it they could not have it. The Postcomm proposals seem to take us back towards that system. For all those reasons, we shall support the Liberal Democrats tonight, and we urge the Government to reconsider this matter before it is too late.
    6.31 pm
    Mr. Roger Gale: I am conscious of the fact that we are short of time, and I shall be brief. I would like to consolidate what I said in the two interventions that I made earlier in this very interesting debate.
    First, I very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), with which I have a great deal of sympathy. He will understand why, when I have said what I have to say. We have heard a lot about rural village post offices this afternoon, and "village" has always been synonymous with "rural". In a town called Herne Bay in my constituency, there are a number of villages. It is a town of 25,000 people, but within that town, Studd Hill, Hampton, Greenhill, Herne, Reculver, Broomfield, Beltinge, and Eddington Lane all regard themselves as villages. In that urban community, those village sub-post offices—those little private businesses—are every bit as important as the ones in the bigger towns. To suggest that it is possible to consolidate all those private businesses into a few bigger ones just because they are in a town—and to say, "That's all right, isn't it?"—is completely to gainsay the demands and requirements of the people living in the immediate vicinity of those little businesses.
    Those businesses are used by many elderly people, by young mothers with babies in prams, and by people who regard them as the shopping core—sometimes their
    824
    once-weekly contact with society—of their community. We must all—not just the Minister, but all of us—be very careful before we take that away and destroy it. If we take it away, we will never get it back, and that would be one social service gone.
    Not much has been said this afternoon about the other bit of the debate on the Order Paper, which concerns the delivery service. Yes, we have rightly talked about the needs of the highlands and islands; I understand why. But who is going to compete to deliver a letter from Margate in my constituency to East Anglia overnight at the price that is now charged? Who is going to want to do that job?
    I know who is doing the delivering at the moment, and I suppose I should declare a slight interest here. My wife and I have living in our house a young lady whom we regard practically as a daughter, who also happens to be a postman. We know what time she and thousands like her all over the country get up in the small hours of a dark winter's morning when it is bucketing down with rain. She goes into the sorting offices and does her job there. She then lifts a very heavy bag on to a bicycle or into a van—she is lucky enough, most of the time, to use a van—and goes out into the dark with a torch to deliver those letters, as thousands like her do all round the country.
    Those are the people who tell the local bobby or someone like me that somebody is not well or in trouble and needs help. We have talked a lot about business, and I understand that this is a commercial business, but if we lose the expertise of all those people delivering all those letters, trudging and cycling all those miles all around the country every day except Sunday—although even on Sunday there are collections—we shall never get it back.
    I want to say to hon. Members on both sides of the House—on my own Front Bench, on the Government Front Bench and in the Liberal party—that we must not take away something that is very precious. It has been damaged by some fool who turned it into Consignia, which is about the most crass thing to have been done since we changed the tail fins on British Airways planes and ceased to "fly the flag". It is just another brand image, but it matters to people and is very precious. If we destroy it, we shall never be able to rebuild it.
    We need to take a step back and have a long hard think before we lose more of our urban village, and rural village, post offices, and before we sacrifice their work force. Yes, that work force might have Spanish practices—they need to be dealt with—but in the main, it is dedicated, hard working and does a job that most people in this House would not wish to do.
    6.36 pm
    Dr. John Pugh: I apologise in advance for the brevity of this contribution, although I am not entirely sure why I am doing so. I must also apologise for not altogether concurring with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), in that I do not think that we are talking about a project that may or may not fail; we are talking about a project that is doomed to fail.
    Only 10 years ago, we had something called the Royal Mail. For hundreds of years before that, it was a monopoly in this country. This country does not take easily to monopolies; by inclination, we do not favour them. We need—and we had—very good reasons for enforcing that monopoly. Those reasons were to do with

    825
    the reliability and integrity of the mail, and with the universality of the mail—the fact that we could post a letter in one place and it would end up anywhere else in the United Kingdom for the same price, whoever posted it. Those reasons were also to do with economies of scale. Our ancestors could not visualise the possibility of hundreds of different types of letter boxes provided by different companies in different places.
    The Royal Mail was a Crown service. It was not an absolute monopoly; people could deliver mail themselves, and it called upon the Scouts at Christmas. None the less, it was a monopoly for a reason. It was very profitable, but as hon. Members have said, it had all the problems of a state monopoly. There were Spanish practices and industrial relations problems. So gradually the presumption that it should be a monopoly was questioned. It was questioned intellectually by people who had ideological hang-ups, full stop, and ideological hang-ups about state provision.
    A competitive market was thought to be better for the provision of all services, whether or not they had a social dimension. Many case histories illustrate that there are certain benefits when state monopolies are broken up. Equally, cases such as Railtrack illustrate that, following the break-up of British Rail, there have been very few benefits that the public can identify. None the less, the weight of the argument was against monopolies.
    I accept—as I expect the Minister to point out—that the nature of the mail was going to change anyway. E-mail has made it possible for people to communicate in different ways, and the volume of mail will necessarily decline, to a certain extent. The computer has had an effect on the mail service. It has also made possible the infinite quantities of junk mail which make the volume of mail very similar to what it was in the past.
    The other reason for change is that there was a legal challenge with regard to the single market. All these challenges led in the same direction: towards an end to the monopoly. The simple question was: how soon and how fast? It was a question of, "Goodbye, Royal Mail; hello, Consignia." Almost immediately after that happened, there were closures, losses and redundancies. That is all, somehow, thought to be coincidental. There is a temptation to see the whole of the present problem as one of transition and change. It has been suggested—wrongly, I believe—that some changes have already come about on the continent, but the continent was never in the position we were in in the first place.
    I am not easily persuaded that we are talking about new, innovative ways of delivering an old service, and that this is simply a change in the method of delivery, rather than a change of product. The consumer—the person actually using mail services—is now receiving services that are more expensive, that will become less frequent and less reliable, that will not necessarily be guaranteed to those in the far-flung reaches of this country and that, certainly in terms of post offices, will be far less local. People who used to be able to go to suburban centres will have to go to the centres of towns. So it is not just a question of a change of method; it is a question of a change in the product.
    There is a reason for that. Indeed, all the reasons for Royal Mail's existence are the reasons why Consignia does not work now. Economies of scale are not possible if profitable areas of business can be cherry-picked, as they can. Businesses are severely hampered if they have
    826
    a universal service obligation to discharge, as they have. Reliability is not possible, or satisfactory, when a company is permanently placed in a vulnerable market situation, as Consignia is.
    Consignia is a doomed project, and at least four categories are affected. The staff are already casualties. The public are receiving diminishing services. Then there are Government finances. The Government are now having to fund closures, whereas in the past post offices made a net contribution to the Revenue. Communities, too, are losing out. In my constituency, when a sub-post office closes, the little nest of shops surrounding it suffer from less passing trade and have to close as well. Staff, the public, Government finance and communities: they all lose. It is a doomed project.
    The Government have two options. They can leave Consignia to the permanent tender mercies of Postcomm, to the unions as they fight for the remaining jobs, and to a flailing and failing management. They can let predictions of a second-class service for the ordinary consumer come true. They can adopt an arm's-length, Pontius Pilate approach, and let it all happen. Or they can simply look at the facts, step in now, and work on the premise that the old lady of John O'Groats wants a world-class service as much as the city slicker, and may have much more difficulty in finding alternatives to Royal Mail.
    This will be the Government's problem. It will come home to roost. I ask them to consider what ordinary folk want, and I say, "Do not stand aside; make it happen."
    6.42 pm
    Mr. David Heath: The debate has proved that this was the right subject to discuss, and at the right time. There is clearly concern throughout the House about what is happening to postal services. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) set out extremely well the issues that we need to address, in a speech that was as inexorable as it was unanswerable. Indeed, we received no answers to it.
    A number of other Members made excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) described the damage done to communities by closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke of the centrality of the post office to small island communities. There is, in fact, little difference in that respect between an island community and a rural constituency such as mine—or indeed urban areas, to which the sub-post office network is equally important. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made similar points on behalf of his constituents.
    Members of other parties also made useful contributions. The hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) drew attention to deficiencies in management. That, I think, is self-evident: there have certainly been management failures in the Post Office. The hon. Member for Conwy was honest enough to say that ACT posed a real threat, which is our view as well. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) took a rather more conventional line in respect of new Labour. He may have strayed towards complacency; we shall see whether his complacency is well founded.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: May I correct something that the hon. Gentleman said? I was not expressing my view

    827
    on ACT. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I was reading a passage from a letter from a sub-postmaster.
    Mr. Heath: I can only say that the sub-postmaster was absolutely right, and I am glad that the hon. Lady quoted him.
    In support of that, let me cite what was said in an intervention by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—who spoke of the coercion inherent in the migration to bank accounts—and also the exceptional speech by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). I do not want to embarrass the hon. Lady, but she will be very welcome in the Lobby this evening—for the right reason: not because I am claiming a miraculous conversion to our cause in general, but because the hon. Lady has read our motion and agrees with our analysis. She has exercised independence of thought. I commend her for that, and wish that more Members were prepared to take the same attitude.
    As for the Conservatives' speeches, we heard a vigorous defence of the post office network from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who I think was entirely sincere. The contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was amiable and extensive, and extraordinarily indiscreet—that being one of the reasons for our holding him in such affection. He said, "The guilty party moves on, and someone else clears up the mess," and we know that to be true. He was also sufficiently indiscreet to reveal himself as an unashamed supporter of full privatisation of the Post Office—and that, I must say, is why it is so difficult to take the comments of Conservative Front Benchers seriously.
    There may be individual Members who share our conviction that the post office network and the delivery system are crucial, but we can only look at their record. Listening to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and observing the extraordinarily bleak picture he painted of postal services, I was reminded of the bleak picture the Conservatives also paint of the national health service. I think it is possible to identify what is wrong with a system without damning it as a whole, and damning everyone who works in it; but the hon. Gentleman nearly reached that point.
    We remember how many post offices were closed during the Conservatives' years in government. We also remember more recent events: we remember the amendments that the Conservatives were prepared to table to the Postal Services Bill, which would have reduced the reserved area and the universal service obligation. There has clearly been no change in their underlying policy. But let us return to the Government of today, and consider what the Minister said.
    I have a great deal of time for the Minister—I hope that does not embarrass him—but he did not answer the questions, possibly because he cannot. One of the problems we always encounter when discussing this issue is a faint feeling that DTI Ministers are put up to respond to questions to which they do not know the answers. That is partly because, as we know, the universal bank programme has been taken away: it has been moved to the Department for Work and Pensions, and Mr. Secretary Darling is in charge—I am sorry; I have forgotten his constituency. That may be the reason for the remarkable degree of ministerial imprecision and obfuscation.
    828
    Let us consider the key points that have been raised today. First, let us deal with delivery, which is crucial to the communities we all represent. In fact, collections are almost more important: without an adequate collection service it is difficult for businesses, in particular, to survive.
    The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made an important point about the primacy of the universal service obligation for Postcomm. Why, she asked, does Postcomm not appear to be giving priority to an aspect that Parliament felt it had made a clear priority? What is the Government's attitude to this? It is no good saying that it is a matter for someone else. We are dealing with legislation that has been passed by the House and that affects an industry for which we all have corporate responsibility. It is for Ministers to explain why there appears to be a movement towards aggressive and accelerated competition which is doing no good whatsoever to the structure of postal services in the UK.
    What will happen if Consignia fails to deliver its universal service obligation, quite apart from the fact that constituencies that are not in profitable postal service areas will lose the services on which they depend? Will there be a fine? That will help Consignia a great deal, given its present financial state. Will it lose its licence; and if so, what will happen to the UK postal service, for that is what is at stake?
    Let me turn to the post office network, a matter that is dear to the heart of so many hon. Members and one that we have discussed on many occasions. We have heard the Government's rhetoric and we applaud their intentions, so let us not be distracted into pretending that they do not share our aspiration to maintain the post office network. We are not discussing whether the Government wish to do that, but whether they have done so and whether they will do so in future. The reality is that there has been a continuation of closures—547 sub-post offices closed in 2001.
    What issues need to be addressed? The Minister said that he was concerned to achieve an outstanding retail experience within the post office network. I would love an outstanding retail experience when I go to the post office, but a great number of recipients of pensions and benefits do not want an outstanding retail experience; they just want to get the money on which they depend, in cash, on the day they need it.
    It is important that Ministers explain how they will ensure that the collection of pensions and benefits in cash, which they have promised on so many occasions will continue. The promised mechanism is the universal bank service, particularly the post office card account. However there is a difficulty: design and investment decisions have been left so very late, and the clock is ticking. The system has to be in place by April 2003, yet we know that the original contracts were not let to the IT firm—EDS—until last November, and we heard from the Minister this evening that the contracts with post offices are not yet complete. There is no clarity, no decision and no certainty that the systems will be up and running when they are needed. A whole migration programme needs to be put in place and the training of post office staff has not started and cannot start yet. That is why we are so concerned.
    When we look at other Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, which deals with war pensions, we find that war pensions will no longer be paid

    829
    out in post offices. The decision has been taken—end of story. What sort of communication is that within a Government who claim to be taking the matter seriously?
    We have heard about the so-called actively managed choice. It is clear from anecdotal and other evidence that Consignia will strain every sinew to prevent people from having post office bank cards. That is a tragedy for post offices and for the least well-off who require such a service.
    We still have, nagging at the back of our minds, the fact that £400 million of replacement income for the sub-post offices has to be found somewhere. If it cannot be found from the footfall of benefit and pension claimants, there will be a serious problem.
    We remain worried about the rural network. We have already heard how important it is and I applaud what the Government have done in its defence. Let me make a confession to the House: far from closing post offices in my constituency, I have opened two in the past two months. I have cut the tape on post offices in Sparkford and Henstridge and that is good news, although there have been many closures across the country. We require the overall network to be maintained, and despite the funds and support available, particularly in rural areas, there is no evidence of that yet.
    There is also the issue of so-called urban re-intervention. We know that post offices are closing. We acknowledge that it is sensible to close post offices that are next door to one another if one post office can provide a comparable service with no difficulty of access for the public, but is there a proper system for ensuring that people in urban areas who need access to post offices will continue to have it? We know that Postwatch is to take on the arbitration of these matters, but we do not know whether it will have the money to pay for it.
    We have not been told whether the £270 million in the comprehensive review and the Labour manifesto of 2001 includes the £180 million which has been set aside for compensation or whether it is all part of the bigger picture. We do not know about "your guide", which was hailed as a great success story. We were told that "your guide" in Leicestershire was a marvellous success and that it would be rolled out across the country. Now there will be no decision until June.
    We do not know what the Government will do if the IT systems are not in place by April 2003. They rejected our amendments to the Tax Credits Bill which would have given them the option, so let them tell us tonight how they will preserve the service, the network and the delivery systems. I do not believe that they can give us those answers and that is why we must continue to express our concern.
    6.57 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have left me only three minutes to respond to the debate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister seems to be badly informed. The debate does not have to end at 7 pm. We hope that he will give us full answers, and then we will have a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The debate does not have to conclude at 7 pm.
    Nigel Griffiths: That is excellent, because it will give me the chance to tell the House about the Liberal Democrats' record, about which I shall say more in a moment.
    The debate demonstrates the strength of feeling with which the Post Office and the post office network are regarded in the House and throughout the country. No one more than I appreciates the work of more than 200,000 postal staff and the many thousands of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who deliver an excellent service.
    I am grateful for the many constructive comments that have been made and I welcome the opportunity to respond to as many of them as possible. As everyone knows, the Post Office touches everyone's lives like no other industry in Britain. It is clear from the debate that all hon. Members want it to provide a first-class postal service and network fit for the 21st century. That is why we are delivering the investment and the reform that the business has long needed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) made some telling points. I had the pleasure of visiting her constituency recently, so I know how in tune she is with her constituents. She asked about the 1p increase in the price of stamps. I can confirm that this week Consignia applied to raise the price of a second-class stamp from 19p to 20p and the price of a first-class stamp from 27p to 28p. That will now be considered by the regulator, and any representations that my hon. Friend or anyone else wishes to make will be taken into account. Even with that increase, the House will want to know that the cost of sending a standard letter in Britain will remain cheaper than almost anywhere else in the world. Even if we apply the proposed new first class charge of 28p—I stress that it is a proposal—it will still be cheaper than the cheapest in other EU countries. Spain charges the equivalent of 29p, and Italy—the highest—the equivalent of 97p. To put the matter in perspective, even if the proposed rise is allowed, the cost would still be reasonable. Indeed, it would be very low in European terms.
    In the light of the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), we must ask how much it would cost to send a stamp in an independent Scotland. The more important question for the Scottish National party, I suspect, is whose head would appear on the stamp. Would it be John Swinney's, or that of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? I should certainly like to be party to that internal SNP discussion.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale raised another serious point—the second delivery. She will know that only 4 per cent. of items are delivered by second delivery, but that they absorb 20 per cent. of costs—a fact that must be taken into account by the regulator when considering Consignia's proposals. She also raised the issue of consultation, as did several other hon. Members. In response to meetings with Members of this House, and to representations from others with an interest, the consultation period was extended by a full month, so that everyone affected could make proper representations.
    My hon. Friend also raised the important question of frequency of collection. So far, the consultation has concerned itself with second delivery, rather than frequency of collection, but we regard collection as key to the future commercial success of Consignia and the

    831
    Post Office. They will want to take account of the need for a full network of uplifts to ensure that a place in the market is maintained. I urge my hon. Friend not to vote with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)—who called for the immediate privatisation of the Post Office—and the Liberal Democrats. Having recently taken over Norwich city council, the Liberal Democrats have promised to privatise the housing service and the benefits service, so at a national level they would doubtless try to privatise the Post Office as well. Liberal Democrat councils are not a model of good practice in local government, but time prevents me from discussing that issue.
    In a witty and incisive contribution—in fact, it was one of the best speeches of this year—my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) put the best case yet for strengthening the Post Office's management team. I can assure her that we have done just that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are taking place throughout the Chamber—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister who is responding to the debate.
    Nigel Griffiths: The management team has been strengthened through the appointment of Marisa Cassoni, the new financial director; David Mills, the chief executive of the network, who had a distinguished record with HSBC; and Allan Leighton, whose success in turning round and growing Asda is legendary. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned closures, about which every right hon. and hon. Member feels strongly. I am pleased that the rate of closure in Wales has more than halved, and that, in addition to the opening of the two branches to which reference was made, a further 169 opened in the previous financial year. As part of the Government's £2 million scheme, £7,000 has been given to Mrs. Jones to ensure the construction of a post office building and counter in Adfa, in Powys. Similar examples can be cited throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    I remind the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who also mentioned closures, that in 18 years of Conservative government the rate of closure was 16 a month. In his south-west region, 33 branches closed last year—equivalent to the number that closed every two months when his party were in government.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness dealt well with the other contributions that were made, and I urge the House to reject the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question—
    The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 307.

    Division No. 241]

    [7.5 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Allan, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Amess, David

    Bacon, Richard

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Baker, Norman

    832

    Baldry, Tony

    Hoban, Mark

    Barker, Gregory

    Hoey, Kate

    Baron, John

    Holmes, Paul

    Barrett, John

    Horam, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Bercow, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Blunt, Crispin

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Johnson, Boris (Honley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Keetch, Paul

    Brady, Graham

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Breed, Colin

    Key, Robert

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Burnett, John

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yokshire)

    Burns, Simon

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Burstow, Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Burt, Alistair

    Lamb, Norman

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Laws, David

    Cation, Mrs Patsy

    Leigh, Edward

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    (NE Fife)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Lidington, David

    Cash, William

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Loughton, Tim

    Chidgey, David

    Luff, Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clappison, James

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Maclen, Rt Hon David

    (Rushcliffe)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Malins, Humfrey

    Collins, Tim

    Marsden, Paul (Srewsbury)

    Conway, Derek

    Mates, Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Moore, Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Moss, Michael

    Doughty, Sue

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Oaten, Mark

    Evans, Nigel

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Öpik, Lembit

    Fabricant, Michael

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Page, Richard

    Flook, Adrian

    Paice, James

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Paterson, Owen

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pickles, Eric

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Price, Adam

    Francois, Mark

    Prisk, Mark

    Gale, Roger

    Pugh, Dr John

    Garnier, Edward

    Randall, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gibb, Nick

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Rendel, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robathan, Andrew

    Goodman, Paul

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Gray, James

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Grayling, Chris

    Robertson Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Salmond, Alex

    Grieve, Dominic

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hammond, Philip

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Selous, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hayes, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Heald, Oliver

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Heath, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hendry, Charles

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    833

    Spring, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Watkinson, Angela

    Streeter, Gary

    Webb, Steve

    Stunell, Andrew

    Weir, Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Whittingdale, John

    Swire, Hugo

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Syms, Robert

    Wiggin, Bill

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Willis, Phil

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Wishart, Pete

    Trend, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tyler, Paul

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Bob Russell and

    Walter, Robert

    John Thurso.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

    Allen, Graham

    (Norwich S)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    (Swansea E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clelland, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clwyd, Ann

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Coaker, Vernon

    Austin, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cohen, Harry

    Baird, Vera

    Coleman, Iain

    Banks, Tony

    Connarty, Michael

    Barnes, Harry

    Cook Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cooper, Yvette

    Battle, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Corston, Jean

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cranston, Ross

    Bell, Stuart

    Cruddas, Jon

    Benn, Hilary

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Cummings, John

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Best, Harold

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Blackman, Liz

    Curitis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blizzard, Bob

    David, Wayne

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Davidson Ian

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry

    Brennan, Kevin

    (B'ham Hodge H)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Dawson, Hilton

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Bryant, Chris

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burgon, Colin

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Burnham, Andy

    Doran, Frank

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Dowd, Jim

    Cairns, David

    Drew, David

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Edwards, Huw

    Caton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cawsey, Ian

    Ennis, Jeff

    Challen, Colin

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Chaytor, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Clapham, Michael

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Flint, Caroline

    Flynn, Paul

    834

    Follett, Barbara

    Luke, Iain

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McCafferty, Chris

    Galloway, George

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    MacDonald, Calum

    Gardiner, Barry

    McDonnell, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    MacDougall, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    MacGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gilroy, Linda

    McIsaac, Shona

    Goggins, Paul

    McKechin, Ann

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    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

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Healey, John

    Mann, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Heyes, David

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hill, Keith

    Miliband, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mole, Chris

    Hope, Phil

    Moran, Margaret

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mountford, Kali

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mudie, George

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Mullin, Chris

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansback)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hurst, Alan

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Norris, Dan

    Illsley, Eric

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jamieson, David

    Owne, Albert

    Jenkins, Brian

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pike, Peter

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pond, Chris

    Joyce, Eric

    Pound, Stephen

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Khabra, Piara S

    Purnell, James

    Kidney, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Rammell, Bill

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Lammy, David

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Laxton, Bob

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Roche, Mrd Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Ross, Ernie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruddock, Joan

    Levitt, Tom

    Ryan, Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Salter, Martin

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Sawford, Phil

    Lloyd, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Love, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Lucas, Ian

    Sheerman, Barry

    835

    Sheridan, Jim

    Trickett, Jon

    Simon, Siôn

    Truswell, Paul

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Singh, Marsha

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Vaz, Keith

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Soley, Clive

    White, Brian

    Southworth, Helen

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Squire, Rachel

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    (Swansea W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stevenson, George

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wilson, Brian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wood, Mike

    Tami, Mark

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Worthington, Tony

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wray, James

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tipping, Paddy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Todd, Mark

    Mr. Graham Stringer and

    Touhig, Don

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House applauds the Government's decision to accept all 24 of the PIU recommendations in its June 2000 report "Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network": notes that Consignia is committed to preventing avoidable closures of rural post offices and has drawn up a code of conduct on how this is to be implemented in conjunction with the consumer watchdog, Postwatch; further applauds the decision of the Government to grant the greater commercial freedom to Consignia that management and unions had long called for; welcomes the action of the Government in appointing a new chairman of Consignia and a new chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and to enshrine in legislation the primary duty of the regulator to preserve the universal service; further applauds the commitment of the Government to a national network of post offices; and further notes the commitment by Post Office Ltd. to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile.

  Johannesburg Summit
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.19 pm
  Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister will be attending the Johannesburg Earth Summit in September, but regrets that the UK is not providing co-ordinated internal or external leadership to ensure the Summit's success, particularly given rising emission of carbon dioxide in the last two years in the UK and the apparent emphasis by the Government on UK business interests ahead of the needs of developing countries; notes with concern the United States' role in the removal of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change's Chair and for their reneging on the Kyoto Protocol; further notes the damage such events may have on the relationship between rich and poor nations in the run-up to the Summit and the potential negative impact on both environmental and political stability, particularly in view of the close co-operation between the UK Government and US Administration and concern by leading NGOs that the Summit, aiming to reduce inequalities between rich and poor nations and promote an improving world order, may be heading for failure; calls on the Government to take a greater role in leading international discussions in the run-up to Johannesburg and promoting related activities in the UK, particularly the need to employ more sustainable solutions and set long-term targets for the use of renewable energy; and calls on the Government genuinely to put the environment at the heart of government, developing the policies and conditions which will promote local action for truly sustainable agriculture, waste, water management, energy and transport.
  The motion deals with the extremely important matter of the UK's role at the Johannesburg summit in promoting sustainability. We have initiated the debate because we believe that it is vital for world order and stability for rich nations—of which Britain is one—to demonstrate a clear and unequivocal commitment to alleviating world poverty. It is because we see it in that light that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be winding up the debate for the Liberal Democrats. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will then reply to the debate.
  We need action world wide to prevent further degradation of the planet and reverse the damage that has been done, particularly in the past 200 years. We hold the earth in trust for future generations and should seek to use it on sustainable terms. We should not take out more than we put in.
  We contend that peace and stability in the world can be achieved only if a genuine partnership between rich and poor people and nations takes a common approach to development. Developed economies must demonstrate unequivocally that we will not continue to exploit the lion's share of the world's resources and that we will create the space, in partnership, and the appropriate technology to enable the poorest people on earth to achieve real improvements in their quality and standard of life.
  I observed that, with her usual courtesy, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present at both the beginning and end of the previous debate. It surprises me not at all that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not in her place—she never shows much interest in these matters. I welcome the Minister who will reply to the debate, but the right hon. Lady does lead on the matter. No doubt she is busy packing for her trip to Bali.

  837
  There is a serious point behind this observation. There is, in our view, a moral imperative to address world poverty, but it is also enlightened self-interest. The tectonic plates of the cold war have shifted, creating a freer, more unpredictable, unstable and risky world. Some people exploit the fears of the most deprived and create resentment so that millions of people migrate around the world in the hope of a better life. That creates the considerable problems with which we are having to wrestle.
  The world summit in Johannesburg is—or should be—a crucial milestone in addressing these issues. It comes 10 years after the Rio summit started a process of addressing the imbalance of poverty and confronted the need to deal with environmental pressures. It is a question not only of dealing with climate change but of creating the potential for economic development that does not freeze the status of the developed and undeveloped world. There is a fear that we, the rich, will hang on to what we have and cannot allow the poor to develop and further deplete the planet's resources. So it is essential, if we are to address this tension, that Johannesburg be a success and produce a treaty with real commitments, not just a series of bilateral arrangements.
  I believe that the whole House welcomes the Prime Minister's early commitment to attend the summit. It is right that he should be there, but it is not clear what he will say or whether the United Kingdom is prepared and able to take a lead in ensuring the necessary progress.
  The Secretary of State has been under fire for the apparent extravagance of her planned attendance at the final preparation committee for the summit in Bali next month. It is ironic that Ministers and their civil servants are reported to be spending about £200,000 or £300,000 to attend a preparatory meeting in a holiday paradise for a summit whose prime purpose is to provide a beacon of hope and international action for the poorest people on earth. We are not saying that the Secretary of State should not be there, but if she believes that it is important enough to take a delegation of this size to take the matter forward, surely it is also important that she make a statement to the House about why she is going and what she is hoping to achieve. Moreover, when she comes back, she should tell us what has been done to prepare the way for the Prime Minister to lead a positive engagement for the United Kingdom Government in Johannesburg. Why does she never come to the House and tell us what she is doing? Should she not explain to British taxpayers what she claims to be doing on their behalf?
  The Secretary of State claims on her website and in her circulars that she wants to involve the widest range of stakeholders in the preparations for Johannesburg, yet she has refused to meet me or, I understand, the Conservative shadow Secretary of State. She does not want to involve Back Benchers in the process, but she will be taking four schoolchildren with her as part of the Government delegation to Johannesburg. If the Secretary of State is serious and we share common values, should she not, like her counterparts in many other countries, take a broad delegation and ensure that we are all consulted and that this House has a real say in the agenda? She has shown no interest in involving the House in that way.
  Attached to the motion is a reference to the report of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. I thank the Committee for its helpful report. Its verdict on the Government is mixed, as is mine. The Committee welcomes the Prime Minister's planned attendance but
  838
  points to the inadequacy of DEFRA's resources and alerts the House to the dangers of the summit falling apart and falling far short of the legitimate expectations of the developing world. Indeed, some non-governmental organisations have become so frustrated at the way in which the agenda has become bogged down that they suggest it might be better if the whole event were cancelled. It is up to Governments to show that they have the commitment to make it succeed.
  Specifically, the Committee calls on the Government to generate some enthusiasm for the event. I suggest that it is the lack of a clear explanation of why a large delegation is going to Bali that has attracted adverse criticism and undermined whatever case the Government wanted to make. Most people would be astonished to hear of this trip, but they would not have been if the ground had been prepared and an explanation given to show that this is a major event.
  Ian Lucas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if a full explanation had been given to the press reporting these matters, they would have given as much information to the public about the true purpose of the visit as we would all like?
  Malcolm Bruce: My point is that it would have helped if the Secretary of State had explained to the House why she was going. She could then have benefited from pointing out that we had had a debate about it.
  We accept that the Government have recorded some important achievements in shifting the balance of resources to poorer countries. We want to give acknowledgement and credit where it is due. The Chancellor's debt reduction initiative has rightly attracted wide support from the public and international agencies. The UK's aid record is better than that of many countries, and at least the commitment to a 0.7 per cent. target is welcome, although, like the Environmental Audit Committee, we would like a firm timetable as to when that will be achieved.
  Of course, we support the commitment made by the Secretary of State, in one of only two statements that she has made to the House since her appointment, to ratify the Kyoto protocol. However, we are not so sanguine about the Government achieving the target and are critical that it is based on a "business as usual" approach following the dash for gas. It does not include a radical drive towards serious emission reductions as a result of innovative policies. This, in the Liberal Democrats' view, is a central issue. We have put the environment at the heart of our thinking. Environmental policies were a green thread through our manifesto. We gained credit from a number of agencies for the priority that we gave these matters.
  We also believe that it has proved to be a mistake to make environment and transport the responsibilities of separate Departments, given the need to reduce vehicle emissions and the congestion that makes the problem worse. It is also strange that DEFRA, the Department responsible for implementing the Kyoto protocol, does not have the lead on energy policy, which is crucial to achieving the protocol.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the link between Kyoto and transport policies. He chides the

  839
  Government for being insufficiently robust in putting their case to the public. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when there was a fuel dispute in this country, the Liberal Democrat party was the first to water down the commitments that it had made on fuel taxes.
  The criticism applies to every party in the House; each of them has been prepared to water down their environmental policy commitments.
  Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. First, we opposed the introduction of fuel taxes without a sustainable transport strategy and voted against them for that reason. Furthermore, we predicted the problems that have arisen.
  Too often, the Government put up taxes by the back door—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a master of that—and then claimed that they had raised revenue for the benefit of the environment. It never was for the benefit of the environment—it was for the benefit of the Chancellor's war chest.
  For the past two years, emissions of greenhouse gases have been rising, contrary to the forecasts that they would fall. The Government put that down to a temporary switch to coal, but that only confirms the point that the projected reduction in emissions arose as a result not of environmental policy but of economic decisions—shutting down our coal industry and switching to gas-fired power stations. There was not a scintilla of action on the environment.
  The Minister for Industry and Energy used the rise in emissions to reactivate his well-known support for nuclear power; that served only to undermine the drive for the renewable energy of which he is—contradictorily—also in favour. To reopen the expansion of nuclear power confuses the message both at home and abroad. If that is the preferred energy source of the developed world and its priority for contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases, there would be an understandable demand for nuclear power from developing countries. The problems associated with nuclear waste, as well as the risk of accidents and sabotage, would then multiply world wide on an unprecedented scale.
  By contrast, we need a clear and ambitious drive from countries such as the UK for all forms of renewable energy. That would show commitment to sustainability at home and would help to develop appropriate sustainable technology for export. Indeed, when ScottishPower lobbied me recently, I was surprised to be asked to maintain our firm commitment to phase out nuclear power at the end of its natural life, rather than holding up the drive to renewables by extending it, thus making it difficult for the company to make the commitment that it wants to make to long-term investment in renewable energy.
  At the same time, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is pursuing a strategy that seems uninformed by the Kyoto priorities—with no reference at all to the Kyoto agreement. On average, the department gives support worth £2 billion a year to fossil fuel and nuclear power generation projects. It is estimated that those projects will emit at least 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide as long as they are in operation. Our commitment to the Kyoto process seems to be that we undertake to
  840
  reduce our emissions at home while giving export credit guarantees to promote emissions elsewhere—exporting the problem rather than helping to tackle it.
  In the sphere of export credit guarantees, as in those of overseas aid and development and the needs of the poor, the Government are highlighting the benefits to British business. They have even pointed out that the summit could be good for British business, instead of talking about the world's poor. We do not object to the involvement of business but that should not undermine our fundamental commitment to help the poorest people of the world.
  Mr. John Redwood: How would the hon. Gentleman resolve the tension between the wish for development to enable the 3 billion people on low incomes to make progress, which will mean that they burn much more energy, thereby giving rise to more emissions and pollution, and the obvious wish to reduce pollution? Is he saying that the west should make an even greater commitment to reducing its emissions to leave scope for the poorer countries to burn more energy?
  Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I must point out that if he had been following my argument, he would have realised that that is exactly what I was saying.
  We are saying that by giving priority to the development of sustainable technology we shall benefit ourselves—by creating space under the global umbrella for us to develop without adding to the depletion of the world's resources. We shall also create space for the developing countries to release emissions if we develop sustainable technology at home—we can share things out. The global objective should be to create a framework in which total emissions are falling. As the developed world accounts for 80 per cent. of those emissions, it is self-evidently true that the developed world must make a bigger contribution. That is what helping the poor is about.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the economic benefits to this country from both developing and selling the technology are being lost because other countries, especially in Europe, are stealing a march on us? For example, in Germany a 100,000-roof programme for solar installation has been under way for several years. Furthermore, companies in Germany see their market as sub-Saharan Africa and are selling stand-alone, portable units in that area. We are missing out on that initiative; our companies do not have the opportunity to develop and to take advantage of international markets.
  Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically constructive intervention. Our trip to Germany with PRASEG—the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy—was not wasted. The Germans were almost laughing at us; they told us that 15 years ago Britain was the world leader in wind technology—a position now held by Denmark, followed by Germany, Spain, India and the United States. Nowadays, we are nowhere because we did not support the development of that technology, while other countries had faith that it would deliver results.

  841
  It might be a good idea—perhaps the Government would promote it—to get some of our leading companies to form an environmental policy committee that would identify and advance technologies specifically to develop the environmental initiatives that flowed from Rio, and extend them in Johannesburg. I fully appreciate that the technology will have to come from the private companies that drive the research, but there must be a clear framework of understanding of the objectives of the peoples of the world.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman makes considerable play of the need to promote renewable energy and has made several references to wind technology. Will he explain why his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Welsh Assembly often oppose planning applications for the exploitation of wind technology in Wales?
  Malcolm Bruce: The Assembly Members must speak for themselves. The one thing that we learned—it was as true in Denmark as it was in Germany—is that the Germans went for indicative planning to try to identify the areas that were environmentally the least exposed and would benefit from wind energy. By not adopting enough indicative planning, the Government leave it open to anyone to apply to build a wind farm anywhere. Unfortunately the nuclear industry is not dead and I suspect that some people promote wind farms that they know will be unpopular in the hope of generating objections so that they can prove that we need nuclear power. That is not acceptable.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is also massive potential for offshore wind technology, which could deliver substantial amounts of energy with much less environmental intrusion. We need the will to engage.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman probably has not yet reached the part of his speech where he praises the Government for significantly increasing their investment in renewable energy—about £260 million. What is the difference between the energy policy committee that he proposes and the already established UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy, which the Government have enthusiastically backed and with which they have already begun to work?
  Malcolm Bruce: The difference is that I was talking about the whole environmental agenda—not just energy. I do not disagree with the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to widen and broaden the debate in a helpful way, so that business is a partner in the delivery of international policy.
  I am sure that the Minister for the Environment will not be surprised if I ask him to explain the Government's position on the Greenpeace and Body Shop initiative, on which an early-day motion has been tabled. Several NGOs support that campaign and want to secure a commitment at the Johannesburg summit to deliver clean, renewable energy to 2 billion of the poorest people.
  The Minister for Industry and Energy seems to support that initiative in the quotes that I have seen, but the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seem to play down expectations not only of that but of the whole summit.
  842
  So it would be good to have a clear indication of the Government's attitude and their reasons for adopting it. If the United Kingdom Government were to endorse that initiative positively—if they were to run with it—they would give a clear signal of our commitment to change things at Johannesburg. That would get us out from the coat tails of apparently supporting the actions of the United States and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which oppose that initiative and seem to want to undermine the whole summit.
  I want to refer to the recent events in which Dr. Robert Watson was removed as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That was a shame. The British Government said that they supported Dr. Watson, but we all know that his removal happened under pressure from the US Administration and, apparently, at the instigation of Exxon. If a man is opposed on climate change by Exxon, I suggest that that man is doing a pretty good job. His removal has sent out a negative signal.
  The argument, which the Government have substantiated, that Dr. Pachauri—who is an Indian and is replacing Dr. Watson—is a representative of a developing country does not go far. Indeed, that is the first time that I have heard the Americans claim that they wanted anyone from a developing country to be the chairman of anything at the United Nations, and it suggests that arms have been twisted and that the issue has been fixed.
  All this reinforces the resentment, which I hear in many quarters, about the fact that the US is trying to undermine the Kyoto protocol. Not only is the US not participating; it is actively trying to undermine it. It wants to resist any further commitments in binding treaties on the environment or on the distribution of resources in rich and poor countries.
  I am told that the US is working up a series of probably quite imaginative bilateral initiatives. There is nothing wrong with those initiatives in themselves, but I warn the House to see them for what they are: an effective smokescreen for the US efforts to ensure that Johannesburg does not produce any real advance. Frankly, bilateral agreements do not require summits. Summits are designed to produce international binding agreements on Governments, not bilateral trade arrangements.
  In the circumstances, the House has to consider the fact that the United Kingdom Government's close association with the Bush Administration will leave us deeply damaged if the proposals are undermined. We are right to press the Government to take their own position and to give a clear signal that the United Kingdom is determined to work for a positive outcome determined not by the US or the United Kingdom, but by the developing countries.
  It is more than sad that the world's only superpower is turning in on itself and turning its back on the poor of the earth. It will be even sadder if a country of the United Kingdom's stature and wealth is so intent on maintaining good relations with Washington that we are marked as colluding in this selfish, ugly, wrong-headed and ultimately counter-productive stance.
  Some people say that the Americans are engaging in the climate change process, but I suggest that that is a deception. The US says that it is interested in emissions trading, but on the basis of lifting current regulations and allowing emissions to rise dramatically. That represents a total negation of everything that the Kyoto protocol is about, and we should not for a minute suggest that that is

  843
  credible or defensible policy that we should endorse. Indeed, I wish that Ministers had been more forthright about that.
  In the end, the United Kingdom will be credible in the world only if we energetically pursue consistent policies at home and abroad. I have already referred to the shortcomings of our energy and transport policies and inconsistencies in the ECGD.
  Our motion is not intended as a broadside on Government policy. There are areas of common agreement, and we share the objectives that the Government are pursuing. However, it is completely proper for a party that describes itself as the effective Opposition to show that, although we share the Government's intentions, we express real concern about the risk that the Government will face failure and embarrassment.
  The Minister for the Environment has been widely praised for many of his commitments and initiatives. I certainly do not question his commitment. However, as I said last Friday in the debate on the Home Energy Conservation Bill, I am not sure that he is well served by all the people around him, or above him. He is constrained in securing the policies that would make a genuine difference and would give the Government the credibility that I know, from his rhetoric and his energetic hard work behind the scenes, he wants to deliver.
  In that context, the Government amendment smacks of complacency. It seems to imply that setting targets for the Kyoto protocol achieves them—it does not. In any case, those targets should be much more ambitious. Cambridge Econometrics shows in its model that it does not accept the Government's contention in the amendment that CO2 will rise and that the Government will miss the Kyoto protocol targets unless they take concerted action now. That is the problem for the Government because they were suggesting, "Of course we will stand up for Kyoto. It involves no pain, but some gain. We have already achieved the reductions, so we have to do nothing at all—business as usual will deliver." The indications are that business as usual will not deliver, but the Government amendment implies that they still think that it will, but they will miss the target if they do nothing.
  The gas emissions trading scheme mentioned in the Government amendment is a first, but it is flawed. At a cost in excess of £200 million of taxpayers' money, companies have been credited with savings that they have already made—the Government required them to make those savings—or are committed to make. In effect, the Government have said, "Here is £200 million. Go out and trade it." Any market will be a success if the Government give it that amount of free goods to float it. That does not prove that anything has been delivered. The scheme is voluntary. It does not fit the European Union scheme and it will consequently have to be phased out in a short period.
  The Minister will know that we chided the Government's poor record on waste minimisation and recycling. More money seems to have gone into church restoration than into waste reduction. Waste reduction targets are being missed, unprocessed fridges are pilling up and tens of thousands of abandoned cars are being set alight regularly at huge cost. If the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs really wants to
  844
  engage, as she suggests she does, with the widest range of stakeholders in the run-up to the Johannesburg earth summit, should not she start with the House?
  Bob Russell: She is on a caravan tour around the country.
  Malcolm Bruce: Well, I hope that she takes her caravan to Bali. It really is the most important environmental summit for 10 years. I should like to suggest, through the Minister, to the Secretary of State—I gather that she was hovering around the door a while ago, but has not yet had the courtesy to come into the Chamber—that if she does not come to the House to tell us why she is going to Bali or what she did there, she will find no credibility for anything that she does on those issues among my hon. Friends. She cannot expect to be believed or taken seriously if she does not take the House seriously and does not engage in the debate that we alone have initiated. No one else has initiated a debate on this important subject. The debate should have taken place in Government time; they should have wanted to tell the House what they were doing, rather than waiting for an Opposition party to raise the issue.
  Where is the big, distinctive idea that the United Kingdom should take to the summit? May I suggest to the Minister and the House that we are not the only people who need answers? If the Prime Minister were here, I would tell him that he needs answers. He is the guy who will be standing up for the United Kingdom at Johannesburg in September. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say thank goodness for that, but he has nothing to say or to offer; he has not yet explained his policy. If he does not find answers to those questions, he will be in real danger of finding himself the first to sign up to the summit with the least to say on delivery. Indeed, worse than that, he might have colluded in ensuring that the summit failed when action by him and his team could have made it a success. The danger for the Prime Minister is that he could end up with a very red face at what is supposed to be the greenest of international summits.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister for the Environment: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `applauds the leadership the UK is showing domestically and within the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development; welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister intends to attend the Summit; further welcomes the UK's climate change programme which is estimated to overshoot its Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.; commends the introduction in the UK last month of the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; further welcomes the commitment in the Budget to significant increases in the landfill tax to promote recycling and waste minimisation; further applauds the fact that drinking water, river water and bathing water are at the highest ever quality; and calls upon the Government to continue to tackle global poverty through sustainable development.'.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on choosing to debate an issue of overarching importance, but I was saddened that he immediately chose unerringly to lower the tone by making some cheap and over-heated references to the delegation to the Bali conference, which he trivialises by making unnecessarily personal references to my right hon. Friend the Secretary

  845
  of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am happy to tell him why my right hon. Friend is going there, as he does not seem to know. It is an international conference of key importance to the United Kingdom. The United Nations asked for three days of high-level negotiating time, and that is exactly the duration of the high-level ministerial segment, from 5 to 7 June. Outstanding negotiations need to be hammered out if the world summit on sustainable development is to be a success. Indeed, there is a view, which 1 think that I share, that, in some senses, if this conference focuses on and refines the key issues for Ministers to settle at the final conference, it will be more important than Johannesburg. The hard work of bringing down 150 pages of text to a manageable set of worthwhile recommendations, conclusions, proposals and decisions could be undertaken at Bali.
  The hon. Member for Gordon is right—although he could have said a lot more about it—that there is a lot wrong with our world. Since 1992, the divide between rich and poor has widened dramatically. Fifteen per cent. of the world's population, in high-income countries, accounts for more than half of total consumption, while the poorest 40 per cent. accounts for only about one tenth. Aid levels have decreased. Africa's share of the world economy has declined, while its population has grown. Desertification affects 70 per cent. of all dry lands, and threatens the livelihoods of more than I billion people—about one sixth of the entire world population. We lost 4 per cent. of the world's forest area during the 1990s, after Rio. More than 11,000 species are at risk of extinction. I could go on. There is no question but that this summit is about matters of unparalleled importance for all countries and all people across the world.
  Simon Hughes: Given the Minister's accurate analysis of the growing inequalities across the world, particularly between the very rich and the rest of the world, is it the Government's policy that, as part of creating a more sustainable world, there should be redistribution of wealth across the planet, within all countries of the planet, and within this country, too?
  Mr. Meacher: It is our policy that there should be redistribution across the world, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has achieved world renown for her championship of the demand that the number of people on the Earth living in absolute poverty should be halved by 2015. That is a stunning demand to make, and she has put herself at the head of it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Member for Gordon was kind enough to say, has again instigated major moves by the rich countries, particularly the Paris Club, on debt remission and trying to restore the capacity for growth of many of the most highly indebted poorest countries.
  The summit comes on the back of the millennium declaration, which gave us the millennium development goals. They offer a set of clear targets on poverty reduction: on education, on halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and of people without access to safe drinking water, and on halting the spread of AIDS.
  Tony Baldry: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are intent at Johannesburg on pushing
  846
  issues such as poverty eradication and access to clean water rather than climate change and biodiversity, in relation to which frameworks are already largely established?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes. That is a helpful intervention. The hon. Member for Gordon spoke at considerable length about climate change. There is, of course, the UN framework convention on climate change, and there is a parallel process with the conference of the parties, which effectively deals with climate change. The emphasis of Johannesburg should and will be on other issues, such as those to which the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred, and particularly on fresh water, sanitation and energy.
  Mr. Redwood: I have a serious question that I am sure the Minister will want to answer. On debt reduction for poorer countries, does he think it wise to pay off debt in countries where there are civil wars or heavy military expenditure by the state, or does he think that those debts should not be reduced?
  Mr. Meacher: That is a difficult question, and no one can give a glib answer to it. There is little point in providing aid or debt remission—which come to much the same thing in the end—if that money is to be corruptly or otherwise distorted for the purposes of the ruling elite. That is an issue to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development may refer in his reply. It is an issue for the Department for International Development in particular, and it has taken action on that basis. Good governance is an issue, but there is a real problem: such a policy can be exercised only with great care, because cutting off aid or debt remission to undermine a leadership that is perceived to be destroying a country can have unintended and inadvertent effects on the wider population that can be truly dreadful. It is a very difficult decision to have to make and it can be made only on the merits of each case and on the basis of the best available information.
  Johannesburg also follows last year's Doha trade talks and the Doha development agenda, which is significant because poor countries need to be able to feel the benefits from participating in the wider global trading system. That initiated a further World Trade Organisation round, which is regarded as a pro-poor round—that remains to be seen. Developed countries committed themselves to improving market access for those goods of most interest to developing countries, including agriculture and textiles. That is vital. We live in a world in which we spend only $50 billion a year on aid but $350 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, which are very largely concentrated on the rich countries.
  Mr. David Drew: Surely this is the area in which we should be most critical of the United States. Its conclusion that it can save its agriculture only with a massive increase in subsidies will make an enormous difference by stopping the third world being able to trade with it. Cannot we take the lead by reforming, once and for all, the common agricultural policy to get rid of these ridiculous subsidies?
  Mr. Meacher: I am pleased to say that I was at Doha, and one of the best results of that conference was a

  847
  commitment, which was universally agreed—India was very reluctant, but it finally agreed—to a set of proposals and decisions that included the removal of export subsidies and perverse incentives and giving developing countries much greater trade access to the rich world. I hope that that can be carried out—a ministerial declaration is one thing, but negotiating such a change is another—as those are the most profound ministerial commitments that have been made, as far as I know, so far.
  We have also recently had the Monterrey conference on financing for development, which, despite not reaching the strength of consensus for which we might have hoped, at least generated a promised extra $12 billion a year of aid by 2006. That is nowhere near the figure proposed by Zedillo, the former Mexican President, who looked into the issue on behalf of the United Nations and suggested that to meet the millennium development goals an extra $60 billion a year was needed. However, the European Union again led the way at that conference and we have seen some movement by the United States.
  Monterrey promised extra aid to support developing countries' efforts, so it has been recognised from the very beginning of the process that we will have to focus on actions. The outcomes at the end of the summit should be, in our view, a short political declaration and a detailed action plan. I underline the words "detailed action plan" several times. We need that or a Johannesburg programme of action. That is the litmus test by which we should judge the conference—the specificity, the range, the precision and the detail of the commitments.
  A third outcome from Johannesburg—if it happens—would be novel for the UN process. It would be a range of business and non-governmental organisation partnerships that will take action on specific issues such as water and energy. It would be not just an intergovernmental agreement—we need that—but a recognition that the power structures in developed societies are now much wider. If we do not involve business and civil society, we will not achieve the dissemination of our goals so well. The UK has already brought together chief executive officers from the key sectors and NGO leaders to develop innovative strategies and to promote sustainable development in some of the issues that will come up at Johannesburg—water, energy, tourism, finance and forestry.
  What about the substance of the summit? Poverty eradication will be a top priority, and that is precisely why Johannesburg in South Africa was chosen. Environmental problems are often a cause of poverty and generally hit the poor hardest. Sudden natural shocks, such as floods, and long-term trends, such as biodiversity loss—on this I disagree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), because biodiversity loss is important despite the other convention—and declining soil fertility, especially affect the poor. The World Bank estimates that 20 per cent. of disease in the developing world is due to environmental causes such as unsafe water and air pollution. That is a stunning fact.
  However, the summit is not just about the south. The north must put its house in order by addressing our unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. If we are expecting and, indeed, encouraging the developing world to grow economically so as to eradicate poverty, we need to be seen to be leading the way in decoupling
  848
  economic growth from environmental degradation. I will be the first to say that, in this country and in many others, we are only at the start of the process.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that; I am not sure whether I want to intervene now.
  I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the motion. It specifically says that it expects that there will be a
  "cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.".
  In other words, the cut would overshoot the Kyoto targets. It was interesting that he chose to make that point in the amendment. Is he prepared to stand by that claim and will he come to the Environmental Audit Committee and be prepared to allow it to audit the Government's record on achieving that target?
  Mr. Meacher: I would he delighted to do that. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that issue. The hon. Member for Gordon made one point that was not quite right. He recognised that we are well past our legally binding target of 12.5 per cent., although I recognise that I am projecting forward to 2010 and that we must achieve that figure. However, if we achieve a target of 23 per cent. or thereabouts, that will be well beyond what we are required to do under the Kyoto protocols. However, it is not true that the main reason—or even part of the reason—for achieving such a target is the dash for gas and the closure of coal-powered stations. The main explanation is the whole range of measures that we have taken on transport and, particularly, energy efficiency. The dash for gas is not the explanation.
  Malcolm Bruce: I did not suggest that the main reason was the dash for gas, only that it was a significant component. I have passed my notes to the Hansard writers, but my recollection is that the model produced by Cambridge Econometrics suggests that the regime under the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—is forcing down fuel prices and encouraging energy consumption. As a consequence, the model predicts that we will not hit the 23 per cent. target or anything like it unless the Government pursue alternative measures. That is why I am surprised that the Government are so confident that they have put that target in their amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). We need an explanation.
  Mr. Meacher: It is odd to suggest that NETA is encouraging greater use of fuels such as electricity. Of course, as a result of the new arrangements and the replacement of the anomalous pool price, the cost of electricity has dramatically fallen by 30 or even 40 per cent. over the past few years. Since NETA was introduced just over a year ago, the price has fallen by another 15 to 20 per cent. Those are large cuts that produce huge benefits in terms of fuel poverty. The poorer sections of society benefit greatly if they can obtain fuel more

  849
  cheaply so long as we insulate their homes to ensure that most of the fuel is not wasted. Improved energy efficiency in the use of fuel is important.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: In welcoming the publication today of the Government's strategy for combined heat and power, may I endorse the concern about the impact of NETA on the development of CHP? It looks as though Ofgem has been dragging its feet on a solution to the problems that NETA has caused for renewable and CHP developers. I urge my right hon. Friend to pressure Ofgem to come up with a solution.
  Mr. Meacher: It was probably a mistake to pick up on the point about NETA. However, the answer to my hon. Friend's perfectly valid point is that NETA benefits the large generators and causes problems for the smaller embedded generators. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have asked Ofgem to carry out its first full year review of the operation of NETA and its impact on small generators. The first year ended on 27 March—about two months ago—and Ofgem will publish a report, I believe, in July. It will be important to consider what further measures can and should be taken to protect the position of CHP.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point, because the Government have today issued their CHP strategy. It draws attention again to the important reform that the Chancellor introduced in the Budget. We have extended the climate change levy exemption to the whole of CHP, and not just to end users but to licensed supplies. We have also enhanced the capital allowances and said that we will consider further measures if they are necessary. We remain absolutely committed to the target of 10,000 MW by 2010.
  I am sure that hon. Members will want me to conclude my remarks, but I want to make a highly relevant point about anti-globalisation. I do not know whether there will be riots in Johannesburg. I hope not, because they would be extremely undesirable. Anti-globalisation protesters such as those whom we saw at Seattle—I saw them there—and at Genoa rightly identify some of the problems with globalisation. The system does not automatically address all needs—the needs of the poor or of the environment. Some say that a rising tide floats all boats but not if one's boat has a hole in it or if one does not have a boat.
  It must be recognised that globalisation has brought many benefits to many people, but it has also marginalised many people. If it is to become more acceptable, it must become more inclusive and driven by environmental and social concerns not just economic ones. Indeed, it has to be more acceptable economically, too.
  In 1996, direct foreign investment in developing countries was about $250 billion compared with official development assistance of $50 billion. Although that is five times more, it has been concentrated on a few richer developing countries. We need to find ways to channel private sector investment into many of the poorer developing countries. At the same time, however, we need to ensure—this will not be easy—that whatever private investment we encourage works for sustainable development. That means giving real teeth to corporate,
  850
  social and environmental responsibility, and getting corporate transparency by, for example, implementing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises.
  What of the specific issues for the Johannesburg summit? Sustainable energy is widely regarded as one of the central sustainable development challenges. It has close links with poverty and the climate change agenda. The hon. Member for Gordon was right to mention the need for a much more rapid development of renewables in the developing countries—as well as our own—so that their path to industrial prosperity is not powered by fossil fuels, which create the problems of pollution and climate destabilisation that we generated.
  Another front runner at the summit is water and sanitation, whose importance I must emphasise. Some 1 billion people lack access to fresh, safe drinking water. That is amazing when we consider the wealth in the world. Some 2.4 billion people—about 40 per cent. of the entire world population—lack proper sanitation. The most shameful figure of all is that every year about 2 million children below the age of five die because of drinking contaminated water or from diarrhoea-related diseases.
  The issue is complex. Poor people need access to water and sanitation, so we should provide water services. However, to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, if countries are not properly managing their resources, there is no point plumbing in the entire nation for the taps to run dry. As 260 river basins lie in more than one country, there is more than enough scope for conflict over how best to manage those resources in an integrated way.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am interested in what the Minister says about not allowing Governments to control their water supplies because they are so inefficient. I recently saw an example of that Ghana. If such services are run by private companies, how can he ensure that the poor will truly benefit, and not have expensive water instead of no water?
  Mr. Meacher: Once again, there are no ready and easy answers to that. We want proper regulation to ensure that that happens, but the rich world also has a responsibility. Presumably our companies will be responsible for improving water supplies and the water framework in developing countries. They will overwhelmingly do that properly and, I hope, efficiently. However, there are powers to ensure that they carry out what is expected of them.
  I had intended to address the problem of climate change, but time is running out. One could perhaps be forgiven for wondering whether the summit is the answer. Summit overkill—I am told that the latest estimate of those who will attend is about 65,000—is not an excuse to duck out of taking the opportunity to address the big challenges. The summits are held about once every five years. We did not make much progress at the New York summit in 1997, but this time around people are much more focused on the real issues. If the world summit can produce an ambitious but achievable programme of practical action by a partnership of Government, business and non-governmental organisations, and if its implementation is regularly monitored over the next five years in all the areas of development that I mentioned,

  851
  we might just secure not only a substantive advance in sustainable development, but a major step change towards more co-operative and socially conscious world Governments, which we all want. That is certainly a prize worth striving for.
  8.15 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The United Nations described Rio as a defining moment. It was, but we are 10 years on and the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development is in no small part an effort to put the rhetoric of Rio into practice. As a spokesman on international development, I am conscious of the charge of hypocrisy that the developing world levels against countries such as ours that have not made as much progress as they should have since Rio, but which still dictate to others less fortunate than ourselves what measures they should take to protect the plan.
  I welcome the coupling of the environment with international development. We all know that in our constituencies the burning issues tend to be those close to home, such as infringements of the green belt or campaigns about housing schemes and landfill sites. At a global level, we are beginning to take on board the fact that how we live in our 24/7 throw-away society, and the amount of carbon emissions that results from it, causes global warming with—although this is still controversial—unpredictable climatic results.
  Nearer to home, a WWF briefing document contains a statistic that is worth citing. It states that we could fill the Albert hall every hour with the refuse produced in this country. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs published a report in March last year on sustainable waste management. It found that the United Kingdom lags behind other developed countries in recycling, showing both apathy and a profound lack of imagination. In February this year, the World Economic Forum highlighted the fact that Britain has one of the poorest recycling records in the developed world. If the UK were to achieve a similar rate of re-use of municipal solid waste as Finland is aiming to achieve by 2005, carbon dioxide could be reduced by 14.8 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of taking 5.4 million cars off the road.
  We want to encourage business enterprise, both here and in the developing world, but we also want business to embrace sustainable development. The challenge is to find and support sustainable industrial practices and to persuade industry to take up green methods. That is already happening: huge companies such as Shell and BP, traditionally regarded as the villains of the piece when it comes to the environment, are doing that across the world. Although the bulk of their business still depends on the exploitation of non-renewable resources, they are increasingly investing in renewable energy—wind energy, for example, and in the hydrogen storage units that make use of the emerging science of fuel cell technology, which some say could be used to power our vehicles in the future.
  Such large companies are aware of their public image. They are sensitive to public opinion, a lesson of which we politicians constantly need to remind ourselves. In the past five years, BP has cut the level of its CO2 emissions
  852
  by 14 million tonnes. It has achieved that through efficiency and technology. I mention those examples to show that change is possible and that sustainability is good for business, too. Supermarkets are increasingly stocking organic food, and fair trade products are becoming big business. Outlets such as The Body Shop have shown how business and environmentally friendly ethics can be mutually beneficial.
  I am aware that the burden of climate change levies on small businesses can seem like the final straw in an area already groaning under the weight of red tape and legislation. For a small manufacturing business near me in the west midlands that is struggling just to keep going, a bill for £38,000 for the climate change levy was the final straw. There should be more finesse in the way we try to fulfil our Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce our carbon emissions. There are examples of how other countries are doing that differently.
  I have spoken already of the hypocrisy inherent in richer countries lecturing poorer ones on the benefits of environmental sustainability. In fact, we can learn a great deal from the developing world about the art of sustainable living, simply because it is the way people who live in the poorest countries of the world have to live. I was struck by that fact on a recent visit to India with Oxfam. The south of India is of course vegetarian, and while we are all busy filling the Albert hall with rubbish, figuratively speaking, the people there are eating food off banana leaves with their fingers, and then feeding the leaves to their cattle. That is a nice little metaphor for sustainable living. There is also an inescapable irony in the fact that with development comes the potential for unsustainable lifestyles.
  Sustainable development is a different matter. It was defined at Rio as
  "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
  No one could disagree with that ideal, but it is more easily realised in some areas of the world than in others.
  At a recent debate at the Oxford Union on the motion that
  "foreign aid has failed the developing world",
  one speaker made a thought-provoking observation. He begged to differ in his definition of the developing world, which he maintained was in fact a better description of our world, as the so-called developing world is not, in reality, developing.
  Christian Aid's campaign "Listen to Africa", which was launched yesterday, is saying that too. The only two African countries that have sustainable debt, as defined by the World Bank, are Mozambique and Tanzania, which both export gold, a finite resource. Because of the collapse of the prices of almost everything every commodity except gold since 11 September, and because many African countries are dependent on a single cash crop such as tobacco or cocoa, many of those countries are drifting further and further away from sustainable development and into intractable debt.
  I am not saying that developing countries cannot make a difference. I can think of an arresting example in India. In Delhi, motor vehicles now run on liquid petroleum gas, which although not renewable is at least fume free. So the image of Delhi choked with rickshaws and cloaked in diesel fumes is now a thing of the past.

  853
  Where does that leave us? In the developed world the moral argument has been won, but the battle to make a difference has only just begun, and we can do better. I genuinely believe that businesses will increasingly make environmentally friendly decisions on how they run their companies. Any Government should encourage those practices with carrots, rather than sticks.
  We all have a part to play in this. I challenge hon. Members to go home and do an environmental audit of the way we live. I am sure I am not the only one who has had to empty the contents of a black plastic rubbish sack in a frantic search for a set of lost car keys. What do those contents tell us? It is a catalogue of convenience where green principles are sacrificed on the altar of packaging and where plastic is king.
  When it comes to the ballot box, it may be the state of our public services that preoccupies voters, but there is an undercurrent of change, a growing awareness of what is precious about this planet and a commitment to its survival. We are the guardians of its future, and as Shakespeare said in "Measure for Measure",
  "dressed in a little brief authority."
  we have a duty to nurture and maintain it for future generations both on our little patch and in the wider world.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for picking this important subject for debate. However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I think that the rather ungracious and pious attitude that they adopted is all too familiar from their contributions in other debates on similar issues. It would have been better to hear a rather more balanced account of how all parties could do a great deal more on environmental issues. Fortunately, we are all improving in our attitude, but we all have some way to go.
  I want to restrict my comments to sustainable energy and climate change. Global warming is no longer a far away fear; it is a fact. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we could not stop the global temperature rising. All we could do is slow the eventual rate of increase. The effects of global warming on the United Kingdom are not certain. If the gulf stream were to change direction, as some predict it will, our climate would cool dramatically. We are more likely to see a warmer and wetter climate, but as sea temperatures increase, sea levels will rise and many coastal areas will be swamped. We are sure to experience extremes in weather patterns.
  The countries that will suffer most from those effects are not the developed countries, which have the finance and wherewithal to adapt, but the poorest countries in the world—the very countries that the Johannesburg summit is meant to be addressing. The problems of rising sea levels and climate change will affect the way in which countries can produce food. Population movements, which may be catastrophic and dramatic, will largely affect those third-world countries that are the poorest and the least able to deal with the effects. Although the precise effects are unknown, there is sure to be an impact that will reach right across the globe.
  For that reason, most countries are part of the Kyoto process, trying to work together to reduce greenhouse gases. We in this country boast that we are determined to meet our Kyoto targets and that we are in the forefront of
  854
  that process, and with some good reason. However, there is a danger of our becoming complacent. The amendment tabled by my party speaks of targets that we hope to reach in the future—10 or 12 years from now. I sincerely hope that the Minister is right, and that in 10 or 12 years he is rewarded for achieving those targets. I hope that he will be in at least his present position, if not a more elevated one, so that he can accept the praise of all parties in the House for that achievement.
  If we look at what is being achieved now, however, we see that the picture is not so glorious. It is not clear to me that we have made much progress at all in the last few years. At the moment, 70 per cent. of our power is produced from fossil fuels; 27 per cent. is nuclear; and just 3 per cent. comes from renewable sources such as wind, wave, solar and hydro-electric. Of that 3 per cent., the vast majority is from hydro-electric production, which was developed, and to which we committed ourselves, several decades ago. We therefore have no right to demand great praise for that development. New renewable energy probably accounts for less than 1 per cent. of the total—not a glorious achievement.
  Are we likely to make rapid progress towards the targets? The simple answer is, not unless we change our ways quite dramatically. I was annoyed by the Liberals' pious talk about the need for the Government to make progress, and by the response the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) gave when he was chided for the fact that. Liberals in the Welsh Assembly had opposed wind farm energy production. I notice that not a single Welsh Liberal MP attended even the start of this debate. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), a Liberal, is vehement in his opposition to the siting of any wind farms in his constituency. Given that his constituency comprises a large proportion of the total land area of Wales, that is a bit of a problem.
  I am not personalising the issue by confining my objections to the Liberals—well, I am a little bit. To be fair, we all need to examine the performance of our party, our local councils and so on. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy said, everyone is in favour of developing renewable energy in principle, but the difficulties arise when it comes to developing it in practice.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Although I support the motion, the hon. Gentleman has tempted me to enter the debate. He will know that the proposed site of the largest wind farm in the UK is in my constituency at Cefn Croes, but he might not know that the opposition to that project has come from, yes, local Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, the previous incumbent of the constituency that I now represent is one of the foremost opponents of that wind farm—so much so that he has refused to allow it even to pass electricity wires over his land.
  Mr. Jones: I did not know that, but I am sure that the House is grateful for the information, which shows the difference between what the Liberals say and what they do. I do not want to be drawn into attacking only the Liberals, but as it was they who chose the subject of the debate and as their spokesman was so pious in attacking the Government, we should be informed about their actions at the local level. There is a slogan "Think globally, act locally"; well, the Liberals speak globally, then act locally in an entirely different fashion.

  855
  If we are to meet the ambitious targets that the Government have set, and I hope we do, we will have to act quickly, especially on planning issues. We must find a quicker, more efficient and reasonable way to deal with planning proposals; otherwise we will never be able to meet the targets. If we meet them without building any new nuclear power stations in the meantime, nuclear power will decline over the next 20 years. If we meet our ambitious targets, in 2020 we shall be producing about 20 per cent. of our power from renewable sources, but the 27 per cent. of our power that we currently derive from nuclear power will have declined to about 7 per cent. In other words, we will have lost the 20 per cent. accounted for by carbon-free nuclear generation and gained it back in carbon-free renewables generation. We will still be in exactly the same place as we are now—no progress made at all.
  That is a difficult problem that can be resolved in only a few ways. The first is to forget about making any real progress towards the Kyoto targets. The second is to admit that those targets can be achieved only by building nuclear power stations as well. The third is to take the current ambitious renewables targets, double them, and take serious action to meet those new and much more ambitious targets. Those are the only options available. I would never accept reneging on our Kyoto targets, and I would prefer us to have the option of developing renewables at a far more ambitious rate than we are currently achieving so that we do not need to use nuclear power, but if that becomes impossible, nuclear power is a better option than polluting the world with global warming gases. We should admit that and deal with the difficult issues that arise from it.
  I am glad to see that David King, the Government chief scientist, has set his mind to those difficult issues. I would like the Liberals to tell us their intentions in respect of each of those options, instead of saying all the politically popular things—
  Malcolm Bruce indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jones: It is true: the Liberals always say politically popular things and duck the difficult decisions.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the chief scientist's recent statement referred specifically to the nuclear option as a possible interim solution, pending the full development of a renewables industry in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. That is indeed precisely what David King said, and I think that it may well be the best practical solution. The Government chief scientist also said that he hoped nuclear fusion would be developed. That is a long-held ambition—ever since I was at school, people have hoped that nuclear fusion would prove to be the answer to our power needs.
  We have to examine how different parts of the United Kingdom contribute to the overall national target. Some work has been carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry, but when we look at the various targets set by the regions of the United Kingdom and at how they
  856
  intend to achieve them, it is hard to see that they are all working towards the same economic, social and environmental strategy, because there are huge variations in the targets that the different regions propose to reach and in the ways they propose to reach them. Some intend to use wind power, others wave power, tidal power or biomass. The Government must provide greater co-ordination and direction on how to reach the targets if we are to have any realistic hope of success.
  8.38 pm
  Tony Baldry: It is imperative that the UN conference on sustainable development should not merely become a talking shop. There is a risk that it might do so in focusing on the wrong policy at the wrong time. There is no clearer example of that than "Kyoto"—I put it in inverted commas because I use it as a piece of shorthand. If Kyoto is taken to Johannesburg, one might as well forget about real progress being made at the summit. Kyoto would divide the conference and it would mean disaster and a missed opportunity.
  Developing countries are not yet even bound by the environmental targets set at Kyoto, so I was slightly surprised that, when the International Development Committee recently took evidence from officials from the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, one of the witnesses commented that the Johannesburg summit would not primarily be concerned with poverty reduction in developing countries. There is perhaps some confusion in the machinery of Government in Whitehall, because that comment was all the more surprising when one considers that the Department of International Development defines sustainable development as follows:
  "livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintains or enhances its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base."
  It is worth putting Johannesburg in the context of the process of arriving at a consensus on poverty eradication through a number of UN summits. The first part of the process were the millennium development goals, which sought agreement on poverty reduction, health and education, and progress on those at Johannesburg is as vital as the environment itself. The Cabinet Committee co-ordinating work on Johannesburg said in evidence submitted to the International Development Committee, which I chair, that the first priority is poverty reduction. That is essential.
  The Environmental Audit Committee—whose Chairman I hope will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—made an excellent report to the House:
  "We note that poverty eradication is emerging as a uniting theme for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We acknowledge that this issue is a prime candidate for a Summit agenda which is seeking to explore global problems in the context of their economic, social and environmental impacts".
  Poverty eradication must he at the forefront and the substance of what Johannesburg is all about.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, with which, as a member of that Committee, I agree. Does he accept that also on the agenda in Johannesburg is sustainable energy, and the trick is to make sustainable energy work in favour of the poorest countries and in favour of their

  857
  development? I agree with him about the real politics about Kyoto; we cannot take energy issues out of what is happening in Johannesburg.
  Tony Baldry: That was why 1 put Kyoto in inverted commas. If Kyoto is on the agenda at Johannesburg there will simply be a bust-up, and that is why we need to approach the matter from the point of view of poverty eradication; and sustainable energy, sustainable water and sustainable livelihoods are all part of that.
  From the millennium development goals we went to Doha and the Doha declaration, and from there we went to Monterrey. Monterrey was important. I am conscious that others want to speak so I shall keep my comments short. I am particularly conscious that the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee wishes to speak. Monterrey has focused national Governments on international development, but they now need to focus their minds on more money for international development.
  The World Bank estimates that something up to $60 billion will be needed to meet the 2015 targets. Non-governmental organisations have estimated that figure at $100 billion. At Monterrey, the US and the EU, the developed world, pledged an investment of $12 billion by 2006, well short of what the Government acknowledge in the Budget Red Book is needed. It is worth noting that current GDP spending on overseas aid reflects only one fifth of that provided to Europe under the Marshall plan.
  It is essential that countries do not simply produce a wish list of action points at Johannesburg. They must ensure that they will the means to achieve those action points. There is a clear correlation of objectives between Monterrey and Johannesburg, which is succinctly expressed in the Environmental Audit Committee's report on Johannesburg, to whose comments about poverty eradication I referred. It went on:
  "We therefore hope that the Government will endeavour to ensure that any additional resources agreed at Monterrey are linked explicitly to key action programmes to be discussed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development rather than relegating the Summit to a rehearsal of old stalemates on development policy."
  I certainly support that view.
  After Johannesburg, three important UN conferences will have taken place this year. They form part of a process, but there is a danger that the international community will merely keep on coming up with new initiatives for international development. Instead of doing that, it should deliver on the pledges made at Doha, Monterrey and—it is to be hoped—Johannesburg. We should have a process that is monitored. I hope that either in an annual debate on international development or on some other occasion, we in the House can monitor the progress that our Government have made on meeting the commitments that we as a nation entered into at Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg
  We must concentrate on that process, rather than on running around for ever trying to dream up new initiatives. We need continually to ensure—this a point that we must all bang on about—that we will the means. The Environmental Audit Committee said:
  "we welcome the Government's commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent ODA target and, in line with the International Development Committee, recommend that a clear timetable be set".
  I do not understand why it is not possible for the Government to find a ministerial form of words about when the 0.7 per cent. target can be met.
  858
  I understand the Chancellor's reluctance not to be hijacked into making what he might see as too early a commitment. He said yesterday in the International Development Committee that when the comprehensive spending review was published, he would give a commitment for the life of that review on the extent to which he could raise international development spending. Why not find a form of words that gives some meaningful commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target, rather than a statement that we are pledged to meet it some time? We have been pledged to meeting it some time for some very considerable time.
  The Chancellor also acknowledges that the international community is short of what is needed to meet the pledges made at Monterrey. We have heard a lot about the international development trust fund, although we discovered yesterday that it is not a fund but a facility. On listening to the Chancellor's evidence, it struck me that the fund resembles a reinvention of part of the World Bank. I am not entirely sure why we need to reinvent the World Bank, because there is a shortfall in the funds that are necessary for international development. The point is simple: Johannesburg is part of a process of UN conferences and we need to ensure that we deliver on the commitments, but we will not be able to do so unless the international community collectively pledges and provides the funds that are necessary to take those commitments forward.
  Time is short, but I should like briefly to speak about the need for realism at Johannesburg. I hope that we will not see a split or spat between what one might describe as environmental NGOs and developing countries that are concerned about their development. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made an interesting point that we all need to address. We in the west and north—the developed world—have had centuries of investment that continues to bring us rewards and riches. This week, Christian Aid brought to the House a number of witnesses from Africa who told us about the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi and Ghana. People in such countries are living in desperate poverty and for them, the debate is not about wind power, fusion or nuclear energy; very often, is it simply about how to find firewood and the means for getting through the next day. That is what constitutes sustainable development for them. We must not patronise them by suggesting that the only way of ensuring sustainable development is by somehow suppressing development in the developing countries. They, too, are entitled to sustainable development and should be encouraged to that end. I hope that we can find a language and a vocabulary at Johannesburg that ensures a truly sustainable world while allowing poor countries to break off and emerge from the grinding yoke of poverty that has borne down on them for far too long.
  8.50 pm
  Alan Simpson: The journey from Rio to Johannesburg is the journey from policies to programmes. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that that is what people expect the United Kingdom delegation to contribute to and to deliver as an outcome of the Johannesburg discussions. To put it on a global scale, it is an agenda of targets and time scale. I shall not labour that point, because the Minister is aware of the importance of targets and time scale as regards a

  859
  matter to do with the home front—more specifically, the warm homes front, where the issues of targets and time scale are an exact local reflection of what must be addressed globally in Johannesburg.
  We should pay tribute to the achievements of this Labour Government, while not seeking to duck the challenges on the path ahead of us. For me, the starting point remains the Deputy Prime Minister's important achievement in delivering the Kyoto agreement. It was he who, at the very last minute, managed to pluck an agreement out of the fire that was constructed around the phrase "contraction and convergence". That is based on the belief that we in the industrial and developed world have to find a way of living differently: not living poorer lives, but living less wasteful, polluting and destructive lives. It is in many ways a path to a different sense of richness. The convergence principle is based on allowing the developing world to share in the sense of the possibility of sustainable lifestyles based on dignity and opportunity. There is a rightness about the symmetry of that contract.
  When the Deputy Prime Minister succeeded in bringing back the Kyoto agreement for ratification and laying it before the House, that was the right thing, not only for a Labour Government, but for this country, to do. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will ratify it, nor that we will meet and exceed those targets. That will be an enormous challenge, but we will get there. We should put on the record our thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister for standing on that ground and continuing to do so.
  For billions of people in the developing world, the other side of the agenda is survival. For the 1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 a day, the question of survival in a more sustainable future will be judged on whether they are there tomorrow, the day after that and the week after that. It is not possible to say that in 10, 20 or 30 years' time everything will be different. For many of those people, the difference will be between being alive and being dead.
  I am sure that there will be anti-globalisation protesters in Johannesburg, and I encourage the UK delegation to attempt to understand what they are trying to tell us. They will say that the 49 poorest countries on the planet currently contribute less than 0.5 per cent. of global gross domestic product—a pitiful sum that is made even worse by the recognition that 20 years ago those countries contributed twice as much to global GDP. The protesters will also point out that the nature of globalisation has made the poor poorer. We need to understand the transition—almost a sea change—in international trade in the past 50 years.
  The point where that dramatic change began was 1980. In the previous 30 years, the poorest countries on the planet had made genuine gains in per capita gross national product that improved the quality of their lives. Per capita GDP increased in Latin America by 73 per cent. and in Africa, by 34 per cent. However, in the subsequent two decades, GDP growth in Latin America was almost static-6 per cent. in 20 years. In Africa, GDP has fallen by 23 per cent. So much has been driven by the sacrifices that the poorest parts of the planet have been required to make on the altar of globalisation.
  860
  The ability of the poorest countries to say that they would produce to meet their needs first led to almost all the achievements in genuine per capita growth. They were based on assumptions about import substitution, not production for export, and on the notion that those countries could construct protective barriers. I believe that the tariffs were deemed acceptable because they were perceived as an effective barrier against the spread of communism. They were therefore allowed and encouraged, and that made the countries in question objectively richer.
  Post-1980, in the era of market liberalisation, all the rights of the poorest countries have been stripped away. Consequently, the poor are now poorer. The anti-globalisation protesters will try to require the rest of us to tackle that. They will concentrate on at least four themes, and this evening I want to try to consider climate change, water, food and sustainable lifestyles rather than sustainable profits.
  We must start by making our contribution to tackling climate change. I am pleased that a Labour Government provided the first fuel poverty strategy of any Government anywhere on the planet. We have set a target of eliminating fuel poverty in this country in 15 years. That is an ambitious target, which we will achieve. We will be helped to do that by passing the private Member's Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has promoted. The time scale has been slightly delayed, but the measure will be passed by the end of July. It has formed the basis of setting and fulfilling our targets. Let us consider the way in which we can share that.
  I ask the Minister and the delegation that goes to Johannesburg to take with them a microcosm of a strategy that might work in a different, internationalised future for the 21st century: a lovely programme in this country called the BedZED approach. It is about changing housing standards by design. There is a twinning process between Sutton, where the programme was developed in this country, and Johannesburg. The programme results not only in a 90 per cent. reduction in domestic heating costs, but in the use of sustainable materials in the construction of housing, and building a sustainable infrastructure to support it. It is a wonderful cameo of what we have to share and the way in which approaches can be gifted internationally. I hope that Ministers will derive some credit for that twinning transaction, which we will have to replicate on a bigger scale throughout the century.
  We must also tackle renewable energy, which hon. Members are right to discuss. The United Kingdom has set itself a target of 10 per cent. by 2010. It is important to achieve that and go further. Of course it is right to point out that, in the same time scale, Germany will try to develop 100,000 properties that are heated by renewable energy. At the same time, Japan has set itself a target of 1 million homes powered by renewable energy.
  We must look at those targets and reconsider, because in the poorest parts of the planet, as well as in the more remote parts of our own lands, this approach will allow us to deliver real savings in terms of a reduction of greenhouse gasses. We must do that if we are to have anything credible to say to the 2 billion people on the planet who have no access to electricity of any sort. They are not in anyone's energy loop. We must reach out and connect them to the more renewable and mobile sources of energy supply.

  861
  The Minister pointed out that 2 million people die each year because they do not have access to uncontaminated water. One billion people do not have access to safe water. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has pointed out that there will have to be an 80 per cent. increase in crop production by 2030, but on current calculations, we shall have access to only a 12 per cent. increase in water supply.
  That will present an enormous challenge, and we shall not be able to meet it if we saddle ourselves with the approach adopted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the debt cancellation programmes that we are attempting to pioneer. We must consider what goes alongside debt cancellation. This is not a question of whether we cancel debt in areas of conflict. Rather, we must examine the conditionality agreements that are foisted on the countries that accept debt cancellation.
  Bolivia, for example, was forced to give away its water supply free of charge to a London-based water company. The result was that the company increased its water charges to the poor by 35 per cent. There were riots in the town of Cochabamba, and the armed forces were brought in to suppress a domestic population that was rioting because it could not get access to water that was being priced out of its reach. Similarly, debt cancellation conditions in Tanzania required the Government there to introduce charges for health and education. In Ecuador, the privatisation of the energy industry resulted in an 80 per cent. increase in gas charges.
  That is the basis on which the World Development Movement recently issued a report called "States of Unrest II", which documented 77 issues of major conflict around the globe that countries affected by debt relief were experiencing as a result of a fire sale of their primary assets. The poor have a right to be angry with us if we are extracting that kind of price for debt cancellation. That is not debt relief; it is a different kind of indebtedness, and it gives people a different sense of desolation about what the future holds.
  We have to go back to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's objective—that the priorities and the connectedness between food and water for the next century must involve our getting "more crop per drop". That is its argument on how we should approach the needs of the developing world, and it must bring with it a recognition that we should not ask the developing world to abandon sustainable agriculture systems based on meeting their own needs in favour of shifting to more water-intensive programmes for intensive agriculture, to produce for export.
  A dependency on exporting their primary crops was precisely what got many of the developing countries into real debt. They produced those crops so well that it resulted in a collapse in commodity price and, unable to use hard currency earnings to buy their way out of debt, the only thing that remained unaffected was the scale of the dollar debts that they were expected to pay off in the face of those collapsed commodity prices.
  The industrial world has to recognise that we must offer developing countries a different choice. We cannot judge them on the basis of their inability to feed us. They must have the opportunity to feed themselves before they think about doing that. Part of that agenda must include developing countries' right—which we support—to Say
  862
  no to the imposition of GM crop technologies, which will only accelerate the water demands of the intensive agriculture systems that they seek to underpin. We must give those nations the right we would assert for our own citizens: the right to say no to development that would endanger prospects of survival.
  Let me say something about sustainable lifestyles as opposed to sustainable profits. In Johannesburg there will be huge corporate pressures for sustainability to be redefined around the notion of profitability. That will provide no answers for the developing world, or for us.
  This is the best single example I can give. When Maneka Gandhi was India's Environment Minister, she came to this country at about the time when we were beginning to talk about chlorofluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbon pollutants in our fridges. I know that this is another sensitive subject for the Minister, and I do not want to rub salt in the wound, but this is what the Environment Minister told us. She said, "We realise you have a problem. I suspect that if the United Kingdom set itself a serious target, it could remove all its polluting fridges within a decade. That would probably require you to replace 20 million fridges. It would create lots of work, and you would feel incredibly virtuous. At the end of the decade, you would look for international praise. At the end of the same decade, however, India alone will contain 200 million households that have legitimately sought the right to own a fridge. According to the development model of the last century, you will have palmed off all your polluting fridges on us and called it aid. What we really need is the opportunity to be part of a sustainable global agenda, but that must be a gift relationship that gives us access to technologies that will allow us to produce better lifestyles without destroying the prospects for others."
  That, I hope, is the keystone of any test of any agreement that this country will stand up for and bring back from Johannesburg.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests.
  There is a central tension, referred to in the report accompanying the debate, between development and the need to clean up the planet. I do not think that we heard any serious attempt to reconcile the two—except in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who said that, if forced to choose, he would choose development and greater prosperity for the world's poorer nations rather than meeting ever more demanding targets for control of pollution.
  How, I asked the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), would the Liberal Democrats resolve that obvious tension? The hon. Gentleman replied that he would want to see a global target for ensuring that pollution fell year on year world wide, whatever the rate of growth and whatever the rate of increase in pollution from the world's poorest countries. That is a noble aim, but a dangerous aim for anyone in government, or serious about governing, to recommend.
  We cannot know how successful development policies will be, and we cannot know how many millions of Chinese or Indians will soon have fridges and cars, and far greater energy demands. It would be quite wrong of us in the rich west to tell those people that they have no

  863
  right to enjoy the energy-intensive technologies that have powered our prosperity in recent decades, and it would be very difficult for us to say that we will definitely tax and regulate ourselves stringently enough—in the way that Liberal Democrats usually recommend—to offset all the potentially huge growth in energy use in the developing world.
  I am sure that those who have spoken today—including the Minister—who are angry about poverty in the third world, about the deaths of children and about the hundreds of millions who have no access to fresh water of a decent standard or to energy of any kind that we would recognise are right to be angry. I am sure that our priority should be to extend the hand of friendship, trade, prosperity and technology to the hundreds of millions in the dozens of countries all over the world who have no access to the most rudimentary of the home and creature comforts that we all take for granted. That surely must be the priority of this mighty summit as, once again, 65,000 people assemble to try to put the world to rights.
  If we ask ourselves what the UK Government can do to tackle the monumental poverty that disfigures our world, we realise that the issues are too numerous to mention in this short debate, but let me highlight just a few. The first is surely that where we have influence and the ability to use it for the good, we must try to stem the conflicts and move developing countries towards regimes that put economic prosperity and liberty ahead of war and of declaring war on their own people for their own political ends. There is no credit to be gained by advancing money in the form of grant or loan to regimes that use it to buy new Mercedes for the generals running the country and new military hardware to repress their poor people if they dare to complain about the rotten system under which they live.
  I ask the Minister to remind the House of the Government's policy, which I support, of not offering grant or debt retirement to regimes that will clearly abuse our money and our trust. It was not easy for the Secretary of State to defend that policy and I admire the fact that she has done so, but we need to go beyond that and move from the negative to the positive.
  We need to use our influence and that of the other rich countries who are our allies and friends both in the Americas and in the European Union to try to move more countries into a position where they can establish a civil society. Without a civil society and the rule of law, there is absolutely no chance of those countries having the opportunity to become better off and have decent food and water. If we cannot support Governments and regimes and forces of legitimate opposition that wish to establish a decent civil society, we will have no chance of doing all the other wonderful things that we would like to do to help their development, such as encouraging private sector investment and money flows, which are usually the best way of securing prosperity.
  We should understand that not only does five times as much money flow from the private sector to the developing world as from Governments, but that the money that flows from the private sector to the private sector in developing countries is much more useful in lifting the living standards and aspirations of people than is much of the Government-to-Government money. Many good studies show how much Government-to-
  864
  Government money is wasted or diverted into less legitimate causes by the Governments who receive it. Even where we believe that to some extent a regime is worth backing, corruption or misappropriation still occurs, making it difficult for the subjects of that country to benefit.
  Finally, we should attempt to understand the mighty log in our eye when we look at the moral issue of the world's poor. Surely the biggest log in our eye, collectively, in the European Union and in the UK is the common agricultural policy. Many developing countries are most likely to produce crops for export before they have industrial products for export. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), but one of the best opportunities that these countries have is to sell agricultural exports for hard currency. One reason why the global markets are so depressed is that the EU runs a protection racket in many sectors, so that a big block of the world's most mighty and rich countries is not generating sufficient demand on the world markets to encourage developing economies.
  I welcome all the charities and interest groups from outside the House who have been lobbying and will continue to lobby for fair trade. It is a very good idea, but it must also be reflected in Government policy on the EU. We have heard for many years from Governments of both persuasions about reforming the CAP. We have heard from this Government that they have far more influence in Brussels than the outgoing Conservative Government had. Would it not be good if we could be told tonight that at last this influence will work and there will be some reform of the CAP that will be good for consumers and taxpayers here in Britain? It would be very good for the world's poorest countries if some of that protection racket were at last torn down and their farmers given the chance of a decent life.
  I believe that we in the rich United Kingdom should make ever bigger contributions to reducing the pollution that we inject into the planet's atmosphere. We have made good strides, and we need to make more. The two most dramatic developments in recent years came about in rather surprising ways. Following the privatisation of the electricity industry, it suddenly became possible to build the combined cycle gas stations that the nationalised monopoly always refused to build. We leapt from about 38 per cent. fuel efficiency to 55 or 60 per cent., which made a huge difference to the amount of pollution that we churn out.
  As the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out in a thoughtful contribution, this Government now face an even bigger challenge. The previous, Conservative Government were able to implement a super-green privatisation policy, which made far and away the biggest contribution to our success so far in reducing pollution. We now need from this Government a policy on what to do when the nuclear stations need to be replaced. If they are not going to replace nuclear with nuclear—it is very unlikely that they can replace it with non-fossil fuel of any other kind, given the pathetic efforts so far—what else do they intend to do to get us back to where we should be? We will take a mighty step backwards if nuclear stations are replaced by gas, or some other fossil fuel technology.
  Paradoxically, the second area in which we have made enormous strides is the pariah—according to the Liberal Democrat lexicon on environmental matters—of the

  865
  motor car. Huge improvements have been made in the performance of the typical family saloon in the past decade. Current family saloons pollute to only about 4 per cent. of the extent of comparable vehicles built some 12 or 15 years ago. That has been achieved through a combination of incentive, technology and regulation. Such massive improvement shows that technology in free markets can make a big contribution to cleaning up the planet. We now need to make a similar attack on pollution from old and dirty diesel railway locomotives, and from old and dirty diesel buses. We have not renewed the bus and train fleet as quickly as the car fleet, so proportionately public transport vehicles—particularly those that are not used by enough passengers—pollute more than do the modern versions of motor cars.
  I hope that the Government want the car industry to progress from 30 or 40 mpg vehicles to 80 or 90 mpg vehicles. The technology exists, and it can be done. I hope, too, that they want to make yet further progress in cleaning up exhausts through a mixture of incentive and regulation. That brings me to a very important principle. We make so much more progress if we work with the grain of human nature by offering incentive, rather than working against it by trying to stop people enjoying our society's marvellous inventions through a mixture of high taxation and regulation. The two successes in green policy—first, under a Conservative Government, and now under a Labour Government—involved offering a tax discount for good conduct, rather than clobbering people for alleged bad conduct. The Conservatives began getting rid of lead in petrol by offering an incentive to buy unleaded fuel, and this Government are getting rid of sulphur in petrol by offering a similar discount. That is an excellent scheme; let us go on with it.
  One major way in which we can contribute to greening our country—and thereby modestly contribute to greening the planet—is to use a similar range of tax incentives to tackle the dirt and pollution generated by the typical home heating system. A generation of boilers that are very old—compared with the average age of car engines—and inefficient remains in use. Many homes are not properly thermally insulated. A few small programmes exist to help people on low incomes get better insulation and achieve better fuel efficiency in the home, but we need to attack the problem much more manfully. In terms of pollution, the space heating problem is far bigger than the car problem. We also need to establish a better tax incentive policy to tackle the abuse of waste, to which reference has already been made.
  I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by urging the Government to put development ahead of everything else at the summit. It is the blight of poverty that we should be most appalled at and worried by. The Government should understand that we need to contribute to stronger regimes that can create a civil society, and to back the private sector, which will be the main agent for change and improvement in such countries. We need desperately to deal with our common agricultural policy problem, and with the other remaining barriers to trade within our European trading framework.
  We need to make much better strides at home towards greening our own country. However, that should be done by judicious regulation and tax discount, and not by
  866
  treating anyone who drives a car or behaves in a way that the Government do not like as a pariah who must be taxed out of existence.
  We can enjoy the benefits of modern technology, and we can make them ever greener. Wealth and technology will win the battle against pollution, not taxation and backward thinking.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He is always thought-provoking and provocative, but I thought that his declaration of support for the previous, Conservative Government's energy policy omitted mention of the huge destruction caused to many mining communities by the extremely vindictive policies pursued by his party in government. That is a classic example of how not to promote sustainable development and the greening of policy in the UK.
  The Government deserve considerable praise for the seriousness of their preparations for the Johannesburg summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first international leader to commit himself to attend the summit, and the way in which my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have engaged in the preparations for it is hardly consistent with the lack of enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) tried to depict.
  I shall support the Government's amendment tonight, but whoever drafted it might usefully have included a series of other policy measures that the Government have introduced. They include, for example, the launch of the renewables obligation, the extra £200 million that will go to develop our renewables industry, and the publication only today of the UK's combined heat and power strategy. They are all examples of other measures that the Government have taken to promote sustainability in the UK.
  I want briefly to highlight three specific issues on which more needs to be done. I welcome the good judgment shown once again by Mr. Speaker in selecting for debate in Westminster Hall next week the subject of renewable energy. The debate will be opened by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)—who has rightly highlighted the need for us to stimulate the take-up of sustainable energy in a variety of ways—will participate too.
  Combined heat and power is a neglected source of energy. The Government have gone some way towards addressing the matter with the publication today of their CHP strategy. However, there are other things that need to be done when it comes to implementing the strategy.
  The decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget to exempt CHP fully from the climate change levy was welcome, but it must be implemented swiftly and effectively if the mood and climate in the CHP industry are to be turned around. I understand that there could be a delay before the measure comes into force, as EU approval for such state aid is required. However, I hope that the Government will act speedily to ensure that that approval is secured.
  As I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who opened the debate for the Government, there is urgent need for reform

  867
  of the new electricity trading arrangements. The way in which Ofgem has tried to drag its feet in the matter is unacceptable. Representatives of the CHPA and Ofgem met only last week, but Ofgem's chief executive. Mr. McCarthy, seemed entirely unable to spell out how Ofgem intended to resolve the problem.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in its evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Ofgem said that it had not yet been issued with the statutory environmental guidelines that the Department of Trade and Industry is supposed to issue? Is he concerned that Ofgem's attitude towards NETA and renewable energy has been governed by a narrow interpretation of the legislation and not by the wider context that those statutory guidelines would have helped to create? Will he join me in urging the Government to introduce those guidelines, as there is an obvious failing in Ofgem?
  Mr. Thomas: As I indicated, I have grave concerns about Ofgem's behaviour in this context. I do not accept its argument that it is the Government's fault. The Government have made their views on what they want Ofgem to do very clear. Frankly, Ofgem needs to get on with it quickly.
  I hope that the Government will take advantage of the powers in the Utilities Act 2000 to create a CHP obligation in the same way as the obligation has been created for renewables. I also hope that there will be a correction of what appears to be a genuine mistake that has imposed the full costs of the renewables obligation on, ironically, CHP schemes, causing unintended significant additional costs for many CHP developers.
  My second point concerns steps that could be taken to promote business consideration of environmental issues such as climate change and waste minimisation. My right hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly touched on the importance of promoting corporate social responsibility. Some large businesses have, through the production of environmental reports, already begun to address sustainable development at boardroom level. Over the past 10 years, a whole industry has virtually been created around corporate social and environmental reporting. There are very good examples of businesses reporting on environmental and other issues. However, much more could be done in the business world. The Prime Minister rightly issued a challenge to the top 300 FTSE companies to produce a substantive environmental report. The truth is that some two thirds have not yet responded properly to that challenge.
  The time has come for us to consider whether we need to require companies of a certain size to publish meaningful information on their environmental performance every year so that consumers, shareholders and investors can judge how they have performed in that area. It is superficially attractive to argue that voluntary initiatives should be left to work and that simply urging and chiding the business world is enough, but there have been examples of the voluntary approach not working. The energy rating scheme, for example, was developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The then Government declined for several years to set any standards but eventually had to intervene to clarify the
  868
  confusion that was created. That is an example of the merit of requiring a certain basic level of environmental information to be published by all major companies.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was at the Department of Trade and Industry, she quite rightly established the company law review, which published its final report in July last year. A key recommendation of the report was to have a new requirement on most large public companies to produce an operating and financial review as part of the company's annual report. It was suggested that sets of both mandatory and voluntary information should be published in that review. Sadly, it was recommended that the voluntary category should include all policies and performance on environmental issues. I hope that Ministers will not accept that suggestion, but instead require big business to publish certain basic environmental indicators.
  Last year, DEFRA published a series of environmental indicators that businesses could use. They set out how businesses could work up information and clear guidance was offered on three key points: greenhouse gas emissions; waste disposal; and water usage. It would be useful if businesses could publish information on those points and I hope Ministers will consider that requirement.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to waste. Although I welcome the fact that the performance and innovation unit is considering that issue, there is scope for a debate in this place to reflect the considerable concern in many of our communities about the scourge of litter and the increasingly rapid escalation of household waste.
  I hope that Ministers will respond to those points and that we can make further progress on taking up the sustainability challenge in the UK.
  9.30 pm
  Sue Doughty: In February, Margot Wallstrom, the EU Environment Commissioner, said:
  "We cannot keep coming back from world gatherings with impressive commitments and fine words that we then leave in a corner of our offices to gather dust."
  Since Kyoto, there has been some danger that, as she feared:
  "Our implementation deficit will quickly turn into a credibility gap".
  It is reasonable to expect developed countries to take action before they commit themselves and to pursue economic growth in a way that does not break environmental limits.
  The agenda for the world summit has moved on; it is no longer purely environmental but offers the opportunity to provide a framework for the integration of trade, development, environment and social questions. That is understandable given the rapid escalation of issues relating to trade, justice and debt that so affect the poorest countries of the world.
  The Government have tended to focus their attention on support for those countries in the key aspects of water, energy, health, food security and governance. How far have we moved towards meeting our responsibilities, however? What has happened since Rio? How can we make sure that we use the impetus of Johannesburg to

  869
  energise our initiatives to meet our responsibilities? We must ensure that we do not miss the opportunities offered by Johannesburg.
  The UK Government must use the momentum of the Johannesburg process to strengthen their commitment to the centrality of sustainable development at all levels in the UK. We must firmly entrench sustainable strategies and their regular monitoring in national, regional and local government. Too often, there is a gap between central Government, who initiate measures—on waste management, for example—and local government which wants to implement them but does not have the means to do so.
  The debate has been wide ranging, although I know that hon. Members wanted to cover many more points. We have many more questions about the Government's plans and we could have done with more time. When we consider what the Government are doing, we find that there are many principles but not much practice. The Government's website defines sustainable development. It gives the history, objectives and guiding and precautionary principles, but instruments and mechanisms, strategies and legislation are yet to come. We need them now.
  We need targets and timetables for many aspects of sustainable development. As the Secretary of State for International Development said, we do not merely need the odd renewable energy project. We need to ensure that, as the poorest nations develop their economies, they do not make the same mistakes as we did with fossil fuels.
  We need to strengthen our own renewable energy businesses so that we can offer development help to those who need it. We have been missing a trick; Germany has moved much faster than us and is offering such help—we should be doing the same.
  We can do much more to promote green electricity, perhaps with publicity. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) thinks that we are not doing enough. Perhaps he does not read our strategies for green energy by 2050—we have the long term in view. I wish that I could persuade London Electricity to do what I say and give me my green tariff. I have pleaded with London Electricity for that tariff. We want it; we try to deliver.
  Energy is fundamental to economic and social development. It is fundamental to human economic activity and access to services. We need those services not just for ourselves; we must demand them for others as well. Some 2 billion people lack access to modern energy services. If they are to achieve decent standards of living by using traditional fossil fuels, the impact on the planet will be totally devastating.
  What are we doing at home? We still have concerns at home. People are saying that the Home Energy Conservation Bill is wonderful. Yes, we know that it is wonderful. Like everyone else, we have been asking for the Bill, yet it is like being left waiting at the church. On Second Reading, the Government said that they support the Bill. HECA officers—the people who implement the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—want to deliver the proposals at local government level. They are waiting for the Bill and they are saying, "What is the point if there are no targets? We might as well not bother."
  We have a letter from the Minister without Portfolio in which he says that the Government have supported that Bill at every stage and will continue to do so, yet we have
  870
  a problem every time that we try to include targets in the Bill. It was intended to deliver sustainable energy targets to reduce greenhouse gases, but the Government have moved amendments to remove those targets.
  On 14 January, in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the Minister for the Environment said:
  "The hon. Gentleman made a just point about whether the Bill was adequately funded. I am glad to assure him that, in our view, it certainly is."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
  However, he also suggested that the Bill could not be funded because the money was not there. So the Bill will come back and we will all troop in again, but I hope that the Government will not persuade the Bill's promoter to talk it out. I hope that it will be enacted. We are debating our role on the world stage, so it will be a matter of shame if we cannot even implement the Home Energy Conservation Bill.
  I realise that hon. Members are waiting to hear the winding-up speeches in this very interesting debate, but many other issues could be covered. Hon. Members have referred to waste management and the problem that waste is being created faster than the economy is developing. Plastic bottles are being recycled and made into drainage tubes, but the company that does that work in the United Kingdom is importing bottles from Belgium because the Government have failed to implement a sustainable waste strategy that works.
  We still have to deal with the challenges about sustainable timber. Hon. Members will remember that the Government had to back-track on all the comings and goings and silliness about the wood that was used in the Cabinet Office.
  Malcolm Bruce: As well as in the Department for International Development's offices.
  Sue Doughty: Even DFID, of all Departments, cannot guarantee that it is using sustainable timber. There is a hell of a long way to go before we can hold up our heads. We have got tough challenges ahead. We want the Government to lead the country so that we do well. All hon. Members would support that view, but we must not fool ourselves.
  It is a joke to talk about people using cleaner cars in the south-east, when they are sitting in traffic jams, going nowhere and public transport is being dismantled. Listening to people say that we need cleaner buses, when buses have been deregulated and are scarcely economic to run, will not do a lot about fuel emissions, which is an important issue. We wish the Government well; we will measure them on their performance, but we will support all that they do in their work in Johannesburg.
  9.39 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: This has been a very good debate, but, sadly, not nearly long enough. Many hon. Members still want to speak, and I hope that, between the Bali preparatory conference and Johannesburg, the Government will have a proper debate on sustainable development on the Floor of the House. There is so much to be said which has not been said this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) talked about genuine partnerships between rich and poor, in which he was echoed by many other

  871
  Members, and about the fact that we must not take the lion's share of the Earth's resources. He made his point strongly about the lack of consultation by the Secretary of State and the lack of information to the House about what will happen at Johannesburg, which is disgraceful, and he criticised the USA for turning its back on the poor of the world.
  The Minister for the Environment, who said many good things and made a very interesting speech, was nevertheless very much on the defensive about the meeting at Bali. He told us that, amazingly, 65,000 people will be at Johannesburg. I do not know how many aeroplanes that will involve, but I do know that, in terms of CO, emissions, one flight to Johannesburg and back is the equivalent of one car driven for a whole year. I hope that Johannesburg is worthwhile because it will contribute hugely to global warming.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) gave her usual careful and meticulous analysis, and especially emphasised the amount of waste in the north and in developing countries. I have never lost my car keys in a black bag, but I did drop them down a street drain in Birmingham once. The street cleansing department became involved while my children bawled inside the car because they could not get at their mother. Looking back, it was quite fun.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said that there are too many conferences and too many pledges. The processes take place all over again, but who monitors our progress? That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who said that we must monitor ourselves and look at where all the agreements and treaties are going, rather than just making more of them.
  I am glad that renewable forms of energy were mentioned by many hon. Members—the subject dominated the debate. The Minister for the Environment talked at length about renewable forms of energy, which were also mentioned by the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—he always makes a good contribution, but, unfortunately, was not able to make a speech tonight—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who mentioned the Greenpeace and Body Shop campaign for more renewable forms of energy in the third world, of which I hope that the House will take note. The issue was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned problems with water, too, as did the Minister for the Environment. Getting clean water to the people of this world is crucial, and is as important as education. If we can rank factors in development in order of importance, clean water is certainly very high on the list.
  Trade and the common agricultural policy were dealt with by many hon. Members, but particularly by the Minister for the Environment and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who made a useful and thoughtful contribution.
  One of the less publicised international development goals in all our documents and White Papers is the implementation of national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by 2005 to ensure that
  872
  current trends in the loss of environmental resources are effectively reversed, at global and national levels, by 2015. That is very difficult in poor countries. My gut reaction, which I am sure that other hon. Members who have been to third world countries share, is to want to give those countries as much as possible as quickly as possible.
  As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, people in third world countries want electricity, fridges, hot water and cars, just as we do. The lifestyle that they lead may sometimes look picturesque to us, but it is not much fun for them. If we point out the problems of sustainability, environmental damage and child labour to them, they will say, "You did all those things in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nobody preached to you about the damage you were doing to the world. We want what you have." If they are to get those things—which they deserve and should get—we must make sacrifices ourselves. We must give way and use less energy. Above all, we must lead by example on issues such as renewable sources of energy.
  How many of us have seen examples of projects that have been supported by UK Government aid or by Export Credits Guarantee Department and World Bank loans and have not been sustainable? I remember that members of the Select Committee on International Development visited the Jinja dam in Uganda. It was a fine project, but the dam was crumbling because it had not been properly maintained. Only last week. I was studying the water supply system in Accra which, over the past 30 years, has been funded by the World Bank and the UK. The Ghanaian water authority is maintaining the system so badly that 52 per cent. of the water is wasted. No wonder the World Bank and the Department for International Development are talking about looking for private contractors.
  However, as I have said, there are difficulties with privatisation. It is fine but we must remember the poor. There is no point in privatising if the poor cannot afford the commodity provided. That point must be borne constantly in mind. All future projects must be sustainable over the long term. The main aim should be sustainability and relief of poverty and not profit for companies in the north, although I appreciate that that is a factor.
  We have not heard much about the behaviour of transnational companies and the multinationals. I want to touch on that point briefly, because some of them have a turnover that is much larger than that of many countries. Those companies have a huge responsibility on their shoulders for the future of the environment, global warming and the planet. Many guidelines, compacts and codes of conduct deal with their behaviour, but they must be made compulsory. In particular, the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development must be enforceable. Could they not be incorporated into the criteria for licence applications considered by the ECGD? There must be some way of ensuring that large companies behave.
  I thought that there was going to be no mention of forestry, but my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred to the subject just before I rose to speak. I thank her for that. I and other Members will remember the regions and rivers in Colombia where illegal logging and deforestation is going on apace. It is difficult to travel on the rivers in Colombia because they are silting up. Whole tracts of south America have become filthy marshland

  873
  because the trees can no longer hold back the soil. Enormous environmental damage is being caused and the trees are not there to absorb the CO2 that we produce.
  The forests in that region are not sustainable. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford alluded to the wood used in the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Development. We do not wear furs, even though the animals are already dead, and we should not use wood from unsustainable forests even though
  sthe trees have already been cut down. That only encourages others to do likewise.
  This has been a good debate, but I hope that we shall get some sense from the Government of the big idea. What lead will they take in Bali and Johannesburg? Let us not have another talking shop with nothing to show for it in five years' time. Let us have a treaty with firm commitments on water, energy, tourism and forestry. There are so many things to do if we are to save the planet. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on all the points raised.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on initiating the debate even if part of the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the words in the motion have been rather churlish in not recognising the role that the Government have played in supporting the world summit for sustainable development. The views expressed did not square with the good report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee. It sets out clearly the facts about the leadership that the Government are providing. For instance, referring to the fact that the Prime Minister was the first major world leader to say that he would attend, the report said:
  "Such high level leadership is crucial to advancing the sustainable development agenda both domestically and abroad."
  It also said:
  "We find UK preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be comprehensive and well organised … we commend the Government for its strategic and inclusive approach."
  That clearly reflects our approach.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I agree that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) might have over-egged the argument about preparations, but the Bali conference, which the Minister for the Environment said might be even more important than Johannesburg, is vital to how we consider the role of the summit. Will the Under-Secretary ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gives a statement after the Bali conference, to which we have the opportunity to respond?
  Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carefully consider the suggestion that the House have a further opportunity, before Johannesburg, to consider what we want the summit to achieve.
  The debate has been valuable because it has given the House a chance to focus on the two biggest challenges that we face: reducing world poverty and ensuring that
  874
  that is done sustainably. Every contribution reflected on those challenges: how can we as human beings live within the earth's environmental means and, at the same time, tackle the problems of poverty, inequality and injustice? It is not a choice between the two. That came across clearly. We have to do both, which is what the world summit is all about. If it is to succeed, it will have to embrace both perspectives.
  We have moved on from the days when it might have appeared that conservation was more interested in the trees than in the people who lived in the forests where those trees grew. We understand the importance of finding ways of earning a living that are consistent with sustaining the environment. As many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said, providing opportunities for trade will make a major contribution to lifting people out of poverty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned genetically modified crops. That is a matter for all Governments—our Government, the Governments of developing countries or wherever—to make their own decisions on, weighing up the benefits and risks of their approach.
  We also know that the poor suffer most from environmental problems. Let me give one statistic. Every year 2 million children under five die from acute respiratory infection. Two thirds of those deaths are thought to be related to indoor air pollution, which is caused principally by burning fuel in confined spaces for cooking and heating. That is a form of pollution that many people in the rich and developed world would not know of as a risk, yet it kills all those children every year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) rightly referred to the rise in the sea level. If it rises around Bangladesh, the homes of the people who live on the delta will disappear. The people who live on the shifting sands of the shorelands of Bangladesh experience that every year. When the rains fall in the north and the water floods down, they have literally to pick up their homes and move. When I was in Bangladesh recently, I met a woman of about 45 who told me that she had moved 30 to 35 times in her life because of flooding.
  Over the next generation, we will also have to face the urban challenge in developing countries. Most people in the rich world live in urban areas. In the developing world, with the exception of Latin America, there is a relatively low level of urbanisation, but that is about to change. While the rural population of developing countries is expected to remain at roughly 3 billion over the next 25 years, their urban population will double from 2 billion to 4 billion. To illustrate that, let me use as an example the city of which I have the honour, in part, to represent. That increase is the equivalent of 112 new cities the size of Leeds being created each year, every year, for the next 25 years across the globe.
  One has to pause for a moment to contemplate the need for water, to which many hon. Members referred. I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that water has to be affordable. We must also recognise the role that water provision plays in other aspects of development. If one puts a pump in a village, more girls will go to school because they will not have to spend time fetching and carrying water—a burden that falls particularly on women and girls.

  875
  We must think of the need for sanitation and of the need for energy, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). On energy, if we can get investment into developing countries—it is investment, and the ability to earn a living and to trade, that they need above all—the technology, which we now have the ability to use because of advances in science and understanding, will follow.
  David Taylor: Is not one way of accelerating the investment to which my hon. Friend refers to build on the commendable progress that we have made in meeting the UN's target for aid of 0.7 per cent. of GDP? Does he agree that economically we are in a strong position to set an international lead by developing and publishing a timetable for this country to achieve that target? Is not that a possibility in this Parliament?
  Hilary Benn: As my hon. Friend will know, after 20 years in which the UK aid budget declined as a share of our national wealth, we have started to reverse that trend and are now on an upward path. I hope that the comprehensive spending review will demonstrate further progress towards the UN target, which we want to achieve.
  I am referring, however, to the investment that will make a major contribution to improving economic prospects in developing countries. Much of the aid that we give focuses on assisting Governments who want to get their kids into school, and on helping them to improve their health care and to achieve the right framework and environment so that investment will come to the country and give their people the opportunity of a better future.
  We know from this debate that we in the rich world have to use less of the world's resources so as to create the environmental space for poorer countries to develop. I was much taken by the elegant phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, who talked about the need to take
  "a path to a different sense of richness".
  As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, developing countries will not for one second buy the argument that because we in the rich world have used up so much of the Earth's resources, they must wait for another life to enjoy the same benefit.
  The other point to remember about the world summit is that it is part of a process, and we need to get our expectations right. It is not a make-or-break event, but part of a series. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who chairs the International Development Committee, rightly pointed out that it is part of a process in which the world is trying to address sustainability and poverty reduction. We hope that it will be able to build on the success of Doha in launching a new trade round, and on Monterrey, which has produced more aid.
  Above all, we want to see practical outcomes. In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) reminded us that change is possible. I want to take just one example, which concerns the issue that the hon. Member for Richmond Park raised at the end
  876
  of her speech, timber and forestry. Illegal logging is a major problem that uniquely brings together the two issues that the world summit is all about.
  Illegal logging is estimated to involve the loss of resources from public land in those countries affected by it of between $10 billion and $15 billion a year, which is more than all the aid that the world gives for health and education, so it really matters and it is a big issue. It involves corruption and it affects the livelihoods of people who live in the forest and rely on it for their existence. There is rising public concern about illegality and sustainability. The recent experience of two Departments has shown how difficult it is to turn the good intentions that we all have into practical action. With illegal logging, however, we have a chance to do that. The Government of Indonesia, which is a very good example of a developing country that has taken a courageous lead on the issue, are seizing shipments. Indonesia's new Forestry Minister is keen to change the way things work in that country, but in the end there will have to be a deal—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 282.

  Division No. 242]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barrett, John

  Lamp, Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Laws, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Price, Adam

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Pugh, Dr John

  Burnett, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Salmond, Alex

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Sanders, Adrian

  (NE Fife)

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

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Chidgey, David

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Doughty, Sue

  Thurso, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Weir, Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Heath, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Holmes, Paul

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Paul Tyler.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bailey, Adrian

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Baird, Vera

  (Swansea E)

  Banks, Tony

  877

  Barnes, Harry

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Barron, Kevin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bell, Stuart

  Goggins, Paul

  Benn, Hilary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Best, Harold

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Borrow, David

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Healey, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hendrick, Mark

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Heppell, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Heyes, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Hill, Keith

  Burnham, Andy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cairns, David

  Hope, Phil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Caton, Martin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chaytor, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clapham, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cranston, Ross

  Joyce, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  David, Wayne

  Kidney, David

  Davidson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Ms Oone (Bethnal Green)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Lammy, David

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lepper, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Levitt, Tom

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lloyd, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Dowd, Jim

  Lucas, Ian

  Drew, David

  Luke, Iain

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  MacDonald, Calum

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  MacDougall, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flynn, Paul

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  878

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Speller, Rt Hon John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Squire, Rachel

  Martlew, Eric

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mole, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Tami, Mark

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  Norris, Dan

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tynan, Bill

  Picking, Anne

  Vaz, Keith

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pike, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  Purnell, James

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Wood, Mike

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Woodward, Shaun

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie

  Wray, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wyatt, Derek

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Angela Smith.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the leadership the UK is showing domestically and within the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development;

  879
  welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister intends to attend the Summit; further welcomes the UK's climate change programme which is estimated to overshoot its Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.; commends the introduction in the UK last month of the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; further welcomes the commitment in the Budget to significant increases in the landfill tax to promote recycling and waste minimisation; further applauds the fact that drinking water, river water and bathing water are at the highest ever quality; and calls upon the Government to continue to tackle global poverty through sustainable development.

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

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    PET TRAVEL SCHEME
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents numbers 11596/00 and 12488/01, draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals; and congratulates the Government on securing for the United Kingdom, during the subsequent negotiations, the continuation, for at least five years, of arrangements similar to those contained in the successful United Kingdom Pet Travel Scheme.—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Frank Field, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Nigel Jones he added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Dan Norris.]

  Magistrates Courts (Wiltshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  10.13 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to have secured this debate, and for the support of right hon. and hon. Friends, which demonstrates the importance that we attach to this issue. I am also grateful to the Minister for appearing, especially as he is a Wiltshire MP; I hope that he will bring to the debate a particular insight into the issue.
  I have learned that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) also has a magistrates court in his county town of Oakham in Rutland that is threatened just as the magistrates court in my county town of Trowbridge in Wiltshire is threatened. However, the problem is country wide.
  The county's magistrates courts committee recently announced plans to close the West Wiltshire magistrates court in Trowbridge in my constituency and the Devizes courthouse in the constituency of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Those plans have been put on hold by the timely intervention of Wiltshire county council. I hope that that will provide a breathing space so that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor can reverse a disastrous decision. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to be here, but having campaigned for much longer than I have for the retention of magistrates courts in Wiltshire, he has asked to be associated with my remarks.
  Next week, I shall present a petition with more than 2,000 signatures in support of West Wiltshire magistrates court. Despite that measure of strong local feeling, some people have said to me, "What's the point? It's a done deal." We all moan that the public are uninterested in us and in what we do. The Government's response is to devise ever cleverer ways of re-engaging with them, such as electronic voting and polling booths at supermarkets, but the gist of it is that people feel that they cannot influence events that affect them. If the Government are serious about improving the reputation of politics, they must be prepared to be guided by strongly held local views of the sort that I have the privilege to represent today.
  My local youth offending team has just produced a map of young offenders in the West Wiltshire and Kennet districts, and found that the majority live in and around Trowbridge and Devizes. What is more, a high proportion of offences in both districts occur within two miles of the two threatened courthouses. What effect does the Minister suppose that the closures will have on those young offenders, who will now have to find their way to the relatively remote and unfamiliar towns of Chippenham and Salisbury?
  Before the election, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in their rural blueprint that
  "market towns" must be
  "the focus of a range of private and public services to which people need access."

  881
  The DETR market town template specified the key services that towns with a population of just 10,000 to 25,000 needed, one of which was the presence of a magistrates court. That was reiterated in the Government paper entitled "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", which states:
  "People should look upon their local Magistrates' Court or Crown Court as a public service in the same way they view hospitals and schools."
  The Countryside Agency, in its annual rural proofing report, says that the Government
  "should look again at the national policy framework within which decisions are currently taken about the location of magistrates' courts. The closure of magistrates' courts in market and small rural towns may be yielding savings for the Lord Chancellor's Department but is causing concern about higher costs and greater inconvenience for those in rural areas."
  That is important, because it comes from the Countryside Agency—a Government quango. It is a great shame that the Government are not minded to take that sound advice.
  In Wiltshire, the situation has already sparked the resignation of one of our longest-serving justices of the peace, and I fear that more resignations may be in the pipeline. The fact is that our magistracy are to be packed off to vast justice factories in the large urban centres. Farewell, then, to the notion that justice should be dispensed locally by those with some knowledge of the context in which a crime has been committed and in which a sentence handed down would ultimately be served. Farewell to any chance that the convicted will feature in the local press, so that justice can be seen to be done.
  The Auld report endorsed a system of lay magistracy that has existed since 1361. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I detect a desire to draw that to a close by way of the Government's centralisation of justice. Only this week, we have heard that magistrates are to be discouraged from using their JP post-nominals, a practice that I recall at least one Minister was pleased to follow until fairly recently. In itself that seems pretty unimportant, but it is symbolic of an attempt to downgrade the office. The implication behind the move may well add to the disillusion that is by stealth eroding the lay magistracy, paving the way for more stipendiaries in large sub-regional courthouses. We hear that Ministers are turning their backs on stealth. Let them come clean about their intentions for the bench.
  In a previous debate on a similar issue, the Minister used in his defence a quote from the Government's document "The Way Ahead". He said:
  "A criminal justice system must be effective at preventing offending and re-offending, efficient in the way in which it deals with cases, responsive to the needs of the victim and the law-abiding community and accountable for its decisions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 31 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 270-71WH.]
  I hope that that is not in his speaking notes again. It strikes me on rereading Hansard as something of an own goal.
  My comments are couched mainly in general terms, but Wiltshire's case is put extremely well in the county council's paper, which was sent to the Lord Chancellor in March. Wiltshire is a deceptive county. Its population lives in a doughnut around Salisbury plain, which, as the Minister knows, is the size of the Isle of Wight. That means that transport is far more difficult than the uninitiated imagine. To compound that, we learn that the closure of Trowbridge and Devizes would mean that the number of
  882
  petty session divisions and courthouses would be far fewer than in other rural counties. Given that in some courts more than 40 per cent. of adjournments occur because defendants fail to turn up, I foresee grave difficulties for Wiltshire with far fewer courthouses than average, and unique geographic and transport challenges.
  Of course, we must upgrade our courthouses. In particular, we must make them more accessible to disabled people. We must also ensure that they are healthy and safe for all who have business in them. There is no doubt that Charles Dickens would recognise Trowbridge courthouse, which needs to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century as a matter of urgency. The fabric of the building is inadequate and needs serious attention.
  However, Ministers should be careful for two reasons. First, they should be careful when using the human rights agenda to proscribe, for example, the appearance of accused in handcuffs as they walk only a few feet from the police van to the courthouse door. If that constrains the rights of those who are not well off or who live in remote areas to equal access to justice, I wonder what, on balance, has been gained. Secondly, the Minister should note that disabled people are more likely than average to lose out if they are forced to travel to gain access to justice. Closures based on the cost of upgrading court rooms may be unhelpful.
  We must recognise that those who have business in magistrates courts—the accused and their families, witnesses and victims—tend to be at the poorer end of the social spectrum. Many are on benefit, and many do not have ready access to transport. The hurdle that the closures present will be far higher for them than for the better off. The hurdle for those who live in remote rural areas will be higher than for those who live in towns. How does that square with the Government's stated desire to create an equitable and fair society?
  A local policeman said to me that it is already difficult enough getting people to attend court in Trowbridge. If he had to get them to attend in Chippenham, there would be little chance. The well-off urbanite therefore presents himself at Chippenham in a timely fashion and the poor man from a small town or village does not, for a complex variety of reasons—and the Government believe that they are creating a fairer society.
  The Minister cannot hide behind the decisions of the magistrates courts committees, as I regret that he did in his letter to me of 8 April. He knows that Wiltshire magistrates courts committee is caught between a rock and a hard place. In his haste to indulge an expensive taste in wall coverings, the Lord Chancellor has neglected to furnish magistrates courts committees with the necessary funding to cover the crippling extra burdens that he has imposed on them.
  Although £600,000 buys mighty fine wallpaper, it would also renovate six court houses such as Trowbridge and ensure that people in areas like mine continue to have ready access to justice. Lord Chief Justice Auld is clear where the responsibility lies: in his opinion, courthouse closures are
  "driven by the Lord Chancellor's Department."
  It is important to remember where the blame lies. It is reprehensible of Ministers to pretend that that is a matter for magistrates courts committees when the responsibility lies firmly with Ministers.

  883
  I hope that the Minister will take home some of those points. I recognise that he is a Wiltshire MP; he will therefore know the geography of the area. I also hope that the Countryside Agency's point about the rurality of the area, along with the need to ensure access, the special situation of Wiltshire with regard to transport, and the large area of Salisbury plain in the middle which means that access from north to south is extremely difficult, will convince him that we have a case for keeping the Trowbridge and Devizes courthouses open. A particularly telling revelation was made by the county council, which showed that, were those courthouses to close, we would have far fewer courthouses than one might expect, compared with similar rural counties in the south-west and nationwide.
  This is an important issue that affects us all, wherever our constituencies may be. It is about access to justice, one of the most fundamental tenets that we value in this country. My strong concern is that, with the closure of those two courthouses and a move towards a system of justice based in large urban centres and housed in vast justice factories, that access would be denied, particularly to the most vulnerable and to those who live in rural areas. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen, and hon. Members on this side of the House certainly do not. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give us some reassurance today about these two important courthouses and, more generally, about courthouses in other parts of the country.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury
  (Dr. Murrison) and the Minister for allowing me a few minutes to speak in this traditional Adjournment debate?
  There have been courts in Salisbury since the city was founded in 1220, and I hope that there will be for a long time to come. I have not actually represented Salisbury since 1220: only since 1983. In that time, however, I have seen courts close. We lost the court in Tisbury, but we learned to live with that. My late mother was a magistrate in Salisbury in her day. I am old enough to recall the Assizes sitting in the Guildhall courts in Salisbury; the judge's procession from his lodgings in the close provided a moment of awe. The city came to a standstill, the traffic stopped and people stood still on the pavement as the judge walked past. Those days have gone, but I suspect that the quality of justice may have been better then.
  My hon. Friend is wholly right to campaign for local access to justice in his constituency, and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). These proposals are a Treasury-driven exercise, and I understand and respect the position in which the Minister finds himself. I have to thank the magistrates in my constituency for upholding the law, and the dignity of the law, in picturesque but antediluvian surroundings. I also have to thank the solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. They, too, make the law work in facilities that are not at all appropriate to modern expectations. Salisbury magistrates courts also fail to meet the standards set as a result of the Government's decision to introduce the Human Rights Act 1998 to British law.
  The problem facing us all is: who is going to pay and when will this happen? We were told some years ago that the Lord Chancellor's Department would pay, but it
  884
  always seems short of money and living hand to mouth at the end of the financial year, with the result that perhaps only a few crumbs might slip towards Wiltshire. Our constituents deserve better than that. They deserve to have their courthouses in Devizes and in Trowbridge, as well as in Salisbury.
  I was interested to see who supported the magistrates courts committee proposals. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service, the prisoner escort services and most of the Wiltshire justices of the peace support the Lord Chancellor's proposals, as, of course, do I. I was surprised, however, to see that the Wiltshire police authority apparently opposes them. I got that information in a written parliamentary answer from the Minister on 10 April 2002, at column 45W of Hansard.
  The assistant chief constable of Wiltshire police wrote to the justices' clerk on 27 September 2001 as follows:
  "We would not be in favour of the number of court sites in the County being reduced to less than three, preferably at Swindon, Salisbury and Chippenham."
  He also wrote to the justices' chief executive on 23 January this year to say:
  "We support the closure of the Guildhall at Salisbury and its relocation to a purpose built building as this can only improve the administration of justice in the south of the county."
  I wonder why the police authority has acted against the advice of the police, but that is not a matter for me; it is a fact that I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
  I am disappointed by the county council's decision to oppose the proposals. It has not had the courtesy to offer me any explanation, or to show me the submission that it sent to the Lord Chancellor, but it must be a partial case. We in Salisbury hope very much that the Lord Chancellor's Department will accede to the suggestions of the magistrates court committee.
  Perhaps I can offer a crumb of comfort to my hon. Friend, who I hope will be able to persuade the Minister to change his mind and save the courts. It is significant that the magistrates court committee intends, if the proposals go ahead, to ensure full integration of magistrates court staff with Crown and county court staff at the Salisbury courthouse. It also intends—this is, perhaps, more of an innovation—to install live video links in other rural community facilities, such as libraries, police stations and schools, particularly for the benefit of witnesses and victims in the more rural parts of Wiltshire such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury.
  I think that system could work. I have seen it work very well in the context of the new proposals for courts martial. In Cyprus, for example, I have seen successful links between courtrooms there and courts martial centres in Aldershot.
  I thank my hon. Friend again for allowing me, briefly, to support his case, but also to point out that we in Salisbury hope very much that we will get our new courthouse.
  10.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Let me begin, as is traditional, by congratulating the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate. I seem

  885
  to have been replying to a number of debates on magistrates courts and Crown court closures in recent months; this is the second in the current month.
  When courts close, local Members of Parliament—understandably, and reflecting the understandable concerns of their constituents—become rather agitated, and often seek debates such as this. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties, although I was slightly surprised that he used a fair amount of his precious parliamentary time to engage in what I considered to be irrelevant party political knockabout. I certainly failed to see the relevance of some of his points.
  These are serious issues for all concerned, and we take them seriously. As everyone knows, we are about to embark on measures to implement the recommendations we will accept from Lord Justice Auld's report on the review of the criminal court system. That will inevitably have implications for the magistrates courts, and I think it important for us to discuss them with the seriousness that they deserve.
  I think that before I deal specifically with Wiltshire—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I am a Wiltshire Member, and as such I am familiar with much of the background—I should deal with the context in which decisions are made. The hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated that he had not wholly understood the process, so I want to clarify it. As he probably knows, magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees. each of which is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in its area.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either, as he alleges, we are hell bent on centralisation, or—as he also alleged—we are trying to duck out of decentralising responsibility to the local courts. It must be one or the other. Being in opposition, the hon. Gentleman has the privilege of being able to make two contradictory allegations at the same time.
  Dr. Murrison rose—
  Mr. Wills: I am happy to give way, but I should point out that as we must finish in nine minutes, my important remarks about Wiltshire will inevitably be curtailed if I do so.
  Dr. Murrison: Removing Trowbridge and Devizes magistrates courts and sending cases to Chippenham must be viewed as centralisation. I also think the Minister must not duck the issue of the Government's ultimate responsibility for closures. That is the issue that faces him now.
  Mr. Wills: There is no question of ducking anything. Courts have to close under all Governments and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) gave an example from his constituency. It is regrettable, but courts have to close for particular reasons that are not all Treasury driven. To dismiss the needs of disabled people and other perfectly fair human rights considerations does no credit to anyone.
  The remarks that the hon. Member for Westbury made about the use of handcuffs are irrelevant. I do not want to take up precious time now, but I will be happy to discuss
  886>
  the matter with him on another occasion and explain the true position about the application of human rights measures to the courts.
  It is the responsibility of magistrates courts committees, which are locally based and know their areas best, in consultation with the relevant paying authorities, which are also locally based, to determine how many courthouses, whether urban or rural, as well as other types of accommodation, are needed locally. In discharging this statutory responsibility, the Government expect magistrates courts committees to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. In doing so, they follow set guidelines which take into account crucial factors such as the strategic aims of each magistrates courts committee, the facilities that are needed, and the results of user surveys. They have to strike a balance—I appreciate that this can be difficult and that there is sometimes strong local opposition—between providing an efficient and effective service to their users and maintaining secure, well equipped court accommodation, and ensuring reasonably full utilisation of court facilities.
  It is slightly ironic to be lecturing Conservative Members about the proper use of taxpayer's money, as for many years we heard them use this rhetoric but never fulfil it in practice. We believe that we have to be prudent custodians of taxpayers' money and I would have hoped that, at the very least, the hon. Gentleman could have agreed with that.
  Dr. Murrison: I was being a little facetious about wallpaper, but the point was well made. I was referring to the inefficient use of funds. I was also trying to point out that magistrates courts can be renovated relatively cheaply. I agree with the Minister that it is not just a matter of resources, but I am afraid that resources are a large part of the efficient use of public money, and I used a fairly good example.
  Mr. Wills: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that he was being facetious, but not about much else. Owing to the constraints on time, I shall have to omit the remarks that I was about to make about the general background, since I want to say something about the situation in Wiltshire. Although I register the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, he has not recognised the complexity of the case and hasunderstandably—left out a number of salient facts.
  An extensive consultation process has continued for some time. The second period of consultation conducted by the magistrates courts committee started in September 2001. As a result of that, it revised its original proposal, accepting that the convenience of victims, witnesses and defendants is more important than strict petty session area boundaries. That will allow cases to be heard at one of the three courts that the MCC proposes to retain, whichever is more convenient to the parties concerned. It is also prepared to stagger court hearings throughout the day for those who have to travel greater distances. That shows the responsiveness of a local body to local needs.
  The magistrates courts committee investigated the possibility of upgrading the three courthouses, but found that much of the necessary work on the two, town centre, grade 2 listed buildings at Trowbridge and Salisbury was impossible and prohibitively expensive. I remind the

  887
  hon. Gentleman that the third is a temporary mobile construction on a restricted site at Devizes which was acquired second-hand from what was then the local education authority. That is hardly the standard of accommodation we want for our courthouses. In the circumstances, one has to examine carefully whether value for money and the interests of justice will be best achieved by keeping the courthouses open. I hope that we can at least agree that this is a legitimate case for study. We have to explore the options and we expect the MCCs to do that.
  The overwhelming consideration is to reduce the number of under-used courtrooms. The degree of use in Wiltshire is under the national average by a considerable amount, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows. Between October and December last year, the national average utilisation figure was 60.5 per cent., but the figure for Wiltshire was 49.4 per cent. In the interests of everybody, we have to consider how to increase that figure.
  On 8 February, Wiltshire MCC made a final determination, under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, to close Trowbridge courthouse with effect from 1 April. In accordance with that Act, Wiltshire county council formally lodged an appeal against the determination on 11 March. The appeal process is continuing, and each party is being given the opportunity to make its case for closure or retention of the courts. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that responsibility for deciding whether the appeal should be upheld resides ultimately with the Department.
  Once both parties have confirmed that they have no further representations to make, I will be asked to make a decision, which will be final and binding on all parties. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the MCC has recently requested a meeting with me, and in my response I will point out that I am happy to meet all interested parties separately to discuss the matter in detail. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss these issues seriously—unfortunately, for reasons of time I have been unable to address several of them this evening—I am
  888
  happy to invite him to the meeting, or to meet him separately. [Interruption.] I think that he is indicating some form of assent, so my office will get in touch with his to arrange a mutually convenient time in the near future. At that meeting, I hope that we can discuss these issues in rather more detail than was possible today.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury commented on his constituency, so perhaps I might spend a few moments on that. The MCC has submitted a business case, and as a result officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department have submitted a bid for additional funding in the spending review to support small court schemes. If the MCC's determination to commission a courthouse in Salisbury is permitted, it will be procured via a route known as the "2 stage design and build". which is used by Government Departments for acquiring new buildings when capital becomes available.
  I hope that my brief remarks have shown that these issues are complex. We must take account of everything and ensure that courts are fully utilised. Apart from anything else, that allows business to be conducted efficiently. It is in no one's interests—and certainly not of local justice—if people are unable to have their cases heard in court at the appointed time. The hon. Member for Westbury made many fair points about travel times and convenience for victims and witnesses, but it is also convenient for those people that their cases be heard when they are scheduled—a point that relates to the efficient use of court space.
  These are complex issues to which there is never an easy answer. Any decision to close a court is always going to evoke local opposition. We must find a right way forward, but that can be done only through dialogue—hence my offer of a meeting. In the end, we are looking to provide a modern system of justice, with well equipped and secure courtrooms. We want to reduce delay in the time taken for cases to proceed through these courts—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clinical Negligence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Mr. Ainger]
9.30 am
Gareth Thomas: I am pleased to start this debate on a topical subject that is of great importance to our constituents and the national health service. I am glad to see the Minister in her place, and I hope that she will respond to some of my points. I am also glad to see the Opposition spokesmen: the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
It is necessary to put the debate into the context of the record extra Government investment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced. I should also mention reform and the Government's commitment to ensuring a modernised, responsive and patient-centred health service. I propose that reform should also apply to clinical negligence and the way in which the NHS deals with those instances, which are inevitable even in the best-run services, where the standard of care is less than we can usually expect from the medical profession. Those instances are sometimes referred to in the jargon, somewhat euphemistically, as adverse health care events or medical mishaps. Newspapers sometimes refer to them as medical gaffes. However, they all come under the rubric "clinical negligence", which is a broader term in common usage, rather than the narrower term "medical negligence". Our law provides a remedy for the injured party through the tort of negligence, where it can be established that a doctor, a member of a medical team or a paramedic has been negligent and in breach of duty, and where that negligence has caused injury.
It is important to refer to the scale of the problem. Clinical negligence has received much comment from the press who, with some members of the medical profession, would have us believe that the problem is out of control. In recent years, clinical negligence claims have increased substantially to worrying levels, but the statistics are not presented clearly. The Minister will have the figures to hand, but I will quote from "NHS (England) summarised accounts 2000-2001", which shows that the NHS in England—I shall come to Wales in a moment—faced accumulated claims for clinical negligence of no less than £4.4 billion as at 31 March 2001. On any view, that is a substantial figure.
Mr. John Burnett: Our paths have crossed on a number of occasions. I believe—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong-that they crossed in the Committee considering the Access to Justice Bill. Does he agree that the huge growth in clinical negligence cases was foretold by some during the debate on the widening of conditional fee agreements?
Gareth Thomas: There are many reasons for the growth in clinical negligence claims. The Access to
246WH
Justice Act 1999 is one reason; higher awards by the courts are another. However, I shall return to that important point later, because I want to deal with the accounting methods used by the NHS.
That figure of £4.4 billion represents accumulated claims. It is the provision that the Comptroller and Auditor General has said should apply for outstanding claims. It can be regarded as a misleading figure, because it does not represent what is paid year on year to finance clinical negligence awards. I know that the Minister will have the figures. For the year 1999–2000, for instance, the figure was £373 million. We must not over-dramatise the figures, but the position is serious.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can help, but is it not right that when insurance companies make provisions they take account of the amounts that are likely to be paid to claimants? They make a risk analysis in relation to the overall claims that will end up being made, whereas I believe that the provision that the Comptroller and Auditor General makes is simply the value of the claims that have been made, which is a different valuation. Is that correct?
Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I am not sure what the provision represents. Is it the worst-case scenario or is it more in line with the system that operates in Wales? I speak as a Welsh Member, but these issues are common to both England and Wales.
The figures show that for the period up to 31 March 2001 the NHS in Wales provided for a total liability for clinical negligence of £126.7 million. The accounts describe that figure as representing claims
"where there was a probable chance of the claim being settled".
Can the Minister clarify whether the English figures represent provision in respect of all claims that have been made, or is there a risk assessment as to which claims are likely to be paid out?
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Audit Office's figures for April this year state fairly clearly that £4 billion is the worst-case scenario?
Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. One of the purposes of the debate is to tease out these issues. We need to clarify the accounting basis.
I want to refer to the views of the lawyers. I express a peripheral interest as a lawyer, although 1 have not had any experience of clinical negligence cases, at least in the recent past. Lawyers involved in that specialist field of litigation take a dim view of what is sometimes said by those who represent the medical profession, and say that clinical negligence claims should not necessarily be seen as a sinister feature of the health service. They think that rather than foster a culture of cover-up, which has been suggested by some doctors, clinical negligence litigation has been a spur to higher standards, better clinical governance and more openness in the medical profession.

247WH
I shall quote from Mr. Russell Levy, who is a partner in the specialist clinical negligence firm, Leigh, Day and Co. He takes exception to the way in which the National Audit Office expressed the figures on negligence. On 26 April, he wrote in The Guardian:
"One can't help but wonder whether the national audit office … is more interested in grabbing headlines than watching the public purse. Every year, it estimates the total cost of clinical negligence claims against the NHS using a method described by independent health economists, insurance experts and accountants in an article written in the British Medical Journal in June 2000 as 'a grossly misleading indicator of the impending cost of clinical negligence to the NHS'."
Mr. Burnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address not only the level of damages, but the huge legal costs that often dwarf the damages provided to the claimant.
Gareth Thomas: I agree. There is a disproportion between the level of award and the costs that accompany awards, particularly for small claims. That is worthy of serious attention. Some interesting figures in the chief medical officer's report in 2000 suggested the scale of the problem. It indicated that no less than 10 per cent. of admissions to hospitals resulted in some adverse event. I suspect that some of those adverse events were minor, but some were serious. There were 850,000 incidents a year. Many claims are modest, but they clog up the system and take up a lot of time. They also cause considerable anxiety and heartache to patients who have suffered medical mishaps, however modest. Accidents happen even in the best-run systems.
The cost of additional hospital stays and treatments from adverse incidents must also be taken into account. In 2000, that was estimated at £2 billion. Can the Minister give an indication of the number of small claims as a percentage of the number of total claims? There is a crying need to speed up the process that deals with smaller claims.
Before I deal with worrying local examples, I should say that the rate of growth of clinical negligence has declined. That may be a reflection of the steps that the Government have taken to manage risk. I shall say more about that later because prevention will clearly always be better than damage limitation.
I know of two examples from my constituency experience, and I shall refer to them as an indication of the cost of medical mishaps not just in economic, but in human terms. I have a 57-year-old constituent who, a matter of weeks ago, received a settlement of just over £2 million for brain damage that she had sustained during childbirth no fewer than 15 years previously. The solicitor representing her, Mr. Alun Thomas no relation—told me that it had been a titanic struggle. It took no fewer than four years for the health authority to admit liability, which it did suddenly after fighting tooth and nail.
There was then a protracted argument as to whether my constituent should remain in institutional care, which would have been cheaper for the health authority's insurers, or whether steps should be taken to ensure that she had an independent mode of living. The difference in the cost was no less than £1 million. A
248WH
compromise was reached, but only after the family fought very hard with lawyers to secure a fair settlement. The costs involved were considerable. In the words of the family:
"What should have been a joyous family event"—
the birth of a child—
"was turned into a living nightmare made even worse by having to fight all the way for every penny of compensation."
Clearly, it should not take so long for such a case to be settled, but it is not unusual. I understand that the average time in which a clinical negligence case is disposed of is five years, but perhaps the Minister will give up-to-date figures.
My other constituency example relates to Mrs. Maureen Roberts. Her husband was suffering from lung cancer, which was misdiagnosed as arthritis. He was not given appropriate X-rays—he was given an X-ray of the front of his chest instead of the back and even then not for several months after it should have been taken. Mrs. Roberts had the tenacity to pursue a complaint through the internal NHS complaints system. She was unimpressed because it was slow, cumbersome, difficult to access and an obstacle course. She was put off at every corner and believes that if she had not been strong willed she would not have pursued an internal complaint. She told me that her main motive for making the complaint was not to obtain an apology— the Minister and other hon. Members in the Chamber will accept that that is the usual priority for patients who suffer low-level clinical negligence injuries—but to obtain an explanation that would prevent what happened to her husband happening to others. In her view, patients who go through the complaints system represent the tip of the iceberg because many people are put off.
The Minister was aware that I would be raising my concerns, which I am sure are shared by others, about the complaints system. I do not expect her to comment on those individual cases, but can she give an indication of the Government's thinking on the need to reform the complaints system? It is complex, riven with delay, not independent and seems to favour the medical establishment. My view, which the Minister may share, is that a more streamlined and effective complaints system, perhaps adopting what a recent National Audit Office report referred to as a package system, or a tribunal with the power to award modest compensation quickly, might deal with a large element of clinical negligence cases.
While dealing with the inadequacies of the complaints system, will the Minister explain how the Government propose to deal with an issue that is continually raised by people who have been involved in clinical negligence cases: the culture of the NHS and the medical profession? I know that I must talk carefully here because members of the medical profession are present.
Being on the wrong side of a clinical negligence case must cause extreme anxiety to hard-working professionals. It is surely in the interests not only of patients but of the medical profession that we undertake reform. Is there a clear policy on how medical professionals should respond in the case of an adverse incident, where something has gone wrong? Time and again, I hear people saying that nobody gave them an explanation or said sorry. I can understand why it is sometimes not appropriate to say sorry, but can we have

249WH
some clarity on that? I know that the Government are reviewing the complaints system and that others will have thoughts on the matter, but there seems to be an unwillingness to open up and a lack of candour on the part of medical professionals, which causes great anxiety to patients at large.
Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid and important point. Not only is what he describes a natural human reaction, but it is the direct consequence of what has been called the culture of blame. It has been described as such by the Secretary of State for Health and, even more tellingly, by Professor Ian Kennedy in the Bristol inquiry report. He specifically said that it is the blame culture—the fact that the clinical negligence system is blame-oriented and fault-oriented—that gives doctors an incentive to cover up their errors and those of their colleagues. There is much to be gleaned from Kennedy's recommendations on that matter.
Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to what I believe is the fundamental issue. I must part company with him, because I do not share the views of Professor Ian Kennedy. I do not take the view that clinical negligence litigation should be scrapped and that it is itself responsible for an epidemic of secrecy and a cover-up culture. I would say the reverse. As I said earlier, clinical negligence litigation has opened up the medical profession and made it more responsive. It is very important that people who fall victim to negligence, which can happen in the best-organised systems and professions, should have redress.
With the greatest respect, I think that Professor Kennedy was wrong. That view is shared by the majority of lawyers involved in the case. I do not want this debate to degenerate into a battle royal between doctors and lawyers, but my objective view, coming to it with a fairly open mind, is that the learned professor was wrong.
Mr. Heald: Of course, the hon. Gentleman and I are both lawyers. Does he accept that one of the points made by the Royal College of General Practitioners in its response to our consultation document was that many doctors are so shocked and stressed by the experience of the complaints system and clinical negligence process that they retire through ill health? We all want doctors to be held to account when things go wrong, but does he agree that it is worth considering a more informal procedure that gets on with the process more quickly, so that the agony, for patients and the medical profession, is shorter and the formality of the process less frightening?
Gareth Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult for anyone to disagree that there must be a speeding up of the process, especially for smaller claims.
The Government are taking steps to deal with the problem. As I have said, there is greater emphasis on risk management, better clinical governance and prevention. I welcome the advent of the NHS Litigation Authority, which now administers the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. In Wales, the Welsh Risk
250WH
Pool is a similar scheme. It is clear that through education, systems to prevent accidents happening in the first place and steps to promote best practice, we can learn a lot from mistakes and bring the figures for clinical negligence under control, which is what we all want.
The Government have said in their NHS 10-year plan that they want reform in relation to clinical negligence and the way in which such cases are dealt with.
Mr. Burnett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that the level of damages and claims in the United States was falling.
Gareth Thomas: I said that the level of growth in clinical negligence claims has declined. The figures are rising, but the rate of increase has declined. I did not refer to the United States. I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me.
The NHS plan calls for reform and, in an important initiative, the Government set up the chief medical officer's committee on clinical negligence in July 2001. The committee has a broad brief, including consideration of a no-fault system of liability. It recently called for ideas, and many organisations have submitted representations.
I share the views of the Claimant Clinical Negligence Practitioners Group and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers that there is no such thing as a no-fault system. Even in New Zealand, Finland and Sweden, where such a system has been established, it is necessary to prove causation. In any event, the schemes are very expensive and take money away from front-line services. They do not deal sufficiently with risk management, and eligibility criteria have constantly been cut, particularly in New Zealand. Therefore, I do not accept that a no-fault system is the answer, even for discrete categories of clinical negligence such as accidents during childbirth.
Reversing the burden of proof for causation would be a far-reaching reform of the law on clinical negligence. Those who are involved in the area know that proving breach of duty is difficult. The law provides for a very demanding test of the medical profession, but the test is qualified by the Bolam decision, which presupposes that it is a defence if the doctor adopted a course that a responsible body of opinion would have taken, even though it may not have been a majority view to do so. The decision has been discussed in various cases, but I do not want to deal with that. I want to discuss reversing the burden of proof.
Proving fault is one thing, but proving causation can be technically very difficult and can take up a lot of court time. It can result in many experts arguing for years about an issue and a mushrooming of costs that, in many cases, are already out of control.
Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point about Bolam? I hope that he is not suggesting that medical decision making should be based on a majority view.
Gareth Thomas: In relation to negligence cases, the medical profession is in a favoured position—I do not say that in a critical way—because the law has accepted that an element of judgment always needs to be

251WH
exercised. There are circumstances in which one doctor may carry out a particular procedure in one way, and another doctor may undertake it in a different way, or go about the problem differently. The question of judgment is enshrined in the Bolam decision. Doctors can use that as a defence.
Reversing the burden of proof for causation would help. It would cut delay and mitigate some of the worst aspects of our adversarial system. On small claims, there is scope for a streamlined system, quick explanations, modest recompense given to patients quickly and an integrated complaints and compensation system. The Lord Chancellor's Department has recently issued a consultation paper on damages for future loss. Some of its proposals would help considerably, giving courts the power to order periodic payments and looking again at structured settlements, rather than putting all the emphasis on the need to arrive at a final, definitive lump sum. That might go some way towards relieving the burden on the NHS and mitigating some of the delay inherent in the present system.
Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a strong case for guaranteeing NHS care for people with long-term disabilities as a result of clinical negligence, rather than awarding staged payments or, as we have at the moment, large lump sums for private purchase? A guarantee of NHS care, and the funding going into that care, will work both ways: it will provide the care that is needed as well as some financial compensation, and it will improve care generally in the health service.
Gareth Thomas: I think that there is scope for considering rehabilitation, and perhaps providing, effectively, an indemnity to those who suffer medical accidents, so that they will be looked after. Of course, there is an issue concerning the current legislation because, as the Minister will know, the measure of damages in clinical negligence cases assumes that the cost of future care will be obtained from the private sector. I do not advocate that that should be amended, but the hon. Gentleman's point is a good one.
Mr. Heald: Is it not necessary to take account of the fact that the NHS would have to provide those facilities, and there would be a cost? It would be necessary to decide whether it was better on balance for the NHS to provide those facilities at that cost rather than retain the present system, in which they are provided by the private sector. It may be quite a fine judgment in terms of cost.
Gareth Thomas: That is worthy of close attention and I take the point. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that.
I take the view that clinical negligence litigation has begun to open up the medical profession. I believe that people need an effective means of redress. There are problems with the complexity and delays of the present system. We should go about reform. I know that the Government are committed not only to investment in the health service, but reform in all areas, including those of clinical negligence.
10.4am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) is to be congratulated on raising this issue for debate. He is also to be congratulated on styling it as "clinical" and not "medical" negligence because we are talking about negligence generally, not confining the debate to doctors. It has to be admitted, however, that most cases are brought against members of the medical profession.
I shall declare an interest: I am a doctor and, like all medical practitioners, am potentially on the receiving end of the sort of actions that are the subject of today's debate. I regret that claims for negligence against my medical colleagues are becoming more and more common. Indeed, I would probably rank myself in a minority in not having been subject to the threat, suggestion or realisation of such an action. It is important to understand that the overwhelming majority of practitioners do their level best for their patients. That did not come across particularly well during the hon. Gentleman's speech, although I am sure that he intended it to do so. It is important to pay tribute to the hard work of people across the board in the NHS.
Gareth Thomas: I have made the point consistently that, even in the best-run systems with the most committed and dedicated doctors and medical teams, accidents will happen. It should not necessarily be regarded as an indictment of doctors or the medical profession that accidents happen.
Dr. Murrison: I am grateful for that clarification because the point is important. Before we become too censorious, which is the general impression that I got from the hon. Gentleman, it is important to recognise that people working in the health service are doing their level best, often under adverse circumstances. It is also important to recognise that it is necessary to build a spirit of mutual trust between all sorts of practitioners and their patients. I recognise that he is a lawyer by profession, as indeed is my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), but the ways in which medical practitioners and lawyers operate are very different. Lawyers are very adversarial and deal with tort, which cuts across the general modus operandi of the national health service. It is important to recognise that a threat of legal action can result in a practitioner being pole-axed. Although I have not directly experienced that, I know colleagues who have. Having the sword of Damocles hanging over one's head is truly a devastating experience.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that practice might be improved by the threat of action for clinical negligence. I suspect that that is not the case. I recall many occasions on which such a threat was a problem in terms of a person's ability to carry out their day-to-day work.
Mr. Burnett: As a doctor, will the hon. Gentleman explain, perhaps with one or two examples, the problem for the medical profession of practising what I gather is called defensive medicine, and the problems that that causes for patients?
Dr. Murrison: I am grateful for the intervention. As the hon. Gentleman will know, defensive medicine is a

253WH
blight on the way in which medicine is practised because it takes a practitioner's eye off the ball. Of course, one should focus on an individual patient's needs with one thing in mind— how to benefit them, not how to get off the hook in the event of a patient questioning in law what one is doing. One hidden cost of the culture of defensive medicine is the expense to the health service caused by practitioners doing every last test—it is perhaps the example that the hon. Gentleman seeks—to make sure that every last eventuality is covered. That involves a huge opportunity cost that has not been recognised in the NAO figures.
Gareth Thomas: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is that not an example of steps being taken to prevent accidents? Sometimes, it is very difficult to draw a distinction between what he describes as defensive medicine and reasonable precautions or preventive measures. In any case, does he not accept that the argument sometimes advanced that the use of defensive medicine is widespread is somewhat overstated? If one asks doctors to give examples of defensive medicine, they find it difficult to cite specific examples.
Dr. Murrison: I am grateful for that intervention. I think that I gave an example of defensive medicine: the number of tests that might be done unnecessarily and at great cost to the NHS. Such tests therefore involve an opportunity cost for patients.
It may be useful to reflect on the situation in the United States. Many of us have been quite surprised at the great wave of negligence litigation that has overtaken practice there. This country has not been engulfed in the same way. Indeed, there has been quite a long delay between events in the US and those in the UK with regard to negligence litigation. However, if we consider the way in which patients are treated in the US, and the huge welter of defensive medicine that pervades every aspect of medical care in that country, we can imagine the problems that may lie in store for the NHS.
Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one difference between the US legal system and ours is that the US has a contingent fee system? A lawyer acting for a plaintiff in the US will receive a percentage cut of the damages if the plaintiff is successful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we introduced such a system in the UK—that is the way in which the pressure on the Lord Chancellor's Department is going—it would lead to an even greater growth in claims?
Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman may have a good point. I am concerned about the advent of no win, no fee ways of operating for lawyers who specialise in this area. One must at least suspect that that has resulted in an increase in the number of medical negligence claims.
Many of us worry that the Chancellor's recently announced largesse will be consumed without much in the way of improved clinical outcomes. Part of that concern is derived from the belief that the mounting cost of negligence claims will swallow up an increasingly large amount of the NHS budget. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to various figures that I believe are derived chiefly from the National Audit Office. I share
254WH
his confusion at the way in which those figures have been represented, and like him I should appreciate clarification from the Minister.
The take-home message is that the level of claims in this country is increasing. The figure of £4.4 billion is a projected figure. I understand that it is predicated on claims that we expect in future. Some of those will be very large claims, because they relate to conditions such as cerebral palsy, and the eventual settlements that people receive in such cases are very expensive. Can the Minister shed any light on what the figure of £4.4 billion represents'?
One telling figure from the NAO is that 65 per cent. of settlements below £50,000 had associated costs that exceeded the damages awarded. That is obviously a bean feast for lawyers, but I am not sure that it is terribly good for the NHS and I am absolutely sure that it is not good for practitioners or, ultimately, patients. There must be a better way.
We understand that, in 1999–2000, the NHS paid £400 million in clinical negligence costs. Again, I seek clarification, because that seems to tie in poorly with the NAO figures. Expenditure by medical defence organisations in respect of non-vicarious items is not included, so I suspect that the real figure for the whole arena is rather greater than that given by the NAO.
Patients will continue to lose out hugely from the tort-based system. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West that it has, on balance, been beneficial and that it is the only way to proceed. There must be more imaginative solutions that do not involve a vast cost to the health service, to practitioners and, ultimately, to the national health system. Patients will lose out collectively through the opportunity cost of the projected £4.4 billion, which I believe relates to outstanding anticipated claims, and individually through the system, which is capricious, slow, bureaucratic and for some impossibly expensive.
A problem with the current system is that despite obvious harm, litigants may have difficulty pinpointing a specific act of negligence and if they cannot do so their action falls at the first fence. For the great majority of the remainder, the legal process is alien, drawn out and disagreeable. The system is increasingly tilted towards the assumption of monetary compensation, when an apology or explanation may be the desired way to achieve closure. An unhelpful compensation culture has been encouraged by ambulance-chasing law firms wishing to attract instruction in medical negligence cases. No win, no fee specialists use brazen television advertisements to suggest that if a person has suffered in any way someone must be to blame and there is a financial remedy to be had. Some outfits have even set up shop in the foyers of major hospitals. What kind of message does that send out?
The final report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry called for an overhaul of the way in which the NHS handles clinical negligence. Some of Kennedy's recommendations-those on open reporting, sentinel event reporting and governance, for example-are laudable and within the Government's power to grant. Others, such as a shift to an alternative funding system for compensation, will have to be sufficiently attractive to potential litigants and their legal advisers. However, Ministers cannot assume that changes would result in

255WH
savings to the NHS in the longer term. No-fault compensation may be helpful to patients and practitioners but despite the view of organisations such as the British Medical Association it may open up a new cost ledger for the health service.
I broadly welcome the Department of Health's stated desire for better communication and attention to non-monetary remedies and I welcome its resolve to deal with the spiralling cost of claims. However, I want to know what assessment the Minister has made of the effects of the implementation of Lord Woolf's recommendations and of the impact of the NHS Litigation Authority.
10.17 am
Mr. John Burnett: I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this important debate. He made some valuable and worthwhile points. I, too, declare an interest: I am a lawyer, although I have not practised for about four years. My specialisation was taxation, as will be apparent from the thrust of my remarks.
It is imperative to find a more sensible system of dealing with claims for clinical negligence; the existing system could be significantly improved. It is important to have the statistics, to see the level of damages and the huge amounts being paid out, involving not only plaintiffs but health authorities. The important National Audit Office document "Handling Clinical Negligence Claims in England", published on 3 May 2001, goes into detail about the costs and huge expenses. I want to tease out from the Minister how the Department of Health is working with the Lord Chancellor's Department to come up with a sensible scheme and to find a solution to an intractable problem. It is unacceptable that billions of pounds go annually not to successful plaintiffs—sometimes known as victims—but into the pockets of the legal profession for formulating and pursuing claims.
I presume that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering some form of early option: openness, discussion, apology and perhaps a scale of damages to be agreed between plaintiff and health authority. An early option system should never be mandatory, but it should be incumbent on the legal advisor to ensure that the benefits and disadvantages of not accepting early settlement are made clear to the plaintiff. The legal profession owes a duty both to the court and to the individuals whom it advises. The advisor should be under a duty to explain at an early stage the benefits and drawbacks of taking early a settled sum in a more formal, less adversarial procedure.
I hope that the Minister will set out the steps being taken to simplify the legal processes dealing with clinical negligence.
10.21 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I am conscious that there are two doctors present, which would normally lead to three opinions being proffered. Three lawyers are present, which would probably lead to three more expensive opinions. We have a Minister,
256WH
which often leads to no opinion, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who are always of a sensible opinion, correct and good value for money, being free—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that I am an engineer.
Dr. Harris: As a scientist you dine with us, if I may speak for the members of the medical profession present.
I declare an interest as a General Medical Council registered doctor. I am also a member of the British Medical Association, which is lobbying for a change in policy. I sit on its medical ethics committee, although it has no remit in this area. I have never been sued for medical negligence, although many of my friends and family members who are doctors, have been. The threat of future action against them is unavoidably high on the agenda of members of the medical profession, as is the stress and time taken defending or settling existing actions.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) for bringing up the subject for debate and for his clear exposition of the issues. He was right to point out that those who use the complaints procedure are only the tip of the iceberg of the number who feel fit enough to make a complaint and who have the tenacity to complain about one aspect of their care. Such people are often happy with other aspects of their care and may be afraid that any complaint will be seen as a criticism of the hard work either of those against whom they are complaining, or of others.
Whatever changes are made to the complaints procedure, we need to make it easier for patients to complain and for them to be given support in doing so. The number of people who make claims for clinical negligence is a minority of those who could make claims. As the number of claims increases, the proportion of those that are well founded, which may be different from those that are settled as it can be easier to settle a case than to define it as well founded, may drop. However, that does not mean that people who are not currently applying would not qualify for compensation.
It is important to recognise that the medical profession, like other health care professions, has traditionally had a culture of believing that any complaint or question is an affront to its professionalism. That attitude is changing; it must change. If we want to have not only happier patients but correct management choices, decisions must be made jointly by the clinician, other health care professionals involved, the patient and, with the patient's permission, any friends or relatives whom they wish to involve.
We must deal with the broad policy issues. Whether one agrees with them or not, the Liberal Democrats have clearly defined policy positions. In both an admirable contribution and in his interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked how we could change the existing system in which complaints go to law; specific questions about a no-fault scheme for most claims; and what we could do about the escalating cost of settlements.
I understand that the Government are conducting a review, which is why I hinted that the Minister would probably express few opinions today, as she would not

257WH
want to pre-empt it. I suspect that we shall hear nothing specific, although even before the review it was difficult to get any specific views from the Government. Although they said that they supported the existing scheme, the fact that a review has been established and that, post-Kennedy, it has been asked specifically to examine no-fault schemes gives us hope that we may have an open review of the issues.
Our first suggestion is that, rather than give lump sums to people to pay for parcels of care from the private sector, we should find a way of providing a guarantee of adequate NHS care, particularly with the increased resources going to the NHS, which should enable new services to be set up. We could invest that money in accessible NHS provision—not just a national centre—so that people who have been affected, often tragically, by medical negligence, such as those with cerebral palsy, could benefit from care that was also open to other people.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire ( Mr. Heald) asked the fair question of whether setting up bespoke NHS provision in a local area was any cheaper than individually purchased private provision. That may he relevant in some cases, but in the context of expanding NHS provision, and because care is inadequate for people who do not receive large lump-sum compensation for damage, NHS provision would give us extra value for money. The care from an NHS scheme will be available to people who do not have the resources to purchase the care because they have not been able to get, or do not qualify for, compensation.
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: I shall in a moment. The case is predicated on the argument not simply that it would be cheaper to provide NHS care— the hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a fair point—but that one would get extra value for money in an expanding NHS, given the extra resources that the Government are putting in, to enable those who are unfortunate enough not to qualify for compensation to access free care on the NHS. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Heald: I will leave it. Sorry.
Dr. Harris: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman responded to that point because it is good for each party to put down its position in these matters.
Mr. Burnett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any no-fault scheme advanced by our party will not oust the jurisdiction of the courts, or the right of plaintiffs to go to court if they so wish?
Dr. Harris: Of course. It is a human right to have access to justice. Indeed, our party has campaigned in this and the previous Parliament to ensure that that is as wide as possible. I was going to come to the no-fault compensation scheme. The key point is to make it attractive enough to dissuade people from recourse to a more expensive, more legally involved and much longer system of NHS care. I can read out Liberal Democrat policy on this at length, but it is well stated by Professor Kennedy in his report. Paragraph 86 states:
258WH
"The culture of blame is a major barrier to the openness required if sentinel events are to be reported, lessons learned and safety improved. The system of clinical negligence"—
that is, the existing tort system—
"is part of this culture of blame. It should be abolished."
Professor Kennedy could not be clearer. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West has been good enough to confirm that he disagrees with Professor Kennedy. It is worth while bearing in mind that even important reports such as that are not unchallengeable. I admire the hon. Gentleman for openly saying that he disagrees strongly with the independent view of a high-profile inquiry.
The Government have draped themselves in the Kennedy report in many areas where we support their policy. They must recognise that if they say that they back the report almost in its entirety and, indeed, take on board the remark about clinical negligence, people will have their expectations raised that they accept the report's conclusions.
The report continues that the system of clinical negligence
"should be replaced by effective systems for identifying, analysing, learning from and preventing errors and other sentinel events. An expert group should consider alternatives to clinical negligence,"—
that has been set up—
"including an alternative administrative system of compensating those who suffer harm arising from medical care."
Professor Kennedy repeats that in the recommendations on page 451, at paragraph 119. He sets out in some detail why he believes that the blame-based system will, with the best will in the world and despite the quality initiatives that have been introduced, still lead to an under-reporting and under-admission of significant adverse events, even where there has been negligence.
I should like to deal with a separate question: the quintuple jeopardy that faces the medical profession—other people may face one or two trials—which adds to the culture of fear and an unwillingness to own up to errors. If a doctor makes a mistake, he or she faces real trials and ordeals. The first is disciplinary action from his or her employer. Then there is the threat of criminal charges following a police investigation, as happened to a number of my former colleagues. That is extremely stressful and usually does not lead to the bringing of charges. Nevertheless, it means that the matter cannot be settled in other ways. There can be a coroner's inquest, which is a trial-like approach. General Medical Council action can be taken against the doctor. There can be a suit for clinical negligence. There can be trial by media. That is sometimes added to by being sacked on "Newsnight" by a Secretary of State for Health in less than full possession of the facts. It is a major concern that puts many people off going into medicine. The Government should give some thought to streamlining, if not reducing, these processes to prevent prolonged suspension of medical staff who are later cleared on all counts. We have time to touch on only some of the relevant matters in this debate.
I have one final point for the Minister, who has heard me say it before. We will not drive out errors and negligence from clinical practice unless we ensure that at the riskiest time for patients—out of hours—it is the most senior health care professionals, whether doctors or others, and not juniors who deliver care. Those

259WH
delivering care must also be the most fresh, not the most tired. The proportion of claims in relation to maternity services points to the shortage of consultants in obstetrics at hand to deliver the out-of-hours care in obstetric emergencies that is required. I hope that the Minister will give urgent thought to the need to expand consultant numbers, particularly in high-risk specialties.
10.35 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing the debate on this important subject. The Conservative party recently concluded a consultation exercise on clinical negligence, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in December. It is clear from the responses— I am not going to reveal the final outcome of our deliberations—that human rights, particularly the right of the patient to redress, have to be counterbalanced by fairness to practitioners. It is a difficult balancing exercise.
Great dissatisfaction exists about the current handling of clinical negligence. That is clear in the Woolf report of 1996, and Professor Kennedy's and the National Audit Office reports of 2001. Reforming the system is not easy. In a wide-ranging speech, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West raised many of the issues on which we consulted: reversing the burden of proof, although we have a different formula for achieving it; having a more streamlined system to deal with small claims; and using periodic payments as a better way of dealing with future loss for claimants. Some of the conclusions emerging from consultation will be of considerable interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made the important point that the majority of medical practitioners—indeed, almost all— do their best and work to a high standard. We should all pay tribute to that. Many claims are, in the event, not justified. On the latest figures from the NHS Litigation Authority's website, outstanding claims amount to £4.1 billion, yet 75 per cent. of publicly funded cases fail; there has been a sevenfold increase in settlements since 1995–96; and in 65 per cent. of settlements of less than £50,000, the legal costs exceed the damages recovered.
It is easy to conclude, and I agree, that lawyers are making a fine living out of all this and that something must be done about it. Much can be said for speeding up procedures and aiming for a more informal settlement process. However, it takes two to tango. I should be interested to know whether the Minister is satisfied that people dealing with such cases for the state have always had the ability to settle cases as promptly as they would have wished, had they had the resources available to respond quickly. Have they, as public servants, felt able to take the risk of settling a case as quickly as they should? Does anything need to be done, or is it being done, to change the culture on the NHS side as well as the claimant's side, and to settle cases promptly? A balance should be struck throughout.
260WH
The picture is not static. Does the Minister agree that, when valuing claims, it is necessary to take account of a point that has been made today and was made during our consultation by Professor Dingwall of Nottingham university? He said that
"the estimate of outstanding claims is not based on conventional insurance principles. When a commercial insurer receives a claim. this is not entered onto the books at its claimed value. The company makes a judgement about the likely probability of success and discounts the value of the claim by the value of that probability. This estimate may be revised … as the case develops and the evidence emerges. The NHS enters claims straight onto the books at the value asserted by the claimant."
Can the Minister tell us the real, discounted, risk-assessed value of outstanding claims? If she does not know, why not?
The NHS Litigation Authority is a relatively new body. It took on responsibility for pre-1995 cases only in April 2001. Although 1995 may seem a long time ago. there is a substantial body of cases. Can the Minister give any idea of what progress the NHS Litigation Authority has made as it has gradually taken on cases from an earlier period? Is it leading to a more efficient, more prompt settlement of cases? The authority also has an important role in risk management and tries to enforce best practice in health authorities. Can the Minister tell us how the authority is getting on with that?
The pre-action protocols that were introduced following the Woolf reforms are also relatively new. Many believe that they are leading to quicker settlements, but that was not the purpose of the reforms. Their purpose was to have a more expeditious and sensible course for cases to follow to reach a conclusion in court. Have the Woolf reforms resulted in more cases being settled more quickly? If the Minister does not know, will she commission research into that? The Medical Protection Society, which has a key role, wants to know what effect the pre-action protocol for clinical negligence claims has had. I also want to know.
Does the Minister agree that even if the value of claims outstanding is less than we believe, there is still a case for further reform? Many people who responded to our consultation, including the Consumers Association, InterMediation and not surprisingly, the Academy of Experts, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Radiologists and many others, were enthusiastic about mediation or at least an independent, neutral evaluation to help parties at any early stage, before a case is started, to try to reach a settlement or to clarify ideas. Does the Minister believe that that has further mileage?
There was a great deal of support for a package of remedies. The NAO mentioned apologies, explanations, remedial treatment counselling, meetings with medical staff to find out what went wrong, how that can be prevented and other support mechanisms for patients. That package of measures may be as important as the money. Can the Minister tell us her view and what conclusions are emerging from the chief medical officer's call for ideas?
Can the Minister give us some idea of how she now evaluates the pilot undertaken into mediation? The Mulcahy pilot, which took place following a decision in 1995, took two years and suffered from a low number of cases being brought before the mediators. It was also very expensive. Does the Minister feel that, in terms of

261WH
policy structure and judicial thinking, the climate has now changed sufficiently for mediation to work better than it did in the Mulcahy pilot?
Does the Minister have any views on the ideas on which we consulted, such as having a tribunal system to deal with claims for less than a certain amount—we suggested £50,000? There seemed to be some support for that more informal procedure in our consultation. Does she agree that it may be necessary to consider changes in the law and to have a simpler and more readily understandable definition of what we mean by clinical negligence, perhaps using the model of unacceptable clinical practice?
We suggested that it should be possible to give compensation through the complaints system in far more cases, perhaps in those likely to be worth less than £10,000. Does the Minister support that idea? Does she agree with some of the ideas that we, the Lord Chancellor's Department and others have discussed on improving the damages regime? The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), in his very measured speech, talked about having a scale of damages for clinical negligence and about early resolution procedures, and said that the legal profession owed a duty in that area. Does the Minister feel that the present damages structure, which is widely known and laid down by the Court of Appeal, could usefully become a more formal tariff of damages? Again, we examined that in our paper.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) mentioned no-fault compensation. One understands the attraction of that, especially in terms of populist rhetoric, but many of those who replied to our consultation suggested that that would be a very expensive scheme, which would not necessarily mean that the people most wronged received the level of compensation that they should, and that it would put an artificial cap on the level of damages. What is the Minister's view on that?
We have had a very good debate. We have not yet reached all the conclusions that we want to, and the Minister may be in the same position. However, it would be helpful if she shared her emerging thinking with us.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this important debate on clinical negligence and on initiating such a thoughtful debate on an extremely complex subject.
We all know that the NHS treats hundreds of thousands of patients every day. As several hon. Members have made clear, with so many patients being treated, it is inevitable that clinical errors and mistakes will sometimes occur. When things go wrong, it is important to ensure, first, that there is a process for learning from those mistakes, for responding properly to them and for making all possible efforts to prevent such errors reoccurring and, secondly, that patients receive an appropriate and fair response transparently, clearly, quickly and effectively, and with the minimum trauma.
Under the current system, compensation for harm or injuries suffered as a result of clinical negligence is generally paid only where legal liability can be
262WH
established. The underlying principles for establishing negligence are enshrined in common law. Compensation is payable where it can be shown that there has been a breach of the duty of care by act or omission, where there has been harm and where the harm was caused by the breach of duty. Each claim for compensation must be considered on its merits. Where agreement is not reached, the issues must be addressed through the civil justice system.
The Government's policy has been that NHS patients who have been harmed or injured as a result of clinical negligence should be able to obtain appropriate compensation. That is as true for NHS patients treated in the independent sector or overseas as for those treated in NHS hospitals.
Concerns have been raised in debates and in many of the reports to which hon. Members have referred about the current system of dealing with clinical negligence cases. Those concerns were highlighted recently in the NAO report entitled "Handling Clinical Negligence Claims in England" and in the response of the inquiry into events in Bristol. The NAO report highlighted the increasing number and cost of claims, the length of time it takes to settle them and the problems caused by the existing separation of the complaints and compensation systems in providing the remedies that claimants say they want.
Several hon. Members have asked questions about the costs and the way in which the figures are assessed. Hon. Members are right that the NAO summarised accounts of 2000–01 include a figure of £4.4 billion. That is not the NHS's annual expenditure on clinical negligence claims. It is the figure quoted in the NAO summarised accounts for the total provision to cover the possible cost of all existing claims that are likely to succeed, as well as potential clinical negligence claims. It bears no relation to the date of the incidents, nor is it linked to the amount spent in that year. In 1999–2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West and other hon. Members have said, the NHS spent £373 million on costs and damages in settling clinical negligence claims.
Hon. Members have asked about the accounting procedures used. Those procedures are clearly a matter for the NA01 However, I am happy to pursue with the NAO the rationale behind its use of the figures and to write to hon. Members on that.
Dr. Murrison: Just for clarity, are we to take it that the figure of £4.4 billion is based on the value of claims that the NHS has received? As we have heard, if they are settled in favour of the litigant, most of them will be settled for a figure lower than the claimed figure. Can we take it, therefore, that that is the absolute maximum and that the figure is likely to be a long way short of that? If so, by how much will it be short?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that not all claims are settled straight away. Some may be settled many years later, some at less than their estimated value, and some may not succeed at all. However, as I understand it, the figure is not for all claims ever entered against the NHS. It includes an estimate of those that are likely to succeed, and an estimate on the basis of events that have taken place where a claim may arise in

263WH
future. However, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman further after consulting the NAO on the rationale behind its accounting measures.
Mr. Heald: Why does the NHS Litigation Authority website today say
"we have potential liabilities for clinical negligence of £4.1 billion",
when the accounts to which the Minister is referring say £4.4 billion? Professor Dingwall says in his evidence to us that no analysis of risk management is involved: all the claims are included in the £4 billion figure.
Yvette Cooper: As I have said, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter. The figure from the NAO's summarised accounts for the NHS for 2000–01 is £4.4 billion. That is the figure that I have used in the response.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister is right in her understanding of the figures. However, we should be worried not about the fact that £375 million—the last known expenditure on medical negligence—is somewhat less than the £4 billion-odd being provided for likely successful claims, but about the rate of increase of that expenditure, which seems to be increasing inexorably.
Yvette Cooper: There is a series of concerns. One relates to what is happening to the resources for clinical negligence; another relates to the response to patients; the third is the way in which the medical profession and the NHS are able to respond by providing clinical care and to learn from experience.
I am running short of time to respond to all hon. Members' points. Considerable work has already been done to try to speed up claims in the existing system, including work by the NHS Litigation Authority to require panel solicitors to examine every case for mediation suitability, and work to link clinical negligence claims with the wider quality agenda. Work is under way to change the culture and reduce adverse health care incidents following the report entitled, "An Organisation with a Memory", by the chief medical officer, which aims to promote a culture of openness and learning. That work established the national patient safety agency last summer, which runs a new national system for reporting, analysing and learning from
264WH
adverse events and near misses involving NHS patients. It is important that we learn properly and prevent future adverse errors. Other improvements have been made in clinical governance and the role of the Commission for Health Improvement.
Hon. Members have concentrated on the issues of clinical negligence and work by the chief medical officer's committee. It was asked to consider a wide range of options for handling clinical negligence claims more effectively. It has not yet reported, and I do not want to pre-empt its analysis or conclusions. However, I shall set out some of the options that it is considering.
The most high-profile reform is no-fault compensation. Such a system exists in other countries, and its success has varied. Some of the advantages are that it can speed up the legal process and resolve cases to prevent the need to go to court where only liability in dispute. Some of the disadvantages are that disputes can still occur over the level of compensation, the system may still not deal with the need to receive an adequate explanation of the events leading to injury, and there may also be cost implications.
In light of the Bristol Royal Infirmary report and the work of the chief medical officer, we have asked the chief medical officer's committee to reconsider the merits of the no-fault compensation option. We have also asked it to consider the interface between the system for complaints and that for claims against the NHS. Those are separate processes, as several hon. Members have said, and a poorly handled complaint can result in a claim. The NAO has recommended a package-based approach for dealing with clinical negligence claims. The chief medical officer is considering whether a more flexible, responsive, patient-focused approach could provide a more tailored response to individual claims.
The issue of small claims is important and. has been raised by several hon. Members. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, small claims comprised about 26 per cent. of claims received in 2000–01. There were approximately 2,000 claims for less than £20,000, which remained a low proportion of the overall value of claims. The committee is looking at whether there is a fast-track way of responding to small claims, and at ways in which mediation and structured settlements could be better used.
The chief medical officer's report is drawing to its conclusion. We will need to publish proposals and consider the way forward, but I will ensure that the issues raised in this debate are fed into the process of deliberations. I think that many useful points have been raised.

Regional Government
11 am
Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this debate and I am pleased that it has been fortuitously timed to coincide with the publication of the recent White Paper, on which I must congratulate the Government. The main theme of my contribution to the debate is taken from that paper, which is entitled "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions". The theme that I want to draw out is whose region and whose choice is at stake. I want to look at what a region is and how to make it work, rather than looking particularly at the proposed functions. I notified the Minister of several questions that I would be raising.
First, and perhaps most appropriately of all, I warmly congratulate the Government on what they have achieved so far with devolution for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Greater London Assembly. All are significant achievements and although we may argue about the powers and the processes, they are achievements and a movement in the right direction. Those changes are very welcome to Liberal Democrats and many people in other parties.
It is easier to deliver devolution to places that self-evidently exist than to other places that may not. Although the White Paper was welcome, it was a long time in coming. There were many false dawns for the White Paper. I am pleased that it has come, although I am concerned that it may be a house built on sand because it skirts over any definition of what a region is and how it has arrived at its conclusions. The paper does not deal with what a region is. A region implies internal integrity and something more than an occasional shared interest because communities happen to be adjacent to each other. Are such areas regions or are they government zones, and should we not call them government zones rather than regions? Such government zones could be designed for bureaucratic convenience and administrative ease.
In the paper, I was looking for emphasis and the basis on which regional differences were demonstrated. Chapter 1 gave a rather charming emphasis on regional differences and one could easily come to the conclusion that regional identity may be created by a better innate understanding of bodily functions—as if health inequalities were a product of geography rather than pure economics. The fact is that where there are inequalities in health provision, heart disease or other problems, they are more likely to be a function of economics than geography. The economics of an area determine the health of people in that area. I consider the argument in the paper to be rather flimsy.
I remember asking zealous regionalists who were concerned about when, how and what functions would be devolved what we would do if the region did not actually exist. The question was met with stunned incomprehension. It was as if I had asked whether we could redefine the boundaries of God.
I acknowledge that the people of Yorkshire and the north-east are, arguably, lucky. The government zone for their area appears more or less to coincide with a region with its own recognisable identity— possibly more for some than for others. However, the
266WH
government administrative zone for many areas is the equivalent of a Soviet-style construct for those who are happy to be dragooned into a soulless bureaucracy without a shred of identity.
A few general questions arise from the White Paper itself. It is full of references to regions and sub-regions. How does the Minister define them? What principles underlie the Government's policy towards devolution? For example, if the Government believe that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level, how is that achieved by their approach? The White Paper chose some interesting examples of devolved or provincial structures of government in appendix E, but pretty well all of them point to asymmetric devolution—not just variable geometry but variable size and geography. Why include the appendix when the Government appear to have dismissed or ignored the lessons learned in many other countries? Have the Government abandoned asymmetric devolution for good?
For many people, it will be a shock that I have managed to speak for six minutes without mentioning Cornwall. It is because I am interested in the principle of devolution, as well as the potential effect on my own area, that I have concentrated on trying to find the principle in the White Paper. I must congratulate the Minister and the Government on achieving a headline in our local newspaper that I have been trying to achieve for some time: "Cornish home rule denied." I cannot count the number of times that I have tried to deal with the misapprehensions that arise when we talk about the modest devolution of certain powers. Some people think of border checkpoints and absurd nonsense about home rule. The Government have sent a clear message to the populace in Cornwall that that is not what we are talking about or ever have talked about. It is not what those in the Cornish Constitutional Convention have ever talked about. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on their achievement. Campaigners in Cornwall are interested in cutting Cornwall into the celebration of diversity, not cutting it off.
The Cornish campaign is an interesting one and a challenge to the Government. Arguably, it is the most popular such campaign. Fifty thousand or more people, from not only Cornwall but outside the area, have signed declaration sheets. A well-argued manifesto was published only a few months ago—the campaign is coherent as well as popular. It also provides Cornwall with an opportunity to build on the success of achieving objective 1 status, in which the Government played a significant part. The people of Cornwall played a significant part as well and Cornwall's poverty, overlooked for decades, was at last acknowledged. The statistical separation was made and Cornwall achieved objective 1 status.
We should learn lessons from the process, because we are given now the same arguments that we were given when we were arguing for the statistical split between Cornwall and the rest of the south-west region. We were told that that was an insular move, it could be offensive to our neighbours and it would give succour to nationalists. As we have found in the delivery of objective 1, although we need an administrative split, all those arguments have been proven to be entirely fallacious.

267WH
A lot of people, of course, look at the case of Cornwall, which is, after all, a small place with only 500,000 people, and argue that one cannot devolve government to a place of that size. Sometimes, the arguments are the usual tiresome prejudices of which small communities are often on the receiving end, but when one considers the alternatives it is the only serious option.
One of the main arguments thrown against the Cornwall case is that Cornwall is too small, but one has only to lift one's eyes above the insular and parochial horizon of the United Kingdom to the wider world and to provincial and regional government in other places. I have visited Canada, for example, and have met the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has a population roughly the same size as that of Cornwall. Those provinces are relaxed about their capability to deliver government functions to their people. When they do not achieve the necessary economies of scale on, for example, clinical governance and other such matters, they simply establish strategic partnerships with their neighbours or other provinces.
I am assuming that we are talking about grown-up devolution rather than a bunch of juveniles being in control. Perhaps, there is something in the English psyche—perhaps it is just English men— that leads them to become obsessed with size. We need to challenge the cosy assumptions that we always need a certain size to deliver certain functions.
The "can of worms" argument is well worth exploring. It concerns questions such as where devolution would leave everyone else, what it would mean for other boundaries, whether it would make a mess and whether it would result in other places with smaller populations making absurd claims for regional status. We may want to take into account the fact that no places with small populations have made such claims. We need to accept—the Government have accepted this in bravely pursuing the devolution agenda—that devolution can be messy. To do it properly, one cannot do it tidily. In conversations that I have had with the Minister, he has recognised that.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in a quote from the Secretary of State for Wales, who reacted to the White Paper by saying:
"This is the right approach and it reflects the different historical, legal and political practices in every region of the UK."
Surely that quote supports the hon. Gentleman's case for Cornwall.
Andrew George: Absolutely. If we are looking for historical, cultural and other reasons to draw boundaries for regions, the hon. Gentleman is right.
On top of everything else, Cornwall has a distinct history and its own language and Celtic culture, which could provide the bedrock for what many people in Cornwall see as its economic salvation. Cornwall can trade on its distinctiveness and strong brand and use them for not only strategic, but economic, purposes. That case is cogently made in the manifesto and has been made by many other people. For me, however, the
268WH
process through which we are going is equally important. It is equally important for people in the north-east to go through the process of achieving the devolution of power through debate, and the coordination of their campaign is strengthening.
Mr. David Clelland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although communities are important, it is geography that formed them? It is a matter of geography where coal and the major rivers are, which was what formed the communities in the north-east of England. Those communities can be diverse— for example, there are differences between Tyneside and Teesside. However, we recognise that size is important. Some argue that the north-east is too small to have its own regional government. I come from that area, but have some sympathy with that idea. We would like Cumbria to be included and to expand the northeast for reasons of community, as Cumbria has more of a connection with the north-east than the north-west.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes the point well that the dynamics and geography in different parts of the country operate differently. Many people believe that strategic transport cannot be planned in too small a region anywhere. That assumes that the boundaries between regions are frontiers. I do not believe that they are, nor do the Government intend them to be. Much transport infrastructure— road and rail—goes through the government zone of the south-west. Cornwall may be concerned about the development of the Ilminster bypass over the border in Somerset, but it is equally concerned about the A303 further up the road across Salisbury plain and Hampshire. We cannot assume that boundaries are frontiers, whether we are talking about transport or other matters. There is therefore a need for dialogue and strategic partnerships. The argument about a unilateral declaration of independence and home rule is nonsense. It is deflecting all in the northeast and elsewhere from pursuing a proper agenda. That does not help us to propose sensible solutions to the problem.
I was trying to make a point about the process, which I would enjoy as I like challenging tiresome metropolitan prejudices about small, and especially rural, areas. It would drive many of us forward. It has the capacity to galvanise the local community, as it would help us to promote our own brand and distinctiveness. It would also give us the opportunity to tell people in the wider world what we are about and why the place is so special. It would build the self-confidence of a place that has lacked it for generations.
I am disappointed that many older councillors are not especially enthusiastic about the campaign for a Cornish assembly. However, young people in Cornwall are strongly in favour of it: a recent youth manifesto made it one of their top priorities. It is interesting that it

269WH
motivates young people. I wanted to ask the Minister several questions, but I do not want to detain the debate unnecessarily, as others wish to speak.
Ms Candy Atherton rose—
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Andrew George: I will give way to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and then to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
Ms Atherton: I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his views on unitary status? We should focus on that in Cornwall, as it is a prerequisite if we want to consider a Cornish assembly after we have a regional assembly in the wider south-west.
Andrew George: That is a cart and horse issue. I represent a constituency with a unitary authority on the Isles of Scilly and I appreciate the importance of configuring local government in a way that does not confuse people. The Government are right not to lay another tier of government on top of what already amounts to the confusion of parishes, districts and counties. We need a debate, and I am encouraged by the process that is beginning in Cornwall. We should make progress in a consensual way rather than take snatch decisions that we have to argue about and justify. It is important to get the regional structure right before proceeding to unitary structures below it.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: That poses an interesting question. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the retention of Cornwall as an entity in the form of a county council? Under the White Paper, Cornwall will go. In that case, does he view Cornwall as a unitary authority, or will it be carved up?
Andrew George: Questions of governance and administration are relevant. Local authorities largely administer Government policy. I am seeking to achieve the highest level of governance for the entity of Cornwall—and for the Isles of Scilly, if it wishes to share in aspects of its governance. My view and my confident prediction is that on the current level of popular support for a south-west regional assembly, Government policy will not succeed. The Government will have to revisit the issue of regional government in much of the south of England. I am pleased and optimistic about making progress in the north. I have demonstrated that the entity of Cornwall receives great popular support and that it makes sense to retain the highest possible governance of that region.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Time has passed since I wanted to intervene, but I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the absence of support for a south-west regional assembly. There is certainly no support for a southeastern one. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the enthusiasm of youth for a regional solution for Cornwall and the lack of such enthusiasm among older people. I do not know where the division arises: I suspect that youth ends two or three years older than the person
270WH
who is speaking about the subject. Is it not customary for young people to be more enthusiastic about all sorts of political solutions and for older people, frankly, to be more grounded in realities?
Andrew George: That is an odd thesis. On another occasion, we could explore some of the underlying thinking and assumptions about youth and age in politics.
Last Thursday, we heard hyperbole from the Deputy Prime Minister, about trusting people and flexibility. My question to the Minister is this: how much trust are the Government prepared to place in people? If we have witnessed the largest and most popular demonstration of support for a regional assembly in Cornwall, with 50,000 people signing a declaration, how much trust will the Government place in that? If they are prepared to allow 27,000 people in Gibraltar to have a referendum to determine the constitutional outcome for that place, how much flexibility are they prepared to show in their approach to devolution?
In paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper, the Government say that, in the long term, they are prepared to revisit the issue of boundaries. What will trigger that? Will popular campaigns increase that chink of light and enable places such as Cornwall to revisit the issue?
The Deputy Prime Minister said
"by embracing diversity we can strengthen the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 278.]
I entirely agree, but does the Minister agree that diversity could be greatly embraced by giving regional powers to those small regions that have a strong and diverse identity and culture, rather than submerging them into a wider region? The White Paper claims that the Government want to
"encourage diversity of the English regions",
but what examples can the Minister give to show that any of their agencies or quangos have in any way encouraged greater diversity than might be possible if the regions were configured to reflect diversity? Paragraph 9.4 refers to "relevant factors" that would trigger a decision by the Government to hold a referendum. An explanation of those relevant factors would be helpful.
The White Paper constitutes a brave and honourable attempt to provide regional devolution. It is not for me to say, but I am told that people in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire are supportive. Given that support, I hope that it will succeed, but if the agenda of consequential devolution is based on envy and people saying, "Well, they've got devolution, so we want it, too," that will not be a sufficiently motivating factor. If there is a lack of support and enthusiasm for the idea throughout the rest of the country, what will the Government do? Will they. as the Minister and I have discussed, allow those government zones where there is a settled will on the issue to consider other boundaries and make proposals for regional government on the basis of boundaries that the Government do not currently recognise?
The Government must answer those questions. The challenge for them is to show that they have learned to let go a little, because a control-freak version of regional devolution is destined to fail. The Government's policy

271WH
of creating city mayors on their terms has made a monkey of them and it would be unwise not to learn the lessons from that.
11.28 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. The lessons of devolution in Wales have a role to play and a real relevance in the debate that is taking place in England. The people of Wales regard the people of Cornwall very much as the western Welsh. Indeed, they sometimes feel that there but for the grace of history goes Wales, so I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
It is, of course, for the people of England to decide whether they want regional assemblies and, importantly, for the people in the regions to decide what the regions should be. However, there is no doubt that following devolution to Wales and Scotland, something must be done in England, and I believe that there are only two options. The first is an English Parliament, working alongside the Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament. The second option is regional assemblies in England. The Government have introduced proposals for regional assemblies, and Wales and Plaid Cymru will follow the developments with a great deal of interest. I hope that we will be able to share our experiences with hon. Members in England.
The hon. Member for St. Ives made an important point that the choice must be made at that local level. It is vital for the Government to recognise and support any region that is a clearly distinct entity, has a strong historical identity and wants to move forward, in association with the Government, on regional devolution. I must confess that although I am not Cornish, I am one of the 50,000 who signed the declaration— the hon. Gentleman admitted that it included people from outside Cornwall. I received the publication about the Cornish Constitutional Convention and read it with interest. The fact that an area in England is so proactive in seeking regional devolution should dovetail with the Government's priorities and I hope that the Minister will listen to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
One of the lessons of the European experience of regional government is that we cannot and should not impose artificial areas. It was most recently tried in Italy, where Umberto Bossi of the Lega Nord tried to make out that northern Italy had a regional or independent status. He failed to convince even the Italian regions and I am afraid that the Government will fail to convince the people of England—whose decision it is—that artificial regions can deliver the benefits of devolution.
It is also interesting to note that regional government is happening within Wales. Having had national devolution, the Assembly has looked to devolve internally. For example, it has met in north Wales and established regional committees for north Wales and other regions. That is another interesting experience that could be brought to bear in England.
There can be no doubt that there will be huge benefits for regions in England if they accept regionalisation and regional assemblies. Interestingly, the Government deal
272WH
for the English regions is in some respects better than what was on the table for Wales. Like the Scottish Parliament, regional assemblies will be able to raise tax, which the National Assembly for Wales cannot do. They will also be able to borrow, which the Assembly cannot do, although we would like to. The White Paper made it clear that borrowing and a tax-raising regime within a capping limit was important for local accountability and democracy. I agree and I hope that a similar process will come to Wales in good time.
How will the regional assemblies be funded? The Minister will know that whatever formula is used will surely have an impact on the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. Will it be a Barnett-based funding formula? Barnett is totally discredited—even by Lord Barnett himself and by all independent economists—and the need now is for a truly needs-based formula to fund the regional assemblies in England and, as long as we have the present situation, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
It is also interesting to note that regional assemblies are seen in England as a vehicle for delivering economic development. There is huge potential and I welcome the Government's move, but regional government does not deliver economic development if it is not allied to the right policies. Paragraph 4 on page 9 of the White Paper says clearly:
"A key task of government is to ensure that all regions share in the nation's wealth and prosperity."
Unfortunately, under the Wales Office and now the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh share of gross domestic product has droped from 88 per cent. of the UK level to 80 per cent. Therefore, we want to watch the experience of areas such as the north-east of England with a great deal of caution. Simply setting up regional assemblies will not deliver economic development. Cooperation between them is needed to overcome regional disparities.
Mr. Hugo Swire: If, for example, the north-east voted in a referendum for a regional assembly but the south-west voted against. how should the funding be decided? The costs of the reorganisation for the north-east would be huge. The running costs for a regional assembly would be an additional burden on the taxpayer and the figures for other associated reorganisations would be high. Should the south-west be compensated for not going off on this hare-brained route or should it be penalised by not having equal money provided as compensation for staying with its shire status?
Mr. Thomas: I confess that I have not considered that matter. I would imagine that the key would lie in a truly needs-based formula that delivered to all regions of England their share of the nation's prosperity, whether or not they chose to have a regional assembly.
My final point is a key one. The White Paper accepts the words of the former hon. Member for Caerphilly, Ron Davies, who told the National Assembly for Wales that devolution was a process not an event. Paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper says clearly that there are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to assemblies as time goes on. I do not know whether that also applies to the National

273WH
Assembly for Wales, but I understand that this is a process in England. It is also a process in Wales. We will seek to work with the experience in England and hope to benefit from it. We also hope that we can bring our experience to enrich it too.
11.36 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. It is significant that the two contributions that follow his speech should come from a Member from Wales and one from Scotland. It emphasises how regional government in England is of importance not just to people in England, but to those of us elsewhere in the UK who already enjoy the benefits of devolved government.
Regional government in England is a way of completing the devolution process and ensuring that it spreads to all parts of the UK. Any potential instability in the current devolution arrangements for the UK as a whole lies in the imbalance between the large and effectively unitary geographical entity of England, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have devolved assemblies. Regional government in England could rectify that and the one-sided relationship between England and the other nations of the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that the example of devolution in Scotland and Wales has encouraged movement towards devolution and regional government in England. It has been the experience in states where regional government started gradually that the regions that originally opposed devolution learned from the examples where it was granted and were anxious to follow those regions that had moved ahead faster. I think of Spain in particular.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am surprised that a Member from Scotland or one from Wales can compare regional devolution in England with devolution to the nations of Scotland and Wales. Those are two entirely different concepts, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. He refers to the imbalance between England and the nations of Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland, which I appreciate is neither a nation nor a region. In what way does he, as a Scottish Member, think that that imbalance works?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I agree that one cannot compare the nations of Scotland and Wales or the community in Northern Ireland with the English regions. The beauty of the Government's approach is that it recognises the differences between areas in England, and that devolution takes different forms in different parts of the UK. That is the way to move forward.
One cannot say that under devolution, one part of the UK benefits at the expense of another. There is potential instability where one large part of the UK has no regional government, while other parts have their own national assembly or parliament or regional government.
Andrew George: In the light of the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the lessons to learn
274WH
from the unfinished business of devolution in Wales and Scotland is that devolution is most successful in areas that have a strong sense of identity? Scotland and Wales are nations and there is no question where the boundaries should fall. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should build our regions on strong communities with strong identities?
Mr. Lazarowicz: That lesson can be drawn to an extent, but I will not be drawn down the same road as the hon. Gentleman. In making decisions on the most appropriate form of government structure, geographical realities and economic structure cannot be ignored. One must find the best arrangement to meet popular needs within an area, region or nation, and to reflect the economic, social and political realities. No solution will fit all. That is what is attractive about the Government's proposals.
I praise the Deputy Prime Minister for bringing forward, with other Ministers, radical proposals for regional government. I say that not as a loyal member of the Government's party wishing to praise the Deputy Prime Minister, but because he genuinely deserves praise from across the political spectrum for pressing the case for regional government. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for St. Ives for welcoming the Government's proposals.
Devolution and regional government in Wales and Scotland are good not only as a democratic principle, but because they lead to improved government. One of the problems in our state is government over-centralisation. Moving away from that will benefit people throughout the UK.
Some in Scotland have suggested that we could lose from the establishment of a regional assembly in northeast England—that it could rival Scotland for the allocation of resources or the attraction of inward investment. That may be the case, but different regions will be rivals in some cases and partners in others. Clear economic interests unite Scotland and north-east England, for example, in food and transport, where regional governments and assemblies or national Parliaments and Governments could work together to provide a focus to address problems in a way that a centralised Government could not do effectively.
I issue one warning to the hon. Member for St. Ives and some of his hon. Friends in Cornwall. I do not want to interfere in the internal politics of another part of the United Kingdom, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider—
Mr. Swire: As the hon. Gentleman does not wish to interfere in other regions, or zones, of the United Kingdom, does that mean that when the Bill comes before the House he and his hon. Friends in Scotland will play no part in its deliberation?
Mr. Lazarowicz: It does not. I shall be happy to debate that point with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion if he so wishes, as we have no time to do so today.
I do not want to interfere in the internal political debate. I merely observe that almost 25 years ago, when the first referendums were held on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly, some took the position that they

275WH
were not against Scottish devolution or a Scottish assembly per se, but against the type of devolution on offer then. That was the argument advanced at the time by a former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. One reason why the result in that referendum was so close was that the various parties and interests in favour of some type of devolution fell out among themselves. Twenty-odd years later there was resounding support for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament precisely because the various interests and political and social groupings that wanted devolution, including the nationalist party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, had the same agenda and worked together.
The hon. Member for St. Ives is in danger of losing the entire show and setting back the cause of any form of regional government in south-west England for a long time to come—which would be extremely unfortunate for those who want regional government in England as part of the wider UK settlement—because he is unhappy about the type of structure that the Government propose. I make that point not only in respect of the debate in the south-west of England, but because some elsewhere in England may want a form of regional government, but not with the boundary proposed, or not at this time.
Andrew George: As I recollect, the result of the original referendum in Scotland was gerrymandered. There was a clear "yes" vote; it was the interpretation that resulted in the referendum being lost. If the hon. Gentleman's advice is that we in Cornwall should ensure that the campaign is cross-party, I assure him that the Cornish Constitutional Convention is all-party; it has representatives of all parties and of none.
Mr. Lazarowicz: As a matter of historical fact, in the referendum in Scotland in the 1970s there was indeed a majority for a Scottish assembly, but a majority of only about 2 per cent. I was against the 40 per cent. rule, which meant that the majority in favour did not result in the introduction of a Scottish assembly. However, a proportion of 33 per cent. in favour and 31 per cent. against was not a resounding victory for the forces that supported devolution, compared with 75 per cent. in favour and 25 per cent. against 20 years later. That is what the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind.
The hon. Gentleman should concentrate his campaigning in support of the Government's proposals. He can suggest ways of representing what he considers to be the special Cornish interests in the south-west regional assembly, just as in Wales there are regional committees whose structures have been set up to take account of a particular interest or of different parts of Wales. I do not want to contribute further to the internal debate in Cornwall and other parts of England about what form of regional government to support. Again, however, I emphasise that those who support it should be wary of playing into the hands of those who are against any type of regional government whatsoever.
From the experience of Scotland, I can tell hon. Members that devolution works. It brings improved government to the people and provides an opportunity to focus on the real issues and concerns of the
276WH
community, which cannot be addressed by an over-centralised form of government. However, there are lessons to be learned from the Scottish experience. One is to be careful of new buildings, a lesson which I hope is taken on board by those who bring forward proposals in England. Nevertheless, devolution is popular. Hon. Members from outside Scotland might not realise that from some of the one-sided press reports that sometimes appear in the UK media. All the opinion polls since devolution have shown that the number of people who support the Scottish Parliament is as high as ever. In the latest opinion poll, the number supporting a Scottish Parliament had increased by 4 per cent. since its establishment in 1999.
When I say that devolution and the Scottish Parliament are popular, I am not suggesting that Members of the Scottish Parliament are feted in the streets. That is not in the nature of the Edinburgh character. What is special about the Scottish Parliament is that, whatever its faults—it has made mistakes, like any democratic institution—it is seen as the Parliament of the people of Scotland, as our Parliament. It may do things that the people do not like but, at the end of the day, just as before 1707, if we do not like what the Members of Parliament do we can "aye peeble them wi' stanes", as was said then. We can certainly express our dissatisfaction, as well as our satisfaction, with that Parliament.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives on initiating the debate. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward proposals for regional government and urge them to implement them and put them before the people and regions of England at the earliest possible opportunity.
11.51 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I, too. am pleased that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) was able to secure the debate. As the first representative of a constituency that is incontrovertibly part of England to speak in the debate, may I say that I agree with him on several issues to which he referred? The first and most important is the sense of locality and community. I am by no means convinced that the Isle of Wight is part of the south-east of England. I am not convinced that the south-east of England exists as a geographical entity, other than in terms of lines drawn on maps by various Government bodies at various times and adopted subsequently, not least by our European masters, to ensure convenience for some of their purposes.
Were we to look at the regions in the south-east and along the south coast of England, it is extremely unlikely that we would unite Margate and Milton Keynes. yet that is what the Government propose in their White Paper. I find it astonishing that Bournemouth—which for centuries, until the intervention of Sir Edward Heath, was part of Hampshire—should be regarded as so detached from the New Forest, Southampton and the Isle of Wight as to form part of a different government region, and that it might in the future form part of a different sub-regional government.
Before there is any question of a referendum, the regions should be defined in consultation with local people, at least where there is any chance of the regional boundaries not being agreed and broadly accepted. I

277WH
speak as someone born in Coventry. Coventry knows pretty well where it is․in Warwickshire, in the west midlands, in the midlands of England. That is a matter of no dispute, but there is a good deal of dispute about whether Swindon, for instance, is part of the south-west, and certainly whether Swindon and the Scillies are part of the same region. Therefore, I ask the Minister, when he responds, to reflect carefully on whether we should break up existing bodies such as Southern Arts and Southern Tourism, amalgamating them with their counterparts in what is now defined by those bodies as the south-east, simply for the sake of having a regional ballot on a region that may not exist. That is a sure way to lose what the Government want.
The second point that concerns me is that, according to the White Paper, there will be a maximum of only 35 members on each regional assembly. I am not one to elect more politicians; I would not elect those 35 politicians, given the chance; but the Minister will stand no chance of obtaining support for a regional assembly from the people of the Isle of Wight if they believe that their representative will be shared with people in Portsmouth and Southampton, or Winchester, Basingstoke or Aldershot. That is a totally unsatisfactory arrangement. I am proud to represent the Isle of Wight and pleased that it is still a single constituency. I hope that it remains so for many years to come. I am sure that the people of the island would look for separate representation on any regional assembly that is set up. I should be surprised if people in other regions with their own identity did not feel the same.
The hon. Member for St. Ives, speaking of Cornwall's aspirations, says that the fact that no other areas have come forward with similar aspirations for their area to be a region strengthens the aspirations of the people of Cornwall. I in no way diminish the aspirations of the people of Cornwall when I say that others have come up with such aspirations. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats in my own constituency did so when they minted their own coins and when they imprint on their county council writing paper, amid the garland of ghastly stars, "A region of Europe". We are not a region of Europe; we are part of England. I have had run-ins in the past with the Liberals because they feel differently, although I do not expect to do so in the future, as they have learned their lesson.
The hon. Member for St. Ives said that the process of regionalisation galvanised local communities. He explained why when he said that local authorities are largely bodies that administer government policy. Because of the dissatisfaction with the role of local authorities as bodies that largely administer Government policy, an enthusiasm for regionalisation has emerged in some parts of the country. It is precisely because Governments have for too long been bodies for administering national policy, instead of representing the aspirations, desires, wishes, aims and ambitions of their local people․I accept that a Government whom I supported did that, but to nothing like the same extent as the current Government․that regionalisation becomes a possible option. People are seeking a form of self-governance, which I would hope they could achieve as successfully through Cornwall county council, Isle of Wight council or Dorset county council as through regionalisation or by throwing their lot in with Swindon, if they are in the Scillies, or with Woking and Winchester. if they are on the island.
278WH
There are two further matters on which I seek reassurance from the Minister in his reply. The first is that the strengthening of regional institutions such as development agencies, regional chambers and so on will not proceed regardless of the desires of local people. That is the implication of the White Paper, which seems to be saying, "All right, people can vote on an elected regional assembly, but we, the Government, will power ahead with our regional development agencies and our regional chambers, regardless of the fact that they do not represent regions to which people relate and that people may not have voted for, or may even have voted against, a regional elected assembly."
The second matter on which I seek reassurance is that Government funding will not discriminate against areas that choose not to elect a regional assembly. The costs of the regional assembly and reorganisation of local government that may be necessary should be met not by national taxpayers, whether in the United Kingdom or England, but from within the regions that vote for that form of upheaval and additional expense, as they would no doubt benefit from any claimed savings that may follow.
Will the Minister confirm that no unitary authority, however small․whether the Isle of Wight or the Scilly isles․will be abolished following the introduction of regional government?
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a similar debate took place in Wales on whether the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales would lead to a diminution of local government relevance and powers. A recent independent report concluded that the Assembly had strengthened local government in Wales.
Mr. Turner: I am pleased to hear that.
There are three players in the argument about regional and local powers. The third player is the individual. If regions or counties are sucking up power from the individual, that is a form of removal of individual power, albeit accreted to local government rather than the region, which I would not be so confident of supporting. I accept that there is an imbalance in the current arrangements. To a great extent, English people․perhaps not in the north, but elsewhere in the country․have learned to live with that. We do not envy Scotland its Parliament, although we are glad that the Scots are satisfied with it. We worry sometimes when Scottish Members of this House try to intervene in English affairs, but the solution to that imbalance is not to introduce regional assemblies that would balkanise England. England is a nation. If we are to solve the problem of the imbalance, let us do so by establishing in the House an English Grand Committee to which legislation that affects only England could be referred.
12.2 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. He asked two questions which have not been answered, and I hope that the Minister will pay attention to them. The document does not say which region we are discussing and whose the choice will be.

279WH
The unitary answer given by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) would not devolve power, but centralise it, without adding power to a given area. It would merely centralise local government administration within the area. The unitary answer does not address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to a process, not an event. I hope that he is right and that the White Paper is part of a process and not the end of the line in the Government's thinking.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) referred to the potential instability arising from the imbalance that exists in the United Kingdom between a centralised English area of some 45 million or 50 million people and the devolved assemblies of the nations and other regions. That is an important point that everyone in England should consider.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made an important point about the Government's proposal that regional assemblies should have a maximum of 35 members. He said that that is too small a number to represent fully the diversity of the regions.
Why is there a need to devolve power? It is necessary because the decision-making process in this country has become too centralised and many powers have been taken away from local areas, partly as a result of internal Government machinations to centralise power, and also because of the external influences of globalisation. The different needs of the many diverse communities throughout the country cannot be reflected in that central decision-making process.
The Liberal Democrats bring to the debate the clear philosophy of the "bottom-up" approach to government, or to put it more clearly, the "bubbling-up" theory of government, rather than the "top-down" approach. Liberal Democrat principles include accountability and democracy, and the "bottom-up" approach is about allowing a local community to determine its own needs and government, while passing up to the next tier matters with which it feels it cannot deal. The opportunity to conduct root-and-branch reform of decision making in the United Kingdom has been missed. In particular, the opportunity to rationalise tiers of government, rather than add to them, has been neglected.
Some hon. Members have mentioned quangos, and I should like to spend a little time discussing them. The quangos that exist in our society spend more than local government. They are unelected and their members, who take decisions on the appointed panels, receive payments. A recent parliamentary answer mentioned three types of quango that take decisions in our regions—health authorities, regional arts boards and regional development agencies. The cost of members' remuneration is more than £51 million for health authorities, nearly £23 million for regional arts boards and £1.3 million for regional development agencies. Any fear that regional assemblies would cost money would be knocked on the head if those three functions were put under the control of regional assemblies, which would pay for themselves over and over again.
280WH
Whitehall does not know best; local communities are better placed to meet local needs. Non-statutory bodies are often better able to deliver services than Whitehall, yet such voluntary bodies and charities often have to look to central Government, rather than to their region, for funding. The Government booklet on the funding of voluntary and community organisations by central Government lists bodies that are active in the regions and which take decisions on behalf of people to whom they are not accountable. The Arts Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, English Heritage, the English tourist board, Sport England, the Basic Skills Agency, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, the Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Partnerships, the housing action trusts, the National Forest Company, the regional development agencies and the Rural Development Commission are a tiny proportion of the near-500 bodies that are spending taxpayers' money on behalf of people in the regions to whom they are not answerable.
The White Paper misses the point about regional government, and the opportunity has been missed to redefine government from the grass roots up and to take under democratic and accountable control those quangos that effectively are the democratic deficit at the heart of our unwritten constitution, which was once described as not being worth the paper that it was not written on.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sanders: I do not have enough time, as I know that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire ( Mr. Moss) wants to speak.
The democratic deficit is reflected in the growth of quangos that take decisions for which they are not accountable in the regions. Regional assemblies should he created to put that right.
12.8 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate, which, as he said, fortuitously coincides with the publication of the White Paper. The debate has centred on the contents of that document. The White Paper is so accurate that the map on the front page. which purports to show England, includes the Scottish uplands, but I am sure that the Minister had nothing to do with that inaccuracy.
The document is ill thought out and confusing. It is more of a sop to the Deputy Prime Minister and the north-east region than anything else. The idea put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) that that is comparable to devolution in either Scotland or Wales is total nonsense. The power that will be given to regional assemblies is tiny in comparison with that given to either of those examples. The powers set out in the document will actually take power away from existing local councils. Public services will not improve because a new tier of regional politicians has been created. New talking shops

281WH
and extra regional red tape will not boost economic growth or help the vulnerable. The policy of the Conservative party is to get power closer to the people.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: I have only a few minutes left, so I shall not give way to anyone.
Genuine decentralisation should be to local government, not to regional quangos and bureaucrats. Conservatives want to save counties such as Cornwall, Durham and Kent. We oppose regional government because it will dilute political representation and it is based on arbitrary regional definitions. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for St. Ives found it difficult to use the word "region" and instead used the expression "government zones". He has a valid point. The boundaries do not mark natural regions but are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
An interesting article by Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph included a map that was drawn in 1971 by a Brussels official. The regions set out by the Government are nearly identical to those set out by that Brussels bureaucrat. I shall not go into the European dimension; the evidence is there for all to see, without it being necessary to draw the obvious conclusion.
Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, I shall continue.
Labour's plans for regional government will mean less, not more, power for local communities. Labour has said that the formation of regional assemblies will require the abolition of the county councils. It flagged that up some time ago in its 1997 manifesto and again in its 2001 manifesto. We should not be surprised that part of the reorganisation will, in fact, destroy the county councils. I have done some quick calculations. If the counties and shire districts in eastern England, which I know fairly well, were replaced with sensibly sized unitaries, the number of elected members within the whole of eastern England would be reduced by about 38 per cent. That is a huge reduction in the number of representatives, at all levels of local government. The idea that the proposal will bring democracy and local councillors closer to the people is nonsense. There will be fewer representatives for the population of East Anglia and I believe that those figures and that analysis will be easily replicated for all the regions.
I picked up on an inaccuracy in the document. The Minister may care to comment on it today or write to me about it. A table on page 66, on the organisation of local government in the regions, states that the east of England has four unitary authorities out of a total of 54. However, the reference under the map on page 71 is to 20 unitary councils—a total inaccuracy in the space of a few pages. Is the number four or is it 20? I know for a fact that it is four, so why are the Minister and his Department putting 20 unitary councils down for the east of England?
We are also opposed to regional government because of the cost. Restructuring costs will be involved in reorganising the local authorities. The last reorganisation, which was of Humberside county council in, I believe, 1998, cost £53 million in one-of
282WH
reorganisation administrative costs. If that is replicated throughout all 34 remaining councils in England, the total bill will approach about £;2 billion.
We then have the running costs of the regional assemblies. By calculating the costs for the Greater London Authority and apportioning them on a pro rata population basis, the Local Government Association has come up with an annual cost of £300 million a year for administration alone for the eight regional government authorities.
There will also be costs associated with the government assembly buildings. The cost for the Scottish Parliament is huge— £300 million and rising. The Welsh Assembly building cost £50 million, and the Greater London Authority building will cost £120 million. If we take a reasonably low figure of £50 million for each of the regional authorities, that is another £400 million just to construct offices to house the assemblies.
On set-up costs, the White Paper blithely mentions that it will cost only £20 million to set up the north-east regional government, but £20 million is a huge amount of money and, replicated in eight regions, the total comes to £160 million. Huge costs will be involved and the Government have not yet told us how the scheme is to be funded. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, in the short time that he has to reply.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Barnett formula. There have been moves, certainly by the Deputy Prime Minister, to revisit the Barnett formula and perhaps money will be taken from Scotland and Wales to fund this scheme. That would not go down too well, I am sure, but it is a possibility. We have not heard a peep so far on how the Government are going to find the money and in what time scale. It is important that we learn the Government's intentions.
The White Paper suggests that going down the road of regional government will iron out regional disparities in wealth and income. There is no evidence to suggest that elected regional assemblies will provide a panacea for the problems of regional wealth and income differences. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that regional assemblies will only increase regional disparities. While the present centralised system of government might not achieve economic equality across England, it is probable that the creation of regional assemblies, each pursuing its own agenda and competing with the others, will only add to existing regional inequalities.
What is the evidence from the rest of Europe, where there is regional government? It is not helpful. France and Germany possess a strong and clear structure of regional government but regional variations in income are just as great as in the United Kingdom. For example, average income in the Paris region is almost double that in the south and east of France. The economic argument that regional assemblies will act to lessen economic disparities between the regions and counter the north-south divide, as the White Paper purports, is deeply problematic.
The Government have not thought through their proposals on regional government. On the one hand, they are saying that it is a good idea, for all the reasons given in the White Paper, but on the other they are allowing local regions to decide for themselves. Coupled

283WH
with the referendums on regional government will be the requirement for fairly substantial reorganisation and restructuring at district and county level. It is unclear how the Government will approach that and, again, a huge cost will be involved. The paper talks about the Minister taking soundings. Can the Minister tell us what soundings he and his colleagues are preparing to take? How can taking soundings be measured, in any terms, as a democratic input into finding out what the regions want? That will happen long before the matter is put to the ballot.
On the referendum ballot, do the Government intend to couple both questions so that as people vote for regional government they vote for a structure of unitary authorities in the same box, or will they vote in preference for both? I think that the Minister is nodding to the former. However, the new boundaries for unitary authorities will be determined, we are told, by the boundary committees. What consultation will they undertake? The last time that we attempted such a scheme, it was incredibly difficult to achieve agreement and, as a result, only a small proportion of authorities went into unitary status. In East Anglia, there are only four unitary authorities among 54, so the costs there will be enormous.
What worries me, in terms of democratic accountability, is who will control the outcome of the boundary committees. How will they arrive at a consensus for reorganising and redistributing boundaries? That is an incredibly difficult task and I think that the Government have completely overlooked the fact that it will hold up the whole proceedings. We will have piecemeal development on an ad hoc basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised an important question. If some regions go ahead with assemblies, and every expectation is that the north-east wants to and will do so first, will they attract additional money? Will the Government make it more attractive to go down that road because additional grant moneys are available? The Government ought to come clean. If it is such a good idea, why are they not going down the road of making sure that it happens quickly instead of having a piecemeal and ad hoc arrangement that will lead to confusion and instability in local authorities? Already in the north-east, local district councils are saying that they cannot get people to reply to job adverts—people are not prepared to work for authorities that may disappear in the next three or four years. There is a distraction and hiatus in ensuring that the normal services provided at that level work effectively.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I regret that I have very little time to respond to several important points that were raised. I would like to join other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for proposing the debate. It is a very good time to debate the topic.
The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" has just been published. I note and appreciate the support that the
284WH
hon. Member for St. Ives gave to that White Paper and many things in it. I believe that it sets out our policy clearly. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that he believes that Britain cannot achieve its full potential unless all its regions share in success and drive that success. The proposals in our White Paper will give the regions of England new choices, new powers, and a new voice. That sums up the purpose of the White Paper.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has opposed that proposal root and branch. Hon. Members will remember that during the last debate on the subject it was pointed out that regional chambers are now full of Conservatives taking part in the activities of those chambers. I recall that the Conservatives opposed the Scottish Parliament, in which they are now taking part. It is a similar situation in the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Assembly. I anticipate that when elected regional assemblies are up and running, there will be Conservatives present, taking full part in the proceedings.
In addition to that Canute-like opposition, the hon. Gentleman appeared to set his face against regional assemblies because he really wanted to ensure that community government was alive and well, and therefore he wanted to preserve counties, the well-known vanguards of community government throughout the country. He also opposed the whole idea of the White Paper because it would not produce a perfect outcome. That appears to be a rather strange method of opposition. Of course things will not be perfect. As hon. Members have said, the White Paper sets out a process, which will change further. The opportunity that the White Paper presents to the regions is to allow them to play a much greater role in their own strategic decision making—in how money is deployed and used in the regions. Although that is not a perfect endpoint, it is a great step forward in terms of how the regions can function best in their own interest.
The White Paper therefore sets out a series of measures to develop and extend regional policy in England and that should be welcomed throughout the whole country. Indeed, hon. Members have pointed out that it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The regions are in the best position to address their own particular needs. Those needs will be different and the assemblies may well work in different ways. The solution that is suggested in the White Paper is different from the solutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. There are different circumstances and ideas for how the regions might move forward in England.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) talked about the way in which assemblies might be funded. Assemblies will have a strategic role, which is their purpose. A needs-based formula that resembles that for local government would therefore be inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from the White Paper that essentially the money will be provided by a transfer of the funds that are already deployed in the regions, but at present they are deployed without democratic accountability. He will see on page 45 an exemplification of how that transfer of funds might work in a particular region, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). The cost of running the assemblies will largely come

285WH
from a transfer of money that is already being spent by people who are taking those decisions but are not doing so on an accountable basis.
As hon. Members pointed out, assemblies will have the opportunity to issue precepts and to borrow. The cost of running the assemblies will therefore be absorbed from within the total sum of money available and the savings from transferring officials from the Government offices of the regions to the regional assemblies. I confirm for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that there would be no intention of discriminating on funding against regions without an elected regional assembly. The distribution of funding in the regions would remain the same. The fundamental difference would be that an elected regional assembly would have the right to determine how the funding was being used in its region through a block grant.
The White Paper builds on the successes that have already been achieved and puts the regions at the heart of policies to create a more prosperous and inclusive society. It is relevant to all English regions. Regional chambers will have new responsibilities as regional planning bodies. They will help to integrate regional strategies and improve regional co-ordination. They will enhance accountability in the regions. They will work closely with Government offices and other Government-funded bodies in the region and will be given extra responsibilities to strengthen regional decision making.
Hon. Members asked how elected assemblies would be formed. Regional assemblies are all about choice. If there is popular demand in a region for an elected assembly and most voters are in favour, it will become a reality. If not, that will not happen. The Government are not imposing regional assemblies on the regions. As with many other important regional decisions, each region must decide. We are giving people the chance to make up their own mind and to help to decide their regional future. There is no secret timetable for
286WH
referendums. A decision to hold a referendum would be based on the groundswell of interest in the region and the representations made. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives that that is a process. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight will see what the word "process" means if he reads paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper.
Those hon. Members who opposed the White Paper's proposals mentioned several times that they wanted to preserve counties. As hon. Members know, the Government do not have an agenda to abolish counties. The boundary committee would consider a process of local government in that region before any referendum was held. People will vote with their eyes open.
Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: No, I cannot give way.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that no unitary authorities will be abolished. That is stated explicitly on page 66 of the White Paper. The boundary committee will be asked to propose a process of unitary government. A county could be the unitary government.
Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I apologise, but I cannot give way as I have so little time to finish my comments.
The key question is what is a region? Under the Government's proposals, a region must create the democratic space for a function to take place and the strategic regional decision-making function is a clear level of governance that is necessary and helpful in this country.
The idea that regions simply represent historic communities and nothing else is not central to how we devolve power, accountability and decision making in England. That is the basis upon which the White Paper will proceed.

Barnsley Coalfield Rural Transport
12.30 pm
Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to have secured a debate on this important subject. I am pleased, too, that the Minister for Transport will reply to the debate as last month he visited the project, which, as he knows, is based in my home town, Grimethorpe, and handed over the keys to a 16-seater and a 25-seater minibus, which are both wheelchair accessible and worth a total of —140,000.
The project is managed by the local rural coalfield transport partnership, which is chaired by my good friend Robin Bates. Before I speak about coalfield community transport, which I shall refer to as CCT, I want to remind the House of my constituency's background, as it is especially relevant to the debate.
Barnsley, East and Mexborough has the lowest gross domestic product per capita of any constituency in the UK, which is why it is part of the South Yorkshire objective 1 area. It has the highest level of disability, which is a direct legacy of the former mining industry; one in three households in the constituency has at least one disabled person. It has one of the lowest levels of car ownership of any constituency in the country.
The hinterland of the constituency comprises a pepperpot of scattered former mining communities, most of which have a population of between 2,000 and 6,000 and are located between Barnsley and Doncaster. In terms of transport infrastructure they are quite isolated. Serious economic and social problems arose after the collapse of the local mining industry in the early 1990s. No new work was available locally and people found it hard to get employment outside the area. There was a drive, especially by local youth projects, to enable young people to travel out of the area for personal development and recreation.
Since 1997, the Government have recognised the need to improve the transport infrastructure in places such as Barnsley and Doncaster. In Doncaster in the current year, a further £10 million is being made available to complete the important Doncaster north road bridge scheme, the total cost of which is about £46.5 million. This year, too, £2.9 million is being made available to complete the Denaby road crossing scheme adjacent to Mexborough, at a total cost of £9 million. Since 1997 in Barnsley, the Dearne towns link road, and phase 1 of the coalfields link road have been completed. In the current year. phases 2 and 3 of the coalfields link road will be completed and provisional funding for the Cudworth and West Green bypass and the Barnsley interchange has been agreed.
One of the major clarion calls of this Government has, rightly, been social inclusion and CCT is a classic example of what we are trying to achieve nationally in terms of public transport and social inclusion. CCT has its origins in a regeneration strategy that was drawn up for Grimethorpe in the mid-1990s. Community transport was highlighted as a particular matter of concern in the report. A follow-up report, entitled "Grimethorpe Transport and Mobility Feasibility Study" and produced in January 1998, highlighted the need for better public transport provision. A pilot project was started, and one minibus was loaned by
288WH
Barnsley dial-a-ride to provide accessible transport journeys for youth and community groups in the local area. One trip a week was operated to a local supermarket, and group hire facilities were offered to a range of community groups The pilot project lasted for six months from November 1998 to March 1999, and the main output was to introduce community-based transport solutions and train local volunteers in minibus operation.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to one individual in particular. Local parish councillor Beryl Sargesson has been the main driving force behind the project from day one. The Minister met Beryl when he visited Grimethorpe, and she has asked me to thank him for the time that he took to speak to local people about the project.
The pilot aimed to enhance the local community's capacity to develop its own transport solution and increase people's employability through training. It trained volunteers in driving and customer care, and operational experience was gained by providing a one-day-a-week service to leisure and social opportunities. A core group of 12 volunteers were involved, three of whom were able to move on to secure full-time employment as a result of their work in the project. A group hire service was offered, but with only one minibus available for the pilot, it was not always possible to meet local demand.
The project experienced difficulties in securing more volunteers, especially when incapacity benefit rules excluded people from offering more than the occasional hour. It was concluded that the project needed to be developed more professionally and involve a number of paid staff who could deliver services not suited to provision by volunteers. The next period was devoted to acquiring resources and funding to implement the development plan. Funding was secured and the project became operational in June 2000. The main elements of its funding package of more than £500,000 came from three main sources: the Countryside Agency, via its rural transport fund; European regional development fund objective 2 priority 5 funding; and Coalfields Regeneration Trust money.
The project initially provided transport for community services in the Brierley and Darfield wards, but it was always planned to extend the area covered to include the Dearne to the south and to become a cross-boundary project by extending into the coalfield areas of south-east Wakefield. I am thinking particularly of what we call the SESKU villages, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) in his place because they are in his constituency. SESKU stands for South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Upton, which are three mining communities that are very similar to those in my constituency.
Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend is a great fighter for coalfield communities, and I pay tribute to him for securing this debate. He mentioned some villages in my constituency, and he will know that deprivation in mining villages does not stop at the Barnsley boundary. Many of the villages that I represent suffer from the same problems of lack of access to work, leisure and education. I pay tribute to the work that he

289WH
has done, with the Minister and the other people involved, in bringing the project to the area and we look forward to its extension into my constituency.
Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, and I shall refer later to a specific problem with extending the project into his area. I am sure that both he and the Minister will be interested to hear about it.
The proposals for a revised cross-boundary coalfield rural transport partnership are supported by Barnsley metropolitan borough council and City of Wakefield metropolitan district council and are now being implemented. Countryside Agency funding for a rural transport partnership officer has also been secured. The project management is based on a partnership that involves local authorities, passenger transport executives, Barnsley dial-a-ride, the Countryside Agency and, most importantly, the community, which has representation on the rural transport partnership. Barnsley metropolitan borough council acts as the lead authority.
The rural transport partnership determines the types and patterns of services to be provided. To date, 700 individuals are registered to travel with CCT. By the end of December 2001, more than 30,000 passenger journeys had been made by CCT services, including almost 4,500 for travel to work and training purposes. Assistance with travel to work and training opportunities are a vital ingredient of CCT, and are much appreciated by local businesses. Evidence of such appreciation can be seen in a letter from a large textile producer in South and West Yorkshire, SR Gent International, which has factory units in Barnsley, Doncaster and Wakefield. It is signed by the head of personnel and is addressed to CCT:
"Dear Madam, I am writing to tell you how invaluable is the transport that your organisation has provided over the past twelve months to our SR Gent site at South Kirkby … I am afraid that we would have lost some of our employees if the transport was not available. It is difficult to get to work from Grimethorpe at the time that the unit starts and finishes. It has also encouraged people from the Grimethorpe and Brierley area to apply for employment at the South Kirkby site that would not have done so if this transport was not available. I do hope that the organisation will go from strength to strength enabling it to help other areas similar to Grimethorpe to bring jobs to the people who are seeking employment in areas that would normally be beyond their reach."
That provides direct evidence of the good job that the partnership is doing and that CCT is providing.
Altogether, CCT has created 10 new jobs; 32 drivers—nine staff and 23 volunteers —have been trained; and six trainees have gone on to paid employment. Although the number of trainees moving into jobs was lower than expected, CCT has assisted the junction project in Grimethorpe, which deals mainly with young people with problems. It provided transport that enabled 20 youngsters to access job search facilities and visit potential employers. Those young people have not usually availed themselves of the more traditional routes into work via the Employment Service. The partnership and CCT are both viewed by Barnsley council as making a substantial and vital contribution to the social inclusion aims and objectives of the Barnsley community plan and the South Yorkshire local transport plan.
What does the future hold for CCT? I hope that it will be bright. The partnership is extending into west Yorkshire villages similar to my mining communities.
290WH
The Government must acknowledge that community transport plays a vital role in recognising and providing for gaps in the local public transport network that are not usually met by commercial operators.
Sustainability is a complex issue. Affordability means that a subsidy is required to provide services. However, a window of opportunity is presented by the Employment Service via jobcentre clubs—as subsidy can be provided alongside potential sponsorship from employers—as well as the Countryside Agency, objective 1 funding and, I hope, passenger transport executives.
It is worth noting that in the Government's challenge fund, community transport is identified as an area to which funding agencies should look to enhance and sustain existing operations rather than to reinvent the wheel. We must ensure that future funding regimes have sufficient flexibility to cope with local community demands and that we avoid too much bureaucracy. The current expansion into West Yorkshire provides a classic example. South Yorkshire is an objective 1 area, but the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth qualifies only for objective 2 priority 5 funding, which can create problems. We need greater flexibility between the two funding regimes. Generally speaking, the provision of objective 1 funding can be very bureaucratic. I acknowledge that accountability is important when it comes to spending public money, but the bureaucracy should not be over-burdensome. I am not convinced that the balance is right for objective 1 funding.
There can sometimes be a conflict with the need for traffic-calming measures whose specification prevents low-floor vehicles from accessing kerb-to-kerb services. That issue requires much thought and attention from the local highways authority and the local partnership. My right hon. Friend the Minister may have some words of wisdom on that extremely difficult subject that I could pass on to my local highways authorities.
CCT was designed as a pilot to highlight some of the barriers identified in the coalfields taskforce report; to provide information on the potential changes needed in funding regimes, legislation and regeneration processes, both at a community and economic level; and to focus on residents who were suffering social exclusion and did not have access to a car.
During the period of operation, CCT has moved from an isolated cul-de-sac in the deprived mining community of Grimethorpe, Shafton and Brierley to being the fulcrum of a best practice project. It is not only achieving its core objectives on travel to work, but adding value to social and self-help community activities that had been stifled by affordability and availability issues. It is widely seen as one of the most successful partnership projects in the delivery of travel to training and work.
The project involves a continuous search for improvement and excellence as well as community accountability. That is achieved by liaison with communities at varying times of day and periods; passenger surveys, which check the relevance and effectiveness of the services; liaison with strategic bodies; and links with the Employment Service,

291WH
employers and potential inward investors. I have watched the project grow and mature and I thoroughly recommend it to the House.
Jon Trickett rose—
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. If the hon. Gentleman can confirm that he has the consent of the Minister and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the debate to speak, I am more than happy for him to do so.
12.46 pm
Jon Trickett: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) knows that I wish to contribute, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has indicated that I have his consent to do so.
I wish only to emphasise one point that my hon. Friend made. The boundary for objective I status goes right through the middle of the coalfield communities, and the pit villages straddle both sides of it. The boundary is in fact a stream, which with my long legs it is possible to straddle. The fields on my hon. Friend's side are worth millions in terms of the money that is available; the fields on my side are rather barren.
There is the principle of contiguity, however. I understand that, where the boundary is contiguous with an objective 1 area, it is possible for funds to cross it to help to deal with deprivation, because clearly that does not end at a particular stream. Will the Minister ensure that his officials operate with some flexibility when they consider that matter? People travel from Barnsley to my constituency for jobs, and in the reverse direction.
Finally, I apologise if I infringed the protocol of Westminster Hall, Mr. Hurst. I shall ensure that I do not do so again.
12.48 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on securing this Adjournment debate. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). Both raised a number of valuable points, which also have a wider relevance.
Transport is at the heart of the Government's agenda for a prosperous and just society. A modern transport system is not just about getting people from A to B; it must also support the Government's wider objectives of rebuilding communities and tackling social exclusion. That is particularly relevant in areas such as Barnsley, Hemsworth and Mexborough.
As we increasingly understand, good transport links and services are vital to achieving regional economic prosperity and stimulating regeneration. They encourage new businesses, allow established businesses to expand and bring potential markets closer. They also facilitate better access to jobs and services, helping to ensure that communities do not become isolated and disadvantaged.
That is why the Government are determined to improve transport throughout the country. We have made it clear that transport is one of our key priorities,
292WH
alongside education, health and crime. Thanks to the 10-year plan for transport, we have made a step change in investment across all modes and introduced more certainty into transport funding.
Perhaps nowhere is the need for better transport links and services more important than in the former coalfield areas, such as Barnsley, which have suffered tremendous social and economic upheavals over the last thirty years. Many of those communities are predominantly rural in character, typically consisting of small settlements located some distance away from major urban centres. Access to transport is, therefore, vital for residents, many of whom face severe deprivation and isolation. Lack of access, particularly to cars, is one of the major causes of social exclusion in those areas. That fact was recognised by the Government back in 1998 when our coalfields taskforce reported.
Since then, we have agreed to fund, through the local transport plan process, all five of the recommended new road schemes identified by the taskforce and for which bids for financial support have been submitted. That included two new roads to improve access to the Barnsley coalfield regeneration area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough provided the details of those schemes. We have also accepted in the last two local transport settlements the case for a further four major local transport schemes in locations identified by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. The potential regeneration benefits of those schemes were one of the key factors in our decision to give them the green light. We want to see more such schemes coming forward from local authorities in the future.
Important though it is, we do not only need investment in the road infrastructure to stimulate the regeneration of coalfield communities. Public transport improvements are also essential, especially to tackle social exclusion, as we recognise that not everyone can or wants to have access to a car. We are therefore keen to encourage better bus and community transport services in coalfield communities.
The Government recognise that community transport in particular has an important role to play. It can offer a flexible door-to-door service in a way that conventional bus services, which may have a greater relevance in urban areas, cannot. That is particularly important for dispersed communities like the former coalfield areas. Community transport by its very nature also involves the wider community, which is essential if we want more local participation in coalfield regeneration.
Decisions must ultimately be made at a local level by people who understand the needs of that community, working in partnership with local authorities, bus operators, local businesses and interest groups. Partnership working is the cornerstone of our approach to delivering improvements in transport and I am pleased by how that is developing across the country. The success of the partnership approach is very much in evidence in the Barnsley coalfields rural transport partnership. As my hon. Friend said, I saw that in action when I visited his constituency recently. I saw the success of that programme and was delighted to participate in it and to talk to the users and those who have been so active in bringing it about. I am delighted that it is making further progress.

293WH
Our role must be to establish the right regulatory and financial framework to enable better public transport services to be delivered to coalfield areas and rural communities generally. That is what we have done. The coalfield communities have received a 54 per cent. increase in funding in the three years following the publication of the rural White Paper, compared with the period 1998 to 2001. The rural bus subsidy grant given to local authorities since 1998 has established more than 1,800 new or enhanced bus services across rural England. South Yorkshire passenger transport executive itself will receive nearly £500,000 this year.
The rural bus challenge has successfully funded a wide range of innovative door-to-door and demand-responsive services, including taxi-buses, dial-a-ride and other community transport services. Several former coalfield areas have benefited from challenge funds and guidance to local authorities on the next challenge round should be published next month. I hope that local authorities representing coalfield communities will come forward with further innovative and well thought out proposals.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Countryside Agency is also supporting community-based rural transport projects through its rural transport partnership initiative. That programme has already made a significant contribution to the funding of the Barnsley coalfields rural transport partnership. I understand that the agency has recently agreed to provide further funding for the partnership— as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said—in order to extend community transport provision north towards Wakefield. That is also important in linking the areas to try to increase access to the Wakefield-Leeds conurbation and its employment opportunities.
The Barnsley partnership has also been supported by regeneration funding, particularly from Yorkshire and Humber objective 2 money—although I take on board my hon. Friends' concerns. Such regeneration programmes offer a valuable source of funding for community-based transport projects in former coalfield areas. It is crucial that local stakeholders work in partnership to secure the funding available, as the Barnsley partnership demonstrates.
I understand concerns about the longer-term future of specific schemes, given that funding is usually only guaranteed for up to three years. We cannot give open-ended commitments to fund schemes requiring significant revenue support in the long term. Each scheme must continually prove its value in meeting the transport needs of the local community, in an efficient, timely and relevant manner.
294WH
In terms of individual programmes such as the rural transport partnership programme, it is also crucial to review regularly each programme and evaluate the progress that has been achieved before deciding on the future level of funding. That will help to ensure that we take account of new developments and have the most cost-effective and efficient means of delivering the improvements that we want in rural transport services.
We are not only providing the investment. We are looking to transform the regulatory framework for community transport so that this sector can grow and thrive. Dial-a-ride services such as those supported by the Barnsley partnership are now benefiting from the recent extension of bus fuel duty rebate to community transport operators. That has been widely welcomed across the country. The extension, from May 2002, should slash fuel costs for many section 19 community transport operators, saving them hundreds of pounds each year. Many have welcomed that development, which will create a more level playing field with commercial bus services.
We remain committed to consulting on possible changes to the current regulatory framework to reduce any unnecessary barriers to further expansion of the community transport sector. Consultation has been under way for some time. We want to consider routes and timetables on registered services especially, to make it easier to run flexibly routed bus services, which may serve areas such as Barnsley and Hemsworth more effectively than the conventional pattern. That will benefit both mainstream bus services and those provided under a community bus permit, which provide vital services to the general public.
Once the consultation is under way, we will look at the scope to relax the rules on voluntary sector transport. However, that is a difficult issue, as we must strike the right balance between providing useful freedoms and ensuring the proper level of vehicle safety checks, as well as the right balance between operators.
I acknowledge the concerns expressed so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough on behalf of his community. We remain committed to the regeneration of former coalfield areas such as Barnsley, and determined that transport should play its part in that regeneration. Better public transport to meet the community's needs is essential if we are to tackle social exclusion. Community transport, from dial-a-ride to shared taxis, has a valuable role to play, as the Barnsley coalfields rural transport partnership demonstrates. The Government have an important role in setting the right regulatory and financial framework, but the local community working in partnership can also help to deliver better public transport. Barnsley coalfields rural transport partnership shows the way forward for other coalfield communities, and we hope that it will continue to flourish.

Somerset Levels
1 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to hold a debate on the Somerset Levels.
The Somerset Levels are a unique feature in the United Kingdom. If you will cast your mind back, Mr. Hurst, to prehistoric times, the Levels began as an alluvial flood plain, and have, over the years, seen enormous change. At the time of floating villages across the Mendip hills and near Street, the area was built up by alluvial flooding and the destruction of forests. Over the years, the change has been the change of man. Avalon is at the heart of the Somerset Levels; one can imagine Arthur being taken off to Avalon, and ultimately to Glastonbury, to be buried. It is said that there was an inland waterway or lake, which was really a sea that ran from Bridgwater, around Glastonbury, and then covered the area surrounding what is now the Somerset Levels.
Since that time, man's intervention has created the Levels that we see now. We, as prehistoric man and his successors, decided to drain the Levels because we needed them for high-quality grassland and to keep back the flood water. By doing that, however, we created an artificial area. The Dutch are way ahead of us on that. In relation to the Levels, we have created a flood plain held back by walls of mud.
The problem, of which the Under-Secretary is fully aware, is that global warming is upon us. The water is rising by millimetres a year; that may not seem a great deal, but if it continues for 50 to 75 years, the entire area could suddenly become an alluvial flood plain once again. In the past, one year in 60 was the average frequency of a major flood, so it could be guaranteed that nothing would probably happen for 59 years; a little water might come, but the dam walls could hold it back.
The past five years have seen three major floods. That flooding has not just come over the banks; it has brought Bridgwater, Taunton, Langport and others under a direct threat. If that continues, the area could be cut off not only from the M5, but from the two railways that service London and Bristol, and from the A303 into Yeovil, although that does not quite come under the Levels.
I have just printed off two maps from the Environment Agency's website. The first shows the flooding area over the years. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose constituency is the other side of the Somerset Levels, has just joined me. The map is interesting because it includes a considerable amount of Bridgwater, much of Illminster and a considerable portion of my right hon. Friend's constituency in Wells.
The second map is the flood plan, which shows a completely different situation. One sees a waft of blue that would leave Glastonbury, Street, Bridgwater, Langport and Yeovil under serious threat in a major flood. The agency is not being alarmist, but showing where it believes there could be a major flood in future. If we go by what happened two years ago, when there was enormous pressure on dam walls throughout the levels, it is clear that the agency is not scaremongering, but suggesting a possibility. The agency is now rightly
296WH
saying, through the Under-Secretary, that building on flood plains must be seriously questioned. I shall return to that point, but I urge him to stick to what he has said because our worry is not simply to do with insurance. If there were a major problem, we would not be able to reach people because of the speed of the water coming in. Having seen it, I know that it is positively frightening.
What is the role of the Environment Agency? The Environment Agency was a slightly hybrid organisation, set up to administer the rivers and waterways, and it has now taken on flooding as one of its major areas of work. It has done sterling work in the Somerset Levels—I have no problem with that—but what backing does it receive from the Department for an area that faces a direct threat?
The Environment Agency's problem is that the flood defence banks in the Levels are not in good shape. A massive amount of money needs to be spent on them. Over the past few years, when the walls have shifted, the Environment Agency has spent money on them. But when we ask the agency how much more money it needs to spend on what is a difficult plain to defend, the figure runs into many millions. The Environment Agency needs the backing of the Department to do the job that it is charged to do, which is to defend the Levels from wholesale flooding.
Over the past few years, a problem has arisen between the drainage boards and the Environment Agency, of which I know the Under-Secretary is aware. The problem is that there are two competing organisations. The drainage board is charged with looking at the reans—or streams—and cleaning them out and keeping them clear, with the Environment Agency overseeing the work. However, because the precepts have not always been paid to the Environment Agency by the drainage boards, as the Under-Secretary is aware, the bodies have been at loggerheads for some time. I urge him—I have no easy answer—to bring them together somehow. If the two bodies—one established for many generations and the other comparatively new—remain at loggerheads, that will cause problems for the future.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As my hon. Friend knows, we share the Somerset Levels and I am delighted that he is raising this important issue. He has put his finger on the nub of the problem. The Environment Agency and many other environmental bodies seem to regard the rivers and drainage reans of the Levels primarily as environmental assets, when they were put in there in the middle ages for drainage purposes to protect agriculture and those who live and work there. Is there not a case for reorienting our efforts by recognising the utilitarian and industrial purposes of these assets, instead of treating them simply as environmental assets?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I agree, and I shall come to that point. The Levels have three facets; industry, tourism and a thriving farming community that has been there for generations.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, the drainage boards were set up to deal with drainage, but the problem is that there are an enormous number of them. The Under-Secretary is aware how many there are. I am not sure that I know myself, because they cover

297WH
a vast area. If we could find a way to bring all the bodies together so that there were no conflicts of interest—as a result of which precepts are not always not paid because of ongoing disputes—we could produce a much better overall strategy in the Parrett catchment area. The problem has been going on for a long time, but it worries me that it is continuing, because the moment a disaster occurs, the finger of blame is always pointed, and it is a fickle finger.
The Parrett catchment area project, in which the Under-Secretary was heavily involved, was set up to manage the water and the future of a highly floodable area. The Department has now put £61.5 million into the Environment Agency, rising to £65 million, and ultimately the allocation will be £114 million in 2003–04. I am delighted about that. Will he consider how we structure that money? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells made a valuable point about the environment. The environment is marvellous and we must protect it, but we must also take a broader view. The Levels have an enormous industrial base, going back centuries, including Clarks in my right hon. Friend's constituency, British Cellophane in mine, Royal Ordnance and many other organisations. If they went under water, it would be catastrophic for the area. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that?
How can we approach the problem? The Under-Secretary knows what I am going to say. I want to refer to the Parrett barrage and the Parrett sluice, which is a way of controlling the Parrett. From Bridgwater to the sea, for eight miles, there is only a 4 ft drop; that is very little to play with. The Environment Agency—with the Parrett project, under Humphrey Temperley—has looked at putting a barrage or sluice at that point. If Hinckley C power station had been built, that would have helped to pay for it; but it is not on the agenda at the moment. Between £15 million and £20 million is needed. I accept that it must be seen as a long-term project, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that it deserves serious attention, even if money is made available only for a detailed study to demonstrate whether it is a viable operation. If it is, we need to build it; if it is not, we still have to address the problem of flooding in the area.
There is nothing clever about the sluice; it controls the water up to 4 ft or 5 ft, the IA water builds up behind it, the tide goes out and the water goes out. That is straightforward. However, what it allows is a stop-gap between the backing-up of the Tone through Taunton and the Parrett through Bridgwater. If we can stop the water from coming back up at high tide, we will save the homes of a great number of people.
To give an example, there has been talk of managed retreat on the Steart peninsula, which is a marvellous area for bird watching. I do not accept the concept of managed retreat. We are not in a position to do it because we cannot control the power of water; we know that. If we try to control the power of nature, we do it at our cost. In that example, we would spend an enormous amount of money on few homes. However, if we did not, there would be serious repercussions for the environment, and the confidence of my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the member for Wells—certainly in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge—would be fatally undermined.
298WH
How, then, can we proceed? Two inland seas projects have been considered, involving low-level water-holding catchment areas, one covering 4,000 sq m, at the cost of £23,000, and the other covering some 75,000 sq m. If we cannot control water, I agree with the idea of inland seas. I put it to the Under-Secretary that such projects will cost millions of pounds. That is not a lot, relatively, but I worry about the effect that they will have on local economics, on the local and surrounding landowners and on the people who live nearby.
We can create the seas, but how will the compensation for this environmentally sensitive area be put in place, given the existing constraints of the common agricultural policy, which I hope will be reformed? I do not believe that the two can be balanced. The studies are ongoing, but I worry about the aspiration to move 3,500 m of soil out to allow a sea to move in. I have grave worries, and constituents who have written to me—it does not affect my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells' area, but the principle is the same—are concerned about the consequences for their homes in the long term.
We must keep the Levels vibrant, so what else can we consider? Tourism is massively important; the M5, two railway lines and the A303 come through the area, but people do not stop there. They go to Glastonbury to climb the tor and to enjoy festivals, but they do not naturally come to the Levels because we have no attraction that automatically brings them in. The battle of Sedgemoor took place in the area; had that had a different result, we might not all be here. If we want to have a thriving community, we must encourage tourism.
The Government have looked at a lot of ways to attract tourists to the south-west. The regional development agency— not an organisation with which I always agree— is charged with that and promotes the whole area. There are more sites of special scientific interest on the Levels than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is a unique area. I do not say that it should be a world heritage site, but it is at that sort of level. If we want a thriving community there, people need to brought in to enjoy the area.
What about the wildlife? That is a subject close to the Under-Secretary's heart. For instance, Berwick swans, golden plover, teal, widgeon and other water fowl live on the levels—as many as 20,000 of them. That is stunning. I am an ornithologist, and I find it a beautiful place. Can we not encourage more people to come and enjoy it?
In its latest advertising campaign, the regional development agency showed the Clifton suspension bridge at Bristol with giraffes on it. The Under-Secretary knows that we do not have many giraffes on the Levels. We need to bring people to the area; if we can bring money to the area, we can do more to secure it. What about making it a special area of conservation? I know that that is being considered. If it were achieved, would more money be available? Could money be made available from Europe, through whatever mechanism we can find? I have already touched on the need to increase tourism. We have had cider growers and a vineyard in Somerset, and many people visited the area. However, many left because farming changed.
People are reluctant to set up business on the Levels. The recent opening of the catchment project offices is Middlezoy is a fine example, but it is unusual. People do

299WH
not want to move down there because of the flooding problems. If we want to encourage people to do that, we should not just emphasise the Bridgwater area. As the House is well aware, the area has problems in finding industrial land that is not on the flood plain. The last industrial land to be created had to be raised by 4 ft.
Building homes on flood plains is a thorny problem. The Environment Agency has set down firm guidelines. However, Sedgemore has been asked by the Government to build about 2,000 houses—an enormous number. However, houses cannot be built on the escarpments; the Levels are difficult to build on; homes cannot be built on much of the Quantocks; the coastline is somewhat erodeable. So where do we put the homes? The Government may say that we must build those houses without the land being available. We are going through the planning inquiry now, and the targets are difficult to achieve. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell his colleagues that it is not always easy.
The Curry report mentioned three things that would be especially useful in our area. The first was modulation. I am not a great fan of it, but if we had modulation in farming, could it be used for only one part of an area? Could the modulation of 10 per cent. of an area be more useful in helping the environment than if it were applied collectively? I do not know the answer to that. Secondly, Curry mentions rural enterprise schemes and talks about a substantial increase, with a mid-term review, for rural enterprise. What is available to help rural enterprise in areas that are important to the well being of an area as vital as the Somerset Levels?
Lastly, Curry spoke of encouraging co-operatives. Rather like badgers, the subject seems to come round every two weeks. Is any mechanism available to the Under-Secretary to consider co-operation? That happens with cider to an extent, and with farmers markets and so on, but the Levels are unique. Many farms there are organic farms, which produce extremely high-quality produce in an area that comes under the category "special". I hope that he will respond to that.
I assure the Under-Secretary that I shall keep going on; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and I will continue to push for the future of an area of outstanding beauty. The west country would be badly depleted if anything happened to that area. Along with the Environment Agency and other organisations—including the Department—we will work together to ensure a future for the Levels. I hope that, in 50 years' time—we will probably be pushing ourselves around in wheelchairs by then—we can look back and say that we did a good job. If we do not do a good job, I worry for the future.
1.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing a further Adjournment debate, following that of 25 March on the subject of farming in Somerset. I understand the points that he raises, which he made in a reasonable, articulate and reasoned way. As he is aware, I know the area well. I have been involved in discussions about it for some
300WH
years, and I am pleased to see the progress that has been made, especially through people coming together to tackle the problems. There was tension in years gone by, and people took polarised positions, and I am glad to see that change.
The hon. Gentlemen touched on the major issue of flood management, and I understand the point. We must take global warming into account, but I assure him that it is taken into account in our investment programmes, engineering standards and projections. The potential impact of global warming—rising sea levels and changing weather patterns—has been built into our long-term projections. We are working on the worst-case scenario, as that is the most sensible way to act. The projections may turn out to be worse than reality, but it is better to be on the safe side than to put people at risk.
The flood risk maps were a good innovation by the Environment Agency, as they gave people an idea of where there was flood risk. However, they do not quantify the level of risk. People need not panic if they see their areas within the maps; the maps need to he more sophisticated, but that will come over time. The agency is considering the issue, and hopes to give people a clearer idea of what the maps mean.
I also understand the hon. Gentleman's point about drainage boards. I declare an interest in that I am the honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, so I have a close connection to those authorities. I have a long interest in the subject, as much of my constituency in north Lincolnshire is low-lying and relies heavily on drainage boards to keep it from going under water. I have followed the progress of drainage authorities with some interest.
DEFRA and the Environment Agency support the production of water level management plans. Every drainage board will have to produce such a plan, which will provide an opportunity to talk to the agency and other interested parties in the Somerset Levels about ways of tackling points such as those made by the hon. Gentleman. There would not necessarily be a conflict in terms of a pattern of drainage between environmental interests and the interests of agriculture or the wider community. The important issue is management.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know that the Under-Secretary knows a good deal about the subject, but will he acknowledge that the reluctance of the Environment Agency to dredge reans and drainage rivers is a problem? Dredging can disturb wildlife and fauna, but the water needs to keep flowing for drainage purposes, which requires dredging. There can be a conflict—as was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater—with the balance shifting too far in favour of conservation to the detriment of the primary duty, which is to drain areas in our constituencies.
Mr. Morley: Yes, I can see when that balance—that is the key word—between conservation interests and those of the agricultural community is needed on occasion. Sometimes there is a role for dredging and keeping drains clear, and that is the principle responsibility of the drainage authorities and boards. However, dredging can sometimes have marginal benefits, depending on the circumstances of where it is done and what it is for. As

301WH
the right hon. Gentleman will know, the agency is obliged to take the relevant legislation on wildlife protection into account, especially in areas of special scientific importance. It must consider certain European Union directives as well, such as the habitats directive. The question is one of balance, and that balance can be struck.
Specific points were made about the Parrett sluice, in which there is plenty of interest. I acknowledge the work that has been done to try to identify a more sustainable approach to flood management in the Somerset Levels. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater will know, I met with Humphrey Temperley and discussed the options for future flood management in the catchment area. The report is an important step towards a solution. Everyone involved should he congratulated on that.
Much remains to be done on the report because many more technical assessments must be made, including investigating the role of a sluice and whether it would be effective. That work is under way, and DEFRA is funding a catchment area study, which is complementary to the work being done by the catchment area project study.
In addition, DEFRA is providing some £3 million in grant to the Environment Agency for strengthening flood defences on the lower River Tone at Baltmoor wall and Stanmoor bank. The Stanmoor bank reduces the risk of flooding to residential and commercial properties, a main line rail track and agricultural land in Stanmoor. The Baltmoor wall retains floodwaters within Currymoor and Haymoor, thereby defending Northmoor and Saltmoor, which also protects residential and commercial properties and a main trunk road.
In response to the autumn 2000 floods, grant-eligible expenditure for Somerset's local flood defence committee has increased from £3.5 million in 2001–02 to £4.4 million in 2002–03. The grant rate has increased from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. in Somerset, in recognition of its particular needs.
The possibility of a sluice is being considered, with the normal technical, economic and environmental criteria being taken into account. However, big engineering projects that seem to represent the solution to a problem may not, in fact, be the solution. With periods of high river flow, backing up may occur even with a sluice, and if the water could not then escape there could still be a flood risk. That solution must be examined, as the Environment Agency is doing.
302WH
I accept, too, that there is an issue of structural funding. An advantage of DEFRA, which brings together environmental and flood defence funding, is that it can take a holistic approach. I do not rule out the possibility that we could give support through our agri-environment programmes to landowners who deliberately flood their land as part of an overall project. We should draw a distinction between land that floods regularly and land that is deliberately flooded, as a strategy.
I ask the hon. Member for Bridgwater to consider issues such as managed retreats on their merits, as they are a sustainable form of flood defence. We must consider each area on its individual merits. We do not take a blanket approach to the idea of managed retreats, as there may be different solutions for different areas, with different management and engineering options.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the tourist potential of the Levels, which is an internationally important wildlife centre. Many people go there for that reason. On my visits, I have seen farming businesses that have diversified, with on-farm shops selling produce and providing facilities for visitors, which has been good for the farms, for the area and for tourism. There may be more potential for such moves, and the regional development agency will consider that possibility along with the local authorities.
The area has some fantastic attractions and is internationally important. We recognise that it is also an environmentally sensitive area, and put considerable sums into the area through ESA—environmentally sensitive area—agreements. Farmers in the Somerset Levels received £3.3 million of direct support to maintain landscape and wildlife last year. Some 70 per cent. of the area and 65 per cent. of the SSSI land fall within the ESA boundary. The ESA is well established, and we are devoting considerable resources to it.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's final three points, we are considering the Curry report and the question of modulation. Ring-fencing for an area is a double-edged sword, because the east of England would be keen on that, too, which would distort the amount of money available nationally. We will consider that issue, although it is difficult.
I discussed the rural enterprise scheme this morning with the Minister for Rural Affairs, and we are looking to see whether we can simplify and extend it.
On co-ops, there is potential support through the Farm Business Advice Service and the Rural Development Service. We also fund and provide planning advice, which I hope that farmers will take up. We are only too happy to give them that support.

Gas and Electricity
1.30 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am delighted to have secured this short debate on the problem of the erroneous transfer of gas and electricity customers. This is by no means the first time that the issue has been raised in the House; there have been debates and parliamentary questions, and two early-day motions have been tabled in this Session alone. The fact that I am raising the issue again is an indication of the way in which the problem has persisted and, indeed, spread.
In many ways, erroneous transfer is too polite a term for the totally unacceptable behaviour of several major power suppliers. In some cases, I am afraid, terms such as scam and fraud come to mind. Erroneous transfer refers to the problem of customers being transferred against their will from one power company to another. They then find themselves entrapped in a morass of bureaucracy, administrative chaos and Kafkaesque resistance to efforts to sort the problem out. At best—if one can put it like that—the problem arises from incompetence. At worst, however, it often arises from selling techniques that vary from heavy-handed to fraudulent. I want to describe in a little detail some of the ways in which erroneous transfer manifests itself.
Consumers sometimes find that they have been transferred from one energy supplier to another on the basis of a signature on a contract or some other indication of consent, such as a verbal agreement. It turns out later, however, that they never signed the document in question or, if they did, they did not realise that it was meant to be a contract to transfer to another energy supplier.
I have come across several such examples in my constituency, and the consumer watchdog Energywatch details many cases in its recent report. It tells, for example, of a customer in Dundee who received a welcome letter from Virgin Energy, which was addressed to her husband. It claimed that a verbal agreement had been made, but her husband had died some years previously. A 92-year-old registered blind woman in London was tidying the balcony of her flat when she was approached by a British Gas sales agent. Her son found out later that she had been persuaded to sign a contract, even though she could not see what she was signing.
One of the worst cases that I came across was from the west midlands. A British Gas sales representative told a woman who did not have a good knowledge of English that her electricity supplier would soon go bankrupt, steal her money and leave her without power all winter. The woman, who had a disabled baby, was panicked into signing a form to change suppliers and issue the necessary direct debit instruction to the bank. As it happened, however, the bank account was in her husband's name, and when he returned home later that day, the sales reps were waiting for him, demanding that he sign the direct debit instruction. He refused, and they tried to pressure him into signing. They then physically prevented him from returning the form. He later found that the British Gas direct debit department had tried to set up a direct debit from his account.
304WH
Often, cases of erroneous transfer reveal incompetence, rather than heavy-handed selling techniques. My constituents Sarah Shepherd and Stephen Watson actually wanted to transfer their electricity and gas supplies from ScottishPower to Scottish Gas. They signed the forms, but nothing happened. After lots of telephone calls and correspondence, Scottish Gas told them that they had not taken over as their new energy suppliers. Not surprisingly, my constituents got fed up with being given the run-around by Scottish Gas. You can imagine what happened next, Mr. Hurst. Having told their energy supplier that they no longer wanted to transfer to Scottish Gas, after several months they began to receive letters from Scottish Gas saying that the company had after all taken over their gas supply.
The problem for my constituents is that they were in the process of moving house and, to cut a long and complicated story short, they then received an incorrect bill and final demands for hundreds of pounds, which after months of correspondence and phone calls were cancelled only when I was able to intervene in the case.
David Cairns: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this day and age, it is extraordinary that companies such as ScottishPower and Scottish Gas take so long to let people know whether they are supplying electricity or gas to a particular resident? One thing that I have found frustrating, as I am sure he has, is the length of time that it takes for the companies to verify whether they are providing a service. From his extensive experience, does he know of any other company or organisation that does not appear to know whether it is providing a service to an individual?
Mr. Lazarowicz: One would be hard pressed to find a similar example. My hon. Friend's point is illustrated by yet another example from my constituency. The case was not one of erroneous transfer but of erroneous failure to transfer. In this case, the company concerned, Spidacom Ltd., wanted to transfer its electricity supply from ScottishPower to npower. The supply was taken over by npower but the company failed to install the necessary meter for the off-peak tariff, which was the reason why the business had transferred in the first place.
It was claimed by npower that Scottish Power was making it difficult to install the off-peak meter. Mr. Hansen, the director of Spidacom, cannot say whose account is correct — npower's or ScottishPower's— but it is certainly true that, for almost nine months, all his electricity was being charged at the day rate and he was unable to get the off-peak meter that he had sought in the first place. Again, I was able to take the case up and, by a strange coincidence, his off-peak meter was installed just six days ago.
Those cases are just a few among many. I have had many more in my constituency and I know from comments from other hon. Members since the topic of this debate was announced that practically every other Member of this House has experience of similar problems. There have been various reports in the media and I particularly want to pay tribute to the excellent work of Sean Coughlan of The Guardian in exposing some of the problems with energy mis-selling.

305WH
What worries me is that I am sure that, as MPs, we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. Intervention by the MP normally helps to resolve the problem eventually, and I was amused that, as late as yesterday afternoon, I received a faxed letter in my House of Commons office from London Electricity relating to a case that I had taken up on behalf of one of my constituents.
However, how many people are out there who have not gone to an MP or to Energywatch but are suffering in silence? I am particularly worried about elderly people, those who may not have a good command of English or those who are not familiar with our country's bureaucratic systems. My experience, and that of other MPs, is confirmed by the consumer watchdog Energywatch. It says, in one of its recent reports:
"Unscrupulous sales methods are used by the gas and electricity companies all around Great Britain, often by household names."
In Scotland alone, Energywatch received 8,500 complaints in a year, of which 25 per cent. concerned erroneous transfers, many of which the watchdog says were caused by cowboy sales agents.
Although the watchdog names npower as a top offender, it says that the rogues' gallery has many members. Among those whom I have discovered to be the subject of complaint, either in my constituency or elsewhere, are Scottish Gas, Virgin Energy, London Electricity, British Gas and Swalec. That shows clearly that the problem cannot be described in terms of a few sales reps; just a few bad apples in the barrel. It seems more likely that there is a whole orchard full of such apples. The extent of the problem is so bad that it must raise the suspicion of a certain amount of connivance—or, at best, complacency—about such practices on the part of some of the energy companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has drawn to my attention the case of Mr. Robert White, aged 70, who was the victim of what was indisputably fraudulent mis-selling by an npower sales representative. My hon. Friend has demanded that npower refers the case to the police, but in spite of his repeated demands, it has simply washed its hands of the matter by saying that the sales representative worked for a third-party agency, whose responsibility it is to take further action.
I know that the problem of mis-selling worries the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister in particular, and I know that the industry has adopted a voluntary code of practice, but still the examples continue to come. The voluntary code does not yet seem to be working and tougher action is certainly needed. Even Energywatch has been the subject of complaints from some of my constituents because it has not dealt with their complaints effectively. However, in fairness, I should add that other constituents have paid tribute to the effectiveness of intervention by Energywatch, and I have seen the good results of its intervention. I congratulate Energywatch on its "Stop Now!" campaign, which suggests that some action can be taken to try to deal with the problem of erroneous transfer. I endorse the suggestions that Energywatch makes.
Energywatch wants the industry regulator, Ofgem, to strengthen the conditions in operating licences, which govern the way in which energy companies should behave when selling to consumers. It wants Ofgem to use its fining powers on companies that engage in the
306WH
sort of scandalous mis-selling that I have described. In my view, a few hefty fines and the loss of an operating licence for the worst offenders would be an excellent way to encourager les autres.
Energywatch wants the energy companies to set up a rogues register of sales agencies and individuals who fail to meet acceptable standards. It wants gas and electricity companies to pay proper compensation to consumers for the distress and inconvenience caused by the malpractices of their sales representatives, rather than merely refunding the bare minimum for financial loss, as happens all too often. It also favours the introduction of a standard format for energy supply contracts, which would help consumers to understand their contracts and compare them with those of other suppliers. Those seem like eminently sensible steps to deal with a scandal of immense proportions, and I hope that the Government will do what they can to turn them into reality.
1.42 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and thank him for raising an issue that concerns us all. I know that that sounds like a ritualistic introduction, but this is an especially appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to have a peg on which to hang a few remarks about the issue. As my hon. Friend was good enough to recognise, there should be no doubt about my personal commitment to resolving the problem.
In my ministerial role, I am inundated with letters from parliamentary colleagues, written on behalf of constituents who have, through no fault of their own and without their prior knowledge, been transferred to another supplier. If the number of letters that I receive is sufficient to make such an impression, it is a clue to the size of the iceberg that lies below the surface, because this is a problem of enormous scale.
So that I would be up to date with the effectiveness of exhortations against such practices, I carried out some checks this morning, and the figures that I found may be of some interest to hon. Members. Yesterday alone, Energywatch logged more than 650 complaints, and last month alone, it received 13,198 complaints. Those figures are extraordinary and totally unacceptable, and I want to give clear notice that if the existing law and its enforcement is insufficient to deal with the problem, the law and its implementation will have to be strengthened.
This might be a good time to highlight some of the main offenders. Unfortunately, the latest available figures for a reasonable period cover September to November last year. There must be a lag to allow a period of reconciling when companies can challenge a complaint. The figures to January this year should be available in the next couple of weeks and I assure my hon. Friend that they will be published and that the statistics will be transparent. When I go through the names from the September to November period last year, one or two names crop up again and again. On an initial reading of the latest figures nothing much seems to have changed in the interim.
The figures show that the three gas companies with the highest number of direct selling complaints per 1,000 transfers were Beacon Gas/Seeboard, npower and

307WH
Cambridge Gas. The three worst offenders per 1,000 transfers were npower, London Electricity/SWEB/ Virgin Energy and Seeboard. Turning to transfer complaints, which include erroneous transfers, the companies with the highest number of complaints about gas per 1,000 transfers were npower, Beacon Gas/ Seeboard, and Cambridge Gas. For electricity, they were npower, Yorkshire Electricity and ScottishPower/Manweb. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that npower appears in all four lists, which is a matter of some public interest.
The power to do something about those malpractices already exists. Consumer law and energy regulation provide a firm basis for all those involved—be they Ofgem, trading standards departments or the police—to take appropriate action against suppliers and salesmen. It is imperative that those powers are used to good effect before we consider additional powers. Anyone who commits forgery in that context is guilty of a criminal offence. I do not see why any police officer or law enforcement agency should decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith suggested, to investigate a prima facie case of forgery.
"Erroneous transfer" is a label that is applied to a range of problems. Essentially, they have two causes. The first is that an error has been made, whether in the information about a consumer's meter or address held by a supplier, or in the transcription of that information. A consumer may then be welcomed to a new supplier, of which he may never have heard. The second is when a salesman has, perhaps on the basis of information acquired in an underhand way, transferred a consumer's supply. Again, the consumer will be welcomed to a new supplier. While the causes of the problem are different, the impact, whether simple inconvenience or actual distress, is very similar. I emphasise that I am referring to erroneous transfers and not the wider problem of high-pressure selling.
I want to go into more detail about the different aspects of erroneous transfers and the responses to them. I shall deal first with transfers that arise from erroneous data or from an administrative mistake by an employee of a supplier. There are millions of gas and electricity meters throughout the country. With that volume of information, which is being called upon extensively, we all accept that errors will occasionally occur. The important point is that when problems arise suppliers should recognise the uncertainty that can be caused to consumers. Erroneous transfer can induce concerns, albeit unfounded, of energy supplies being lost. In such circumstances, companies are obliged to correct the problem quickly and efficiently.
Last year, Ofgem, which regulates supplier performance in this and other areas, took the view that the speed and efficiency that companies were showing was insufficient. That prompted it and Energywatch, the statutory gas and electricity consumer body, to broker a new erroneous transfer customer charter. The charter is designed to enable customers transferred in error to return to their chosen supplier as quickly as possible, with the minimum of inconvenience, and without the companies concerned passing the problem between them. The process should be largely invisible to the consumer, who will be able to obtain, on request, detail
308WH
of the compensation available from those who have caused the inconvenience. I wholeheartedly endorse the charter's objective and content. Time will tell whether the industry will live up the aims of the charter, which came into effect in January. Ofgem will review performance under the charter in the coming months, with a full review taking place in the autumn.
If the industry's performance is unsatisfactory despite the erroneous transfer customer charter, Ofgem will have the option of moving beyond what is in effect a voluntary code and imposing standards of performance on suppliers. Among other things, those could carry requirements for automatic compensation payments to consumers in the event of supplier error. Ofgem could also modify supply licence conditions. The demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will be very much in the frame if we find that the terms of the erroneous transfer customer charter—the voluntary code—are not being met.
I understand that, from 31 December 2002, in addition to the charter, the electricity distribution companies will be implementing a standard address format, which should reduce the incidence of erroneous transfers resulting from the use of inconsistent address formats. That should deal with some of the problems of erroneous transfers at source.
I turn from erroneous transfers arising from reasons that we can all understand to sales malpractice and consumers who find themselves transferred against their wishes through the tactics of sales staff. I am not talking here about high-pressure selling in a more general sense, however distasteful some of us may find that. I am referring to the individuals who ask for information and find that they have agreed a contract, quite without their knowledge and understanding—whether on a form or via the telephone—to those who are, unfortunately, unable to understand what they are being sold, and, in the worst cases, to those whose signatures have been forged. The erroneous transfer charter may help in returning consumers who have been transferred as the result of sales malpractice to their chosen supplier. However, that is not and cannot be the main method of dealing with mis-selling, because it was not designed to address that core problem. It was designed to address the problem of inadvertent and genuinely erroneous transfer, not transfer that is, not to mince words, fraudulent.
Understandably, erroneous transfers arising from mis-selling make individuals very angry. They also make those who represent them— including me—very angry. In such circumstances, there is a tendency to demand more and more legislation to deal with every potential problem that might arise. That is not necessarily the right way to address the problem, because legislation is in place. Sometimes we require emergency legislation, but the circumstances in which that is the case are somewhat removed from those involved in gas and electricity supply. I am not convinced that new legislation would be needed if the existing legislation were implemented, but, again, I leave the door open for that because the statistics that I quoted at the outset are, to me, totally unacceptable.
If what we have at present does not do the job, we must look for something else. The existing instruments are to be found in general consumer law and, I stress, in the specific powers available to Ofgem. They are

309WH
complemented by the scope for Ofgem and Energywatch to broker arrangements with the industry and to spread best practice. Let us be in no doubt that there are a lot of measures at the disposal of Ofgem and in the wider existing law. If those measures do not do the job, however, and if in the future we still see 13,000-plus cases a month giving rise to complaint, I will not countenance that or be held responsible for it.
I am often asked why salesmen cannot be prosecuted for fraud. As I have said, they can be. Under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, a person is guilty of forgery if—I make no apology for using legalese here—he makes a false instrument, intending it to be used to induce another to accept it as genuine and to do some act to another's prejudice.
My understanding is that, for the police or a trading standards department to bring a successful prosecution, it must be shown that the agent has gained a financial advantage at the customer's expense. In the case of energy supply, that is often not the case, because a customer transferring, albeit involuntarily, from an incumbent supplier will ordinarily be better off. In some cases, he or she will not, and that appears to offer scope for prosecution. Similarly, if a supplier has been defrauded by a salesman, it may seek a prosecution; in other words, in cases where a particular provider is the loser when the supply is taken away.
Again, I make the point that there is a range of general consumer law that can be brought to bear against rogue salesmen. In addition, there are further regulations specific to gas and electricity supply. Those take the form of conditions in supply licences and govern sales and marketing of gas and electricity on the doorstep, in the shopping centre and over the telephone. Among other things, they include rules on the selection, training and control of sales staff and the auditing of sales.
We were instrumental in the introduction of protections, known as marketing licence conditions, into gas supply licences, following the problems that accompanied the introduction of domestic gas competition in 1996. They were duly incorporated into electricity supply licences when the domestic electricity market was opened to competition. In 2000, Ofgem extended the conditions for a further two years, and took the opportunity to enhance them during that period, extending them to cover high street and shopping centre sales. Last month, following consultation, it extended them for a further two years.
In the light of responses to that consultation, Ofgem is currently considering how the conditions might be enhanced to make them operate more effectively for consumers. I understand that, for example, Ofgem is considering the practicality of developing a doorstep preference scheme along the lines of the telephone preference service overseen by Oftel. The conditions have two roles; the first is to allow Ofgem to undertake formal action against suppliers, and it has used them in this way. Last month, Ofgem acquired the right to levy financial penalties on companies breaching licence conditions. That will be another weapon in its armoury, and will give the marketing conditions added weight. Away from the glare of public, formal action, the conditions also provide an invaluable, informal method of improving the behaviour of suppliers. Once again, I emphasise the statistics that I quoted from the outset; that behaviour has not improved to a sufficient degree.
310WH
In addition to our encouragement of Ofgem to develop the marketing conditions, we underlined our commitment to assisting energy consumers by using the Utilities Act 2000 to create Energywatch as a vigorous advocate for gas and electricity consumers, and to give Ofgem the new principal objective of protecting consumers.
In tandem with this, we must remember what we as consumers can do to help ourselves. Of course, salesmen should not mislead, but we do not expect a tied salesman to do anything other than sell his product. People have to be on the look out for that. Let us not be surprised if he does not tell us about the range of offers in the market. If we were buying most goods or services, we would do a little research. We would not take the word of a salesman.
One of our objectives in establishing Energywatch was to create an organisation that would not only protect consumers and fight their corner against the industry, but help consumers help themselves, by educating them about the market and making them more demanding of the suppliers. Energywatch can provide comparative data on prices. It can also provide links to websites that make calculations for the individual. We live in an active market. It is important to say that, although the problems are huge, cause a great deal of individual distress—I have no doubt about that—and discredit the workings of the market as a whole, it is important to give perspective to the benefits of the market that operates.
In the period since 1996, that market has become extraordinarily active. About 6.7 million domestic gas consumers—34 per cent. of the total—are no longer with British Gas. About 7.5 million electricity consumers—31 per cent.—are no longer with their local supplier. In the last quarter of 2001, domestic gas and electricity transfers were running at 940,000 per month. That is an astonishing rate of activity, and it shows an astonishing recognition of the benefits that individuals can gain from competition. It puts in perspective, although in no way diminishes, the figure of 13,000-plus complaints that I cited at the outset.
During 2001, Energywatch received 39,000 gas complaints. A total of 43 per cent.—17,000—related to transfers, but not necessarily erroneous transfers. Moreover, 7 per cent.—3,000—related to sales practices. In the case of electricity, there were 37,000 complaints, of which 38 per cent.—14,000 related to transfers and 12 per cent.— 4,000—to sales practices. Again, I emphasise recognition of the numerical scale of the problem. To carry out a quick piece of arithmetic, the idea of 13,000 complaints in one month does not imply to me that the problem is diminishing. It is increasing, and I recognise that.
Earlier this year, Energywatch launched its "Stop Now!" campaign, directed at mis-selling. One result of that will be that, next week, the suppliers will be coming together with Energywatch, Ofgem and the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the problems of mis-selling and to identify solutions. The debate has been very helpful in focusing attention on the issues and statistics that underlie the discussions.

311WH
I end as I began; I believe the figures quoted at the outset to be totally unacceptable. I believe that the individual distress underlying those activities is totally
312WH
unacceptable. I call particularly on the companies that I mentioned earlier to clean up their act before they bring the whole industry into disrepute.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Stadium
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the cost will be of the athletics platform referred to in the Sport England report on athletics in Wembley stadium; and how long it will take to build and install; [55595]

  (2) who produced the Sport England report on athletics in Wembley stadium; when it will be published; and if the members of the Sports Council athletics committee considered the report. [55594]

  Tessa Jowell
  Sport England published the study on Wembley stadium athletics prepared by Sports Concepts and Citex on 8 May. I placed a copy in the Library of the House on the same day. The full council of Sport England considered the conclusions of the report at its meeting on 7 May. The report concludes that the athletics platform will take a total of 11 weeks to build and install and a further six weeks to remove at a total cost of £12.2 million.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when(a) her Department's officials and (b) she received Sport England's report on the technical evaluation of athletics proposals for the national stadium project; and if she will make a statement. [55749]

  Tessa Jowell
  My officials received Sport England's athletics report on 3 May and briefed me on its contents on 7 May ahead of my statement to the House that day. I did not receive a copy of the report until 8 May, immediately prior to its publication. I placed copies in the House Libraries on the same day.

  Ofcom
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons the proposed contents board was not included in the original Bill to set up the Office of Communications; what the composition of the contents board will be; and what the remit of the contents board will be in relation to radio. [56031]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government published a draft of the Communications Bill on 7 May for consultation. This draft Bill includes a proposal to require Ofcom to establish a 'Content Board' which will have the principal function of ensuring that the public interest in the nature and quality of television and radio programmes is sufficiently represented within Ofcom's overall structure.

  The OFCOM Act 2002, which established Ofcom earlier this year, dealt with the basic framework of Ofcom at the main board level and was intended to allow the process of establishing Ofcom as a body to get under way while the substantive Communications Bill, which will give it regulatory responsibilities, is debated. The structure and remit of the content board are best seen in
  634W
  conjunction with Ofcom's functions, in particular the detailed broadcasting functions which are set out in the draft Communications Bill and particularly in relation to broadcast content including radio.

  The structure of the content board is set out clearly in the draft Bill. It will consist of a chairman, who will be a non-executive member of Ofcom (but not the chairman of Ofcom), and as many other members appointed by Ofcom as Ofcom shall think fit. Ofcom is specifically required to ensure that there is a different member of the content board capable of representing the interests and opinions of persons living in each of the nations of the United Kingdom.

  Queen's Jubilee Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Queen's Jubilee medal will be issued to the Royal Parks Constabulary in time for the Jubilee weekend; and if she will make a statement. [55800]

  Tessa Jowell
  In view of the number of medals required for the emergency services—an estimated 185,000—responsible Government Departments have agreed a phased delivery over 12 months in line with the Royal Mint's production capacity. Under current plans, medals for the Royal Parks Constabulary will be delivered in October 2002.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Queen's Jubilee medal will be issued to the qualifying groups that will receive it. [55799]

  Tessa Jowell
  Distribution to the armed forces and to the holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross is due to be completed by the end of 2002. Under current plans, members of the emergency services will receive their medals by 2 June 2003.

  Golden Jubilee
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will seek a financial contribution to public funds from Her Majesty the Queen towards the costs of Jubilee celebrations. [55827]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: No. The Golden Jubilee is an occasion for national celebration of 50 years' service by the Queen.

  Landmark Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answers of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 576W, on landmark projects, when she will write to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South; and if she will make a statement. [56653]

  Tessa Jowell
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 10 April 2002 in my capacity as chair of the Millennium Commission and placed copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses. I am today sending the hon. Member another copy of my letter.

  Digital Television (Audio Description)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures the Government are undertaking to enable the reception of audio description digital terrestrial television programmes. [56641]
  635W
  Dr. Howells
  The Government's role is to set the legislative framework within which audio description and other services for people with sensory impairments can be provided and proposals were included in the recently published draft Communications Bill (Cm 5508–1). We are aware of the current difficulties with the production and distribution of the module necessary to receive audio description services on digital terrestrial television. On 30 April I chaired a constructive meeting with the interested parties which identified a number of ways to help them resolve these issues.

  Piracy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the losses suffered in each of the past five years by the British film, music, retail and rental industries as a result of internet piracy and the production and distribution of illegal copies of film and music; and if she will make a statement. [53440]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Accurate figures for losses due to internet piracy are difficult to gather and distinguish from other misuse of copyright material on the internet. However, a survey carried out by the industry body, the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, which broadly represents British interests, estimated losses of £180 million to cinema and home entertainment and £ million to the music industry in 2000 as a result of piracy generally. We are not aware of any music piracy figures yet for 2001, but industry figures show a 5 per cent. increase in legitimate recorded music sales in the UK in that year. The industry estimates for the years 1997 to 1999 are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Music

  Film

  1997

  18

  100

  1998

  14

  120

  1999

  15

  170

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prefabricated Buildings
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when the prefabricated buildings to the north of the House of Commons adjacent to Bridge street will be removed; and if he will make a statement. [56639]

  Derek Conway
  The temporary buildings on Speaker's green were erected originally for use by the project teams responsible for the new Westminster station and Portcullis house and by the Refreshment Department while their accommodation was being refurbished. Subsequently they have been used by contractors engaged on major projects in the Palace during the summer recesses. They will be used in this way again this summer, after which they will be demolished and the green restored to its former condition.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans (Illness)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans(a) are suffering and (b) have suffered from renal cancers. [50538]

  Dr. Moonie
  Comprehensive data provided by the Office for National Statistics' NHS central register (NHSCR) on cancer registrations in England and Wales are only currently available up to 31 December 1998 and currently up to 31 December 2001 for registrations in Scotland. These data show that up to 31 December 1998 for England and Wales and up to 31 December 2001 for Scotland that seven Gulf veterans have been diagnosed as suffering from renal cancer or malignant neoplasm of the kidney as classified by International Classification of Disease (ICD) 9th Revision code 189.0 and ICD 10th Revision code C64. The Ministry of Defence's Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme had seen a further two veterans with renal cancer as at 13 May 2002. One veteran has, sadly, died. The current health status of the remaining eight veterans is not known to the MOD. The MOD is conducting an analysis of the incidence of all cancers in Gulf veterans with the aim of making the findings available later this year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans(a) are suffering and (b) have suffered from scarring to the (i) kidneys and (ii) liver. [50539]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total number of Gulf veterans who have kidney and or liver scarring could only be established if all Gulf veterans were to undergo medical examination. It is the practice of the Ministry of Defence to examine only those veterans who wish to be examined and are referred by their GP or service medical officer to the Ministry of Defence's Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme (GVMAP). All patients seen at the GVMAP receive abdominal ultrasound examination which can detect kidney and liver scarring. In the absence of other indicators of kidney or liver damage, such scarring is of no clinical significance. Neither is described either in standard medical textbooks or classified by the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revisions. Kidney and liver scarring is therefore an incidental finding, does not cause any suffering and in itself is of no clinical significance in respect of suggestion of a link between ill health and the Gulf conflict. For these reasons, no centralised records are kept of such scarring. However, in a randomly selected anonymised sample of 1,000 patients examined at the GVMAP, one patient had a kidney scar and none had liver scarring. The GVMAP physicians do record kidney and livery damage where the damage is of clinical significance.

  Private Gray
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when civilian authorities were advised of the death of Private Gray in Deep Cut camp on 17 September 2001; who was advised; by whom; and if he will make a statement. [51162]
  637W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 24 April 2002,Official Report, columns 260–61W and 8 May 2002, Official Report, column 179W.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52430]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Executive Officer level

  Administrative level

  Month/Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  June 2001

  Permanent

  8

  7·8

  39

  40·7

  Casual

  -2

  -2·0

  85

  80·3

  Total

  6

  5·8

  124

  121·0

  July 2001

  Permanent

  -5

  -4·4

  86

  82·9

  Casual

  -3

  -1·6

  277

  274·8

  Total

  -8

  -6·0

  363

  357·7

  August 2001

  Permanent

  -28

  -25·7

  41

  40·9

  Casual

  0

  0·0

  70

  71·7

  Total

  -28

  -25·7

  111

  112·6

  September 2001

  Permanent

  6

  5·6

  39

  34·3

  Casual

  5

  5·0

  -269

  -272·0

  Total

  11

  10·6

  -230

  -237·6

  October 2001

  Permanent

  25

  25·8

  124

  119·0

  Casual

  9

  7·5

  20

  18·8

  Total

  34

  33·3

  144

  137·7

  November 2001

  Permanent

  21

  20·3

  78

  70·9

  Casual

  8

  7·5

  45

  42·0

  Total

  29

  27·8

  123

  112·9

  December 2001

  Permanent

  -17

  -15·7

  -8

  -10·7

  Casual

  2

  2·1

  12

  10·0

  Total

  -15

  -13·6

  4

  -0·7

  January 2002

  Permanent

  -11

  -11·8

  -215

  -216·4

  Casual

  6

  6·8

  44

  41·2

  Total

  -5

  5·0

  -171

  -175·2

  February 2002

  Permanent

  4

  5·0

  -78

  -80·4

  Casual

  3

  2·9

  19

  13·9

  Total

  7

  7·9

  -59

  -66·4

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52505]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is fully committed to consulting those children and young people to whom we provide services. For example, Cadet Force 638W
  adult volunteer instructors initiate opportunities to obtain cadets views. The skill force initiative is structured so that participants are required to develop their own learning aims. Still within the MOD, the Service Children Education Agency has instigated in many of its schools "Circle Time". This gives young people the opportunity to express their feelings and concerns and to resolve relationship and behavioural issues.

  The MOD also consults with organisations concerned with young people but the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The MOD is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Young People in November 2001. The MOD will shortly be publishing an action plan setting out for the first time how it will implement these principles to extend the participation of children and young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52723]

  (2) how much has been spent by his Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52716]

  (3) how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52718]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Training in leadership skills is an extremely important part of development activities in the Ministry of Defence, for both military and civilian staff. Its importance—emphasised within the "Modernising Government" initiative—was reflected in the recent defence training review. As a result the defence leadership centre has been established as part of the new defence academy to provide a nationally recognised centre of excellence. In addition, there are many other areas of the MOD where leadership features in both general management and more specific training. The Defence Procurement Agency, for instance, has provided leadership masterclasses and the important new area of smart acquisition has introduced a specific scheme designed to help develop integrated project team leaders.

  I am not aware of any training undertaken by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts on behalf of Ministers or officials.

  The MOD does provide some training in media interview skills, which includes factors such as voice tone and stance. This training is available to all staff and on occasions has been undertaken by Ministers.

  In addition, Ministers are able to take advantage of the "Programmes for Ministers" organised by the centre for management and policy studies (CMPS) in the Cabinet Office.

  Information on costs for leadership or media training is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  639W

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many digital radios are owned by his Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52864]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The information is not held centrally in this format and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I can confirm that no such equipment has been purchased for use in Ministers' offices.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department. stating for each subscription the (i) number of copies taken and (ii) annual cost; [52825]

  (2) if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription the (a) number of copies taken and (b) annual cost. [52826]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding reply 26 April 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [53490]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence fully supports the Government's commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and promoting the use of renewable energy technologies by utilising "through life value for money" renewable energy supply opportunities. The current MOD policy on the development and siting of different kinds of renewable energy generation plant is to assess options on a case-by-case basis.

  No central register is kept of the locations of solar panels installed in or on buildings on the defence estate. However, recently publicised examples include two active solar thermal systems at RM Norton Manor camp, Taunton, and a new "ambient energy" heat pump system at the Works Services office and stores at Royal Marines Condor, Tayside, Scotland. In addition, the Defence Procurement Agency building at Abbey Wood, Bristol, which has been in service for a number of years, makes use of a passive solar thermal system in order to minimise energy consumption.

  Active solar thermal systems are also extensively used on the overseas estate where these are cost effective.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial provision has been made for the training of Territorial Army units in the Greater London area in 2002–03; and if he will list each financial provision. [54631]
  640W
  Dr. Moonie
  The total financial provision made for the training of Territorial Army units in the Greater London area in 2002–2003 is just over £14 million. To list each provision separately could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  C-17s
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the estimated purchase price, (b) the overall contract price to lease the aircraft for five years, (c) the number of original target flying hours in the lease contract, (d) the actual target flying hours used to date, (e) the estimated number of target flying hours for the full five years and (f) the estimated additional cost for exceeding the target flying hours for the C-17s of 99 Squadron; and if he will make a statement. [54646]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: The overall cost of the seven-year lease and all supporting arrangements for the four C-17 aircraft is in the order of £750 million. The detailed lease costs and the underlying aircraft price are commercially sensitive and I am withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  The lease contract does not specify either a target number or a limit on flying hours. However, funding for support of the aircraft was modelled on a total of 3,000 flying hours per full year for the fleet of four aircraft. In the first part year of operations the C-17 fleet exceeded the modelled hours by about 60 per cent. The additional support costs arising from this level of flying were in the order of £4 million. There are no additional lease costs associated with increased levels of flying activity. Future support costs will vary in line with the operational demands made of the aircraft over the lease period.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55104]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: None.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 9W, with reference to paragraph 5.14 of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body 31st report 2002, what estimate has been made of (a) the number and (b) the cost of repeat repairs in (i) single living accommodation and (ii) service family accommodation in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [55270]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Ministry of Defence is making substantial investment in service accommodation. In particular, we are now assessing industry's bids for the single living accommodation modernisation prime contract.
  641W

  Remote Ammunition Facility, Tamar
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the estimated date is of completion of the remote ammunition facility in Tamar; [55806]

  (2) what the estimated cost is of construction of the remote ammunition facility in Tamar. [55805]

  Dr. Moonie
  Work undertaken over the last few years has established that the effects a weapons explosion would have on a submarine and its surroundings is not as extensive as previously thought. This led to a revised safety assessment which has shown that the improvements to safety that RAFT would have provided for submarines can be met through the existing berthing facilities at Devonport naval base. The project has therefore been suspended.

  Some £15 million has been spent over the 10-year life of the project. Further costs relating to the cancellation of planned work may be payable and will be subject to negotiations with the contractor.

  RAF Landing Fees
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what average landing fees were paid by the RAF in respect of aircraft landing at(a) RAF airfields and (b) airfields operated under licence by third parties during the last complete year. [55817]

  Dr. Moonie
  No landing fees are charged for RAF aircraft landing at RAF airfields. In the financial year 2001–02, £2.08 million was authorised for payment for handling and landing in respect of RAF aircraft landing at commercial airports in the United Kingdom and £2.23 million for those services outside the United Kingdom. These costs exclude payments made direct by aircrew at airfields. Costs include handling, navigation, parking and overshoot charges in addition to landing fees. Information on the cost of landing fees alone and payments made by aircrew is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition, landing fees of £0.345 million were charged for RAF aircraft landing at airfields operated by QinetiQ.

  Aircraft Movements (West Freugh)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements were handled by air traffic control at West Freugh airfield in each of the last 10 years. [55818]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following aircraft movements were handled by air traffic control at West Freugh airfield in each of the last 10 years.

  Number

  1992

  6,397

  1993

  9,038

  1994

  6,315

  1995

  7,140

  1996

  7,905

  1997

  11,644

  1998

  11,847

  1999

  8,384

  2000

  5,973

  2001

  3,861

  These figures do not include overflights or range runs.
  642W

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Royal Ordnance. [55786]

  Dr. Moonie
  Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD) is a private company that is wholly owned by BAE Systems. It has been operating against a background of sharp decline in the worldwide demand for defence equipment. The Ministry of Defence is aware that ROD is currently carrying out a manufacturing strategy review to optimise its business such that it will remain viable and competitive in the defence sector. Any decisions that emerge from this review are a commercial matter for the company. ROD has also indicated that it intends to invest substantially in a number of sites across the United Kingdom. The MOD remains confident that ROD will continue to be a major producer of munitions for the United Kingdom armed forces, particularly through the framework partnering agreement that has been established between ROD and the MOD.

  BUTEC and Rona Ranges
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 31W, what his policy is on the inclusion in the arrangements, negotiated with QinetiQ, of guarantees that levels of current provision by the BUTEC and Rona range will be maintained for the full term of the arrangement and that levels of investment will be maintained; and if he will make a statement. [56002]

  Dr. Moonie
  In its negotiations with QinetiQ, the Ministry of Defence will seek to agree the provisions of levels of service which will meet the MOD's requirements for usage of the BUTEC and Rona ranges. The required level of service will be reviewed periodically throughout the life of the contract.

  Armed Forces (Media Interviews)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is issued governing the giving of media interviews by serving members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [55754]

  Dr. Moonie
  Invitations for service personnel to take part in media interviews are usually made by broadcasting and press authorities through official departmental channels. If, however, members of the armed forces are invited directly to take part in radio or television broadcasts, or undertake press interviews, there is guidance in the Queen's Regulations that instructs personnel on how to report the approach, and if the interview is sanctioned, guidance about the handling of the interview and not being drawn on any policy issue which is, or may become, a matter of controversy between political parties.

  Army Horses
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Army's policy is on the tethering of horses; and if he will make a statement. [55877]
  643W
  Dr. Moonie
  The tethering or 'picketing' of horses is the military method of tying horses to a rope or peg in the open in order to prevent injury. The recommended method is to use a single long rope, stretched along the ground, or preferably suspended 3 to 4 ft high, to which each horse is separately tied with a head rope. Heel ropes tied to pegs may also be used in order to prevent a horse kicking the next horse. Details of the preferred methods to he used are laid out in the "Manual of Horsemanship, Equitation and Animal Transport" (WO Code 7193, 1937) and "Animal Management" (HMSO 1956).

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement concerning flexible retirement dates for his Department's civilian personnel. [56409]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has completed its review of age retirement policy. The conclusions are being considered and we shall make an announcement about them in the coming weeks.

  Wind Farms
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many wind farm proposals his Department has opposed in the last three years; and where those proposals were situated. [56413]

  Dr. Moonie
  Of the 506 proposals received during the last three years. the Ministry of Defence has objected to a total of 238. There have been a greater number of objections within the three tactical training areas (in central Wales, north Scotland and the border region of northern England/southern Scotland), but out of these areas there is no set pattern as to where the objections lie.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which areas are unsuitable for the building of wind farms because of the effect on radar and low-flying aircraft. [56415]

  Dr. Moonie
  All wind farm proposals are considered individually by the Ministry of Defence, on a case-by-case basis, which examines their potential effects on our ability to train pilots safely and on operational capabilities.

  In some circumstances wind turbines have the potential adversely to affect radar and other communications depending on their position in relation to particular installations. Research is currently under way with the Department of Trade and Industry to address this issue.

  The presence of wind turbines in most areas of the United Kingdom would present no difficulty to low flying aircraft because these and other naturally tall structures are taken into account as part of route planning.

  The United Kingdom has three specially designated tactical training areas (TTA) that are available for authorised military operational low flying training.

  The three TTAs are located in central Wales, north Scotland and the border region of northern England/ southern Scotland. Within these areas military fast jets may operate down to a height of 100 ft separation distance and a proliferation of obstacles could negate the value of the training. Units also make use of these areas for
  644W
  specialised night training. In these areas wind farm developments may compromise flight safety to an unacceptable level.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harriers have been equipped with JTIDS; and at what cost. [56198]

  Dr. Moonie
  JTIDS has been fitted to three Sea Harrier aircraft. Two of these are development aircraft operated by BAE Systems. The costs are currently the subject of negotiation with contractors and I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Bowman System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when operational field trials of the Bowman system will commence. [56197]

  Dr. Moonie
  Operational field trials of the Bowman system are due to begin in November 2003 at battalion level. The battalion and additional elements of the first brigade to be converted will then conduct a further operational field trial in March 2004, which will determine whether the Bowman system can be accepted into service. A final field trial, at brigade level, is planned for August/September 2004.

  Airborne Stand-off Radar
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the ASTOR programme; and when each of the five aircraft will be delivered to the RAF. [56199]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ASTOR programme is currently on course to meet its planned in-service date of September 2005. The first global express aircraft, which will be the platform for the airborne element of the ASTOR system, is now with the aircraft systems integrator. Following systems integration, aircraft deliveries to the RAF are scheduled to take place in 2004, 2005, 2006 (two aircraft) and 2007.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bids have been received for the sale of an equity share in QinetiQ; and what proportion of the equity is proposed for sale. [56637]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 14W, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Initial bids for the sale of an equity share in QinetiQ are due to be received on 20 May.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whom he has appointed as non-executive chair of QinetiQ; and what other interests the person has. [56625]

  Dr. Moonie
  As announced on 8 May in a QinetiQ press release about Sir John Egan's decision to step down, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has been appointed as the chairman of QinetiQ, having previously been the senior non-Executive Director. Dame Pauline has worked extensively in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
  645W
  has been chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. She is currently a BBC governor, with special responsibility for the World Service, and chairman of the Information Assurance Advisory Council. She also is a member of the Council of City University and hon. treasurer of the charity Refuge. The change of chairman will not affect the transaction timetable, which remains on track.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the bids for an equity share in QinetiQ will be judged against(a) commercial, (b) industrial and (c) strategic considerations; and if he will make a statement. [56638]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. As with all competitive bidding processes, the Ministry of Defence seeks to take into account all relevant factors, including commercial, industrial and strategic, when assessing competitive bids to ensure that the MOD meets its objectives and obtains the best value for money.

  Pregnant Service Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) RAF are pregnant; what rules and regulations govern the treatment and deployments of pregnant service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [56172]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 May. 354 members of the Army, 93 of the Royal Navy and 223 of the Royal Air Force had notified pregnancy or were on maternity leave. The rules governing maternity arrangements for servicewomen in the regular Armed Forces are contained within Defence Council Instructions and other service publications. Upon notification of pregnancy, restrictions may be placed upon a servicewoman's employment to ensure that the services can fulfil their legal obligations and responsibilities for her health and safety and that of her unborn child and to preserve operational effectiveness. For example, aircrew will not be permitted to continue their flying duties once pregnancy is confirmed, servicewomen on operations will be withdrawn, and women serving in ships will be landed at the earliest convenient opportunity.

  Army Land rovers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who manufactures the engines for the 200 series Army Landrovers; and where they are based. [55723]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The 200 Series Landrover is not a recognised variant of the military fleet. However, all military Landrover engines are

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts under the Education Act 1996 England and Wales 1997–20001,2

  Offence description

  Statute

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Permitting child to be in verminous condition

  Education Act 1996 sec. 525

  1997

  —

  —

  (Consolidated Act 1994–96)

  1998

  —

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  12000

  1

  1

  646W
  manufactured by Landrover at their manufacturing facility in Solihull. Landrover also has a military sales/service facility at Warwick.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) her Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54702]

  Estelle Morris
  An estimate of the cost to my Department of cases involving fraud and corruption for the years in question is as follows:

  £000

  Vote 1

  Vote 2

  1999–2000

  4,548

  52

  2000–01

  17,327

  386

  Total

  21,875

  438

  The Vote 1 figure for 2000–01 includes one specific direct contractor fraud valued at £7.9 million. The figures represent 0.07 per cent. of the total Vote 1 spend and 0.006 per cent. of the total Vote 2 spend over the two years.

  Education Act
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 7 May 2002, ref 53890, how many prosecutions have taken place for offences under the Education Act 1996 in each year since 1997; and what those offences were. [55602]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Under the Education Act 1996 the following are guilty of an offence and liable for prosecution:

  (1) The parent of a child who has been "cleansed" under s522 but is again "infested" or in "a foul condition" is guilty of an offence (section 525);

  (2) A parent or the employer of a child, who is a registered pupil, where that child is employed in contravention of a notice issued by the LEA either prohibiting his employment or imposing restrictions upon his employment (section 559);

  (3) The parent of a registered pupil at a school who fails to attend regularly (section 444);

  (4) Any person who is on school property without lawful authority and while there causes a disturbance or nuisance (section 457);

  (5) A parent who fails to comply with the requirement of a notice to have a child medically examined (section 506);

  (6) A parent who fails to comply with a notice requiring a child's attendance at an exam (paragraph 5(1) Schedule 26). Information on prosecutions provided by the Home Office for the years 1997 to 2000 is as follows:

  647W

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts under the Education Act 1996 England and Wales 1997–20001,2

  Offence description

  Statute

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Employment of children or young persons

  Education Act 1996

  1997

  1

  1

  (Consolidated Act 1994–96)

  1998

  3

  3

  1999

  1

  1

  12000

  4

  2

  Other offences under Education Act 1996

  Education Act 1996

  1997

  4,204

  3,623

  (that cannot be separately classified)

  (Consolidated Act 1994–96)

  1998

  5,601

  4,872

  1999

  5,610

  4,852

  12000

  5,668

  4,773

  1Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  2These data are on a principal offence basis.

  Source:

  Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Home Office

  Standard Assessment Test
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the impact on SAT results of greater inclusion in mainstream schools. [55187]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has not made any formal assessment of the impact on the key stage tests of greater inclusion in mainstream schools.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the funding of further education colleges in England over the next five years. [56169]

  John Healey
  Funding from 2003–04 to 2005–06 is the subject of the current spending review in which we will be considering the resources available to deliver the Government's ambitions for further education in 2003–04 and beyond. The Government are making a massive investment in further education. By next year funding for FE will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997 on current plans.

  Funding Awards
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what efficiency gains have been factored into funding awards proposed for(a) further education colleges, (b) sixth-form colleges and (c) schools with a sixth form in England in each of the next five years. [56165]

  John Healey
  We are examining spending plans from 2003–04 until 2005–06 as part of the current spending review. We must await the outcome of this review before committing funds to specific areas of education.

  Applied Science and Technology
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies for academic staff teaching applied science and technology subjects at(a) further education colleges, (b) sixth-form colleges and (c) sixth-forms in schools there were in England broken down by region, at the beginning of each academic year since 1997. [56164]
  648W
  John Healey
  The Department does not collect the specific information requested.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the median salary for the academic staff teaching applied science and technology subjects was in England, broken down by region at(a) further education colleges, (b) sixth-form colleges and (c) schools with a sixth form in each year since 1997. [56167]

  John Healey
  The Department does not collect this information. Further education sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992. There is no nationally agreed pay scale in the general FE sector. Colleges determine their own staff pay policies and salaries will, therefore, vary from college to college. Salary information is not available for teachers in school sixth forms.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what capital investment her Department is making in prisoners' education; and if she will make a statement.[57251]

  John Healey
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that £20 million capital modernisation funding will be provided over the next two years to develop and modernise prison education and training through the "Learning to Earning" project. Finding prisoners suitable employment plays a key role in helping them resettle into society. This project will improve dramatically opportunities for prisoners to acquire skills and knowledge that will equip them for jobs on release, and so reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Throckmorton Carcase Disposal Site
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the requests made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire for a meeting to discuss compensation for the residents adjacent to the Throckmorton carcase disposal site. [4446]
  649W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: I regret that this reply has been delayed pending consideration of meetings between officials and residents. I am aware of the interest of the hon. Member in this issue, and will be writing to him shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire will receive a reply to his letter of 12 November, as acknowledged on 16 November, reference 162094. [28503]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 13 May 2002 under reference 168207.

  Technetium-99
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the costs of(a) introducing technetium-99 abatement technology and (b) storage facilities in order to reduce Sellafield's discharges to 10 terabecquerels per year: and if she will make a statement. [40496]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have not carried out any separate cost assessment of their own. They have before them the cost assessment carried out by the Environment Agency, as set out in the agency's proposed decision published in September 2001. The agency's document sets out in some detail considerations of costs for the various technetium-99 abatement techniques that have been considered, and for a range of schemes to partially or fully replace the B211 facility where medium active concentrate (MAC), containing technetium-99, is stored. Costs are given both as undiscounted costs and present value costs, and they are further broken down into capital, operating and decommissioning costs. Where appropriate, the costs of combining abatement techniques with each other and with new storage facilities are also considered.

  The undiscounted cost of introducing so-called "TPP abatement" would be in the order of £3 million, whereas "MAC Diversion" costs would be in the range £14V90 million. The so-called "end of pipe" abatement techniques that have been identified by BNFL are estimated to cost in the range of 76£256 million. Replacement of the B211 storage facility to include replacement of the current MAC storage capacity would cost in the order of £450 million. BNFL are also assessing options for refurbishing the B211 facility, which would be notably cheaper.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 926–27W, 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
  650W
  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. [41511]

  Mr. Morley
  Only one person has been prosecuted for stealing equipment from the Department since May 1997. He pleaded guilty at Horseferry Road magistrates court on 4 March 2002 to 10 offences of theft of departmental property. He received 80 hours community punishment concurrent on each offence and was ordered to pay £442.48 compensation. The prosecution's claim for investigative and prosecution costs of £500 was not granted by the sentencing court. No stolen items were recovered.

  Ambient Noise Strategy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the targets are for her Department's ambient noise strategy. [46991]

  Mr. Meacher
  The proposal to develop a national ambient noise strategy was announced in the Rural White Paper in November 2000. The consultation on the development of such a strategy—"Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy"—closed on the 15 March this year and the results of the consultation are currently being considered and may result in changes to our approach. However, currently it would only be at a later stage that the introduction of targets (if any) would be considered.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03 [50419]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest estimate of the pay increases for 2001–02 for the department and its agencies is as follows:

  £000

  Core DEFRA

  17,699

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  542

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  703

  Rural Payments Agency

  3,738

  Central Science Laboratory (CSL)

  700

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)

  620

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)

  1,693

  Notes:

  1. These figures include earnings related national insurance contribution and superannuation liability.

  2. Under the terms of their respective framework agreements, the chief executives of three of DEFRA's executive agencies (CSL, VLA, CEFAS) have delegated responsibility for pay arrangements for staff below senior civil service level.

  The pay increase for 2002–03 has not been agreed yet and no estimate can be provided.

  The information for non-departmental public bodies is not available. It will be published in their annual reports and accounts in due course. These are laid before Parliament each year and copies deposited in the Library of the House.
  651W

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the written questions asked of her between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f)1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if she will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54090]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 949W.

  4,372 (97 per cent.) of the 4,500 written questions tabled up to 30 April this Session, have received a substantive reply. 40 questions (1 per cent.) tabled in April have not been answered, and are not overdue. However, the remaining 88 questions (2 per cent.) have yet to receive a substantive reply, and we are actively seeking to provide Members with replies to these shortly.

  Public Liability Cover
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the cessation of public liability cover for local community groups; if she will provide a grant to BTCV to cover its public liability costs; and if she will make a statement. [R] [54735]

  Alun Michael
  Further to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 662W, I have replied to Tom Flood, chief executive of the BTCV, expressing my concern about the difficulty in obtaining public liability insurance for BTCV's associated local community groups. I have also discussed the issue with the chief executive of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, who has offered to discuss with BTCV what might be done.

  I understand that there is a general issue about the availability and cost of public liability insurance cover for voluntary organisations which goes beyond DEFRA's remit. However I have told BTCV and NCVO that I would be very willing to work with colleagues in so far as there are issues for DEFRA. To assist with this process I have raised the issue with ministerial colleagues. I have also suggested that a meeting with representatives of the insurance industry might be helpful.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been introduced since 1997 to reduce the amount of poisonous fumes people breathe in, with specific reference to those in urban areas. [55403]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policies on improving air quality are set out in detail in "Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and 652W
  Northern Ireland", published in January 2000. The strategy explains the measures that are in place to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants from all sectors, including road transport and industry. Copies are available via the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ airquality.

  Air quality in urban areas has improved significantly over the last decade, as a result largely of the progressively tighter European Union standards for new vehicles and fuels, and of the continuing reduction in total emissions from industry. The air quality headline indicator, published annually, shows that the average number of days of moderate or poor air quality in urban areas of the UK has reduced from 59 days in 1993 to 21 days in 2001.

  Marine Environment
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of how the production of an integrated assessment of the state of the seas, as proposed in the Government's first marine stewardship report, will contribute to the conservation of the marine environment. [56045]

  Mr. Meacher
  An integrated assessment of the state of our seas will enable us to gain a better overview of the competing pressures on the marine environment and the full range of impacts. This will help us target our actions to achieve improved conservation and sustainable development. The assessment will also provide a yardstick against which we can measure our progress. The report will be available in 2004.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken in the Government's marine stewardship reports to balance social, economic and environmental interests in the marine environment; and if she will make a statement. [55185]

  Mr. Meacher
  The first marine stewardship report reflects the principles of sustainable development, integrated management, the conservation of biological diversity, robust science, the precautionary principle and stakeholder involvement. We have adopted an ecosystem-based approach to integrate better marine protection objectives with sustainable social and economic goals.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent guidelines have been introduced to monitor pesticides on vegetables and fruit. [55193]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government conduct an annual pesticide residues surveillance programme for fruit and vegetables and other produce. This programme is overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). The PRC advises Ministers and the chief executives of the Food Standards Agency and the Pesticides Safety Directorate on pesticide residues in foods.
  653W
  Typically around 4,000 food samples are tested each year for a range of pesticide residues at a cost of £2.2 million. The objectives of the programme are threefold:
  To back up the statutory approvals process for pesticides by checking that no unexpected residues are occurring;To check that residues do not exceed statutory maximum residue levels (MRLs);To check that human dietary intakes of residues are within acceptable levels.
  Most samples tested currently are collected from retail outlets. Sampling is biased towards samples that are more likely to contain residues.

  The scope of each year's programme and details of the samples analysed under the surveillance programme can be found on the PRC's website. The 2002 programme is on the website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/ PRC/prc.htm. The 2003 programme is currently being developed by the Committee.

  The Department of Health also undertakes a similar monitoring programme for produce distributed to children under the national school fruit scheme. Details of the results from testing will shortly appear on the PRC's website.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of pesticide sprayed in each of the last five years on UK fields. [56019]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: DEFRA surveys indicate that the following quantities of agricultural pesticides were used in each year since 1996. The corresponding figure for 2001 is not yet available.

  Tonnes of active ingredient

  1996

  34,115

  1997

  34,021

  1998

  33,680

  1999

  33,826

  2000

  30,930

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farms taking part in the countryside stewardship scheme staff from the(a) Rural Payments Agency and (b) Rural Development Service visit after the first year of taking part in the scheme; and how regularly individual farms have been visited by the agency. [55295]

  Mr. Morley
  Staff from the Rural Payments Agency carry out compliance monitoring inspections of countryside stewardship scheme agreements in accordance with EU and our own audit requirements. EU rules require at least 5 per cent. of agreements to be inspected each year. The agreements to he visited are selected using risk-based criteria, which are not specifically related to the year of the agreement.

  The programme of care and maintenance visits operated by technical staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service currently aims to cover around 20 per cent. of
  654W
  agreements each year, including the visits scheduled for the first year of an agreement. More frequent visits may take place as circumstances require.

  Forestry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Forest Enterprise procurement procedures for forestry harvesting and transport equipment. [55819]

  Mr. Morley
  Forest Enterprise procurement procedures for forestry harvesting and transport equipment follow HM Treasury guidelines and EU regulations and directives.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value is of contracts awarded by Forest Enterprise to Mechanical Engineering Services in each of the last three years. [55814]

  Mr. Morley
  Mechanical Engineering Services is part of the Forestry Commission's Forest Enterprise Agency. It is responsible for supplying and maintaining the agency's fleet of machinery and vehicles. There is, therefore, no requirement for a contractual relationship. However, the value of this service to Forest Enterprise for the last three years has been £15.7 million (2001–02), £15.6 million (2000–01) and £15.7 million (1999–2000).

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place for ensuring fair competition for contracts issued by Forest Enterprise. [55820]

  Mr. Morley
  Forest Enterprise follows HM Treasury guidelines and EU regulations and directives when letting contracts.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place in Forest Enterprise for ensuring best value in(a) procuring and (b) disposing of forestry capital equipment contracts. [55815]

  Mr. Morley
  Forest Enterprise follows HM Treasury guidelines which are designed to ensure best value for use of public funds. The procurement of forestry capital equipment is subject to European Union procurement directives, and Forest Enterprise requirements are therefore advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Disposal of forestry capital equipment is carried out by open tender and public auction.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vehicles operated by Forest Enterprise are(a) cars and vans and (b) other forestry vehicles; and how many are obliged to have a valid current tax disc. [55813]

  Mr. Morley
  Forest Enterprise currently operates 1,718 cars and vans and 320 other forestry vehicles. Most of these vehicles (1,852) are used exclusively in the service of the Crown and hence are exempt from vehicle excise duty under section 183 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The remainder (186 cars) are subject to vehicle excise duty due to an element of private use for which each user makes a payment.
  655W

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to call upon further agrimonetary compensation to compensate dairy farmers for a fall in milk prices. [55824]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 2 May 2002.

  Director-General, Fisheries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the removal from role of the Director-General, Fisheries. [55694]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission is responsible for senior staffing within the Commission services. The Commission announced changes affecting 13 senior staff on 24 April. The post of Director-General of Fisheries Policy is being advertised within the Commission. The present director-general remains in post pending the new appointment.

  Recovery and recycling carried out in 2001(UK)

  UK re-processing (1)

  Exported for re-processing (2)

  Re-processing for which no PRN/PERN issued (incl. in (1) (3)

  PRN/PERN carried forward to 2002 (4)

  Tonnes accepted for recovery and recycling, UK (5)

  Paper

  1,851,505

  179,439

  25,895

  83,064

  2,030,944

  Glass

  696,578

  39,016

  17,036

  29,273

  735,594

  Aluminium

  25,869

  3,161

  1

  821

  29,030

  Steel

  141,343

  136,736

  3,051

  8,365

  278,079

  Plastic

  203,149

  66,813

  6,077

  10,506

  269,962

  Wood

  573,951

  —

  4,985

  23,742

  573,951

  Alt. evidence

  30,741

  —

  —

  —

  30,741

  Total recycling

  3,523,136

  425,165

  57,045

  155,771

  3,948,301

  Efw

  513,939

  —

  913

  24,986

  513,939

  Total

  4,037,075

  425,165

  57,958

  180,757

  4,462,240

  Article 6(1) of the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste 94/62/EC set the following targets:

  Between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. recovery

  Between 25 per cent. 45 per cent. recycling

  15 per cent. recycling of each material.

  The UK performance against the targets is shown in the table.

  UK performance against 2001 directive targets

  Percentage

  Material

  Target

  Performance

  Paper

  15

  53

  Glass

  15

  33

  Aluminium

  15

  124

  Steel

  15

  137

  Plastic

  15

  16

  Wood

  15

  57

  Total recovery

  50 to 65

  47.9

  Total recycling

  25 to 45

  42

  1 Metals 35 per cent.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) and parallel legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
  656W

  Deer
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to amend Schedule 2 of the Deer Act 1991 to permit the use of a rifle of a calibre less than 240 inches for the safe and humane killing of static injured deer. [56332]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: We have no current proposals to amend the Deer Act 1991.

  Packaging Waste
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the United Kingdom's performance was in 2001 against the recovery and recycling targets in the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste; and if she will make a statement. [57136]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK narrowly failed to meet the overall packaging waste recovery target in 2001 but met the overall recycling target and the material-specific recycling targets for all materials

  The recovery and recycling of packaging waste carried out in 2001 is as shown in the table.

  Recovery and recycling carried out in 2001 (UK)

  implement these targets in the UK. The regulations place recovery and recycling obligations on producers to enable the UK to attain the directive recovery and recycling targets. The Scottish Environment protection Agency and the Environment Agency have reported that one compliance scheme and a number of individually registered businesses failed to meet their tonnage recovery obligations under the packaging regulations—a total shortfall of 263,832 tonnes against a combined total obligation of 823,003 tonnes.

  New Forest Offical Verderer
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the appointment of the Official Verderer for the New Forest. [54913]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect Her Majesty the Queen to make this appointment very soon.

  Fishing Industry
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she
  657W
  has made in negotiating a derogation for the UK inshore fishing fleet, comparable to the Norwegian derogation, from this year's increase in fixed mesh sizes. [56127]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission has asked Norway to confirm that it has exempted its inshore fleet from the increase in fixed fishing gear mesh sizes but has not yet received a response. We will continue to press the Commission for a similar derogation.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will calculate the number of ewes with lambs at foot slaughtered under(a) disease control restrictions and (b) the livestock welfare disposal scheme during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [35537]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to calculate the number of ewes with lambs at foot slaughtered either for disease control purposes or under the livestock welfare disposal scheme because lambs at foot have not been recorded separately. For the purposes of disease control it is only necessary to record animals by species ie cattle, sheep, pigs goats, deer and other. Lambs at foot have therefore simply been included in the sheep category.

  We are aware that to date not all the lambs at foot, slaughtered for disease control purposes, have been included in the figures on DEFRA's disease control system database (DCS). In the early stages of the outbreak, in line with normal husbandry practice, a number of ewes with lambs at foot were recorded as one unit (ie one animal). It was quickly recognised that each animal should be separately recorded and, as staff resources became available, an exercise to amend the DCS began.

  This exercise is now well under way and many of the lambs at foot are already reflected in the total slaughter figure of around 4 million for disease control purposes. Information describing this exercise has been on the DEFRA website for some time, where it is also noted that the data on the DCS are being validated and may result in figures being revised.

  Slaughtering under the livestock welfare disposal scheme took place at abattoirs and it was consequently more likely that lambs at foot were recorded in the slaughter figures. These figures are therefore very unlikely to change.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 11 June 2001 from Mrs. M. Edmunds of Low Lorton, Cumbria concerning foot and mouth disease. [43039]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not received a reply to his letter, but we are unable to trace it.

  I appreciate that my hon. Friend's constituent will be disappointed at not receiving a reply, and suggest, if a reply is still needed, that my hon. Friend sends us another copy of her letter so that we can provide an answer.
  658W

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many heating installations undertaken by(a) TXU Warm Front Ltd. and (b) Eaga Partnership were completed in each of the last four quarters for which information is available; what proportion were found to be (i) unsafe and (ii) requiring remedial work; and what was the (A) average and (B) longest wait for remedial work to be completed. [43568]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The number of electric and gas heating installations carried out for each quarter of 2001 were:

  Quarter

  TXU

  Eaga

  Total

  1

  2,715

  8,112

  10,827

  2

  5,131

  12,574

  17,705

  3

  5,287

  11,513

  16,800

  4

  5,907

  15,567

  21,474

  The number and percentage of inspected installations found to be unsafe and those requiring remedial work during each quarter in that period

  Remedial work required

  Quarter

  Number inspected

  Of which unsafe

  Number

  Percentage

  TXU

  1

  384

  1

  92

  24

  2

  950

  1

  128

  13

  3

  1,696

  7

  180

  11

  4

  1,379

  5

  136

  10

  Eaga

  1

  4,158

  1

  544

  13

  2

  4,260

  1

  513

  12

  3

  7,152

  4

  1,023

  14

  4

  9,927

  2

  1,238

  13

  All gas fired central heating installations are subject to inspection after installation. A percentage of other installations are also subject to inspection.

  Those jobs identified as requiring remedial work were deemed to have failed on inspection.

  Information on waiting times for remedial works to be carried out is not available in this format.

  Chinese Honey
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) chloramphenicol and (b) streptomycin have been found in Chinese honey imported by the UK. [42495]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following regulatory action by the European Commission on products of animal origin from China, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) immediately began testing some products of animal origin already in the United Kingdom and as a result called for the withdrawal of jars of Chinese and blended honey on sale in the UK to ensure consumers are protected.

  Both streptomycin and chloramphenicol (antibiotics) were found in samples of Chinese and blended honey. The FSA published the results of this analysis in two press releases: 'Tests on Chinese and blended honey show

  659W
  traces of illegal residue of veterinary drug', which was issued on 6 February 2002, and 'Tests on Chinese and blended honey show further illegal drug residue' which was issued on 19 February 2002. Illegal residues of chloramphenicol were also found in samples of another bee product, royal jelly, at similar levels as those found in honey. The FSA again called for the withdrawal of Chinese and other royal jelly products which did not meet legal requirements. The main known risk from chloramphenicol relates to aplastic anaemia, a rare but serious blood disorder in susceptible individuals. The FSA, on the advice of expert toxicologists, has concluded that overall the levels of this antibiotic in honey pose an extremely small risk to public health. The streptomycin found was not considered to be of toxicological concern.

  The FSA's advice to the consumer is that, given the extremely small risk, people can continue to eat any honey they have already bought, irrespective of country of origin. This advice also applies to other foods that contain honey, where the risk is even lower. Given the low risk, consumers were not advised against the consumption of royal jelly.

  Full details have been published on the FSA website, www.food.gov.uk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis the targets under the packaging waste directive were established for(a) plastics, (b) aluminium, (c) steel, (d) glass and (e) paper. [52610]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: As part of the current proposed revision of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the Commission has proposed differentiated material specific targets to be met in 2006. These were largely based on work carried out by the environmental consultants RDC/Pira, which looked at the costs and benefits of recycling each material in order to obtain optimum recycling ranges.

  The draft proposal and RDC/Pira report are available on the Commission's website.

  Export Credit Guarantees Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which companies the Export Credit Guarantees Department has paid moneys as part of its credit guarantees to that company in each of the last five years; in each case,(a) how much was paid, (b) what the project was against which the guarantee had been made and (c) which country had defaulted on its contractual arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [54360]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: This question cannot be answered except at disproportionate cost. However, for each of the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 I have provided a list of the companies that ECGD paid claims to. I have also provided a list of the host countries of the defaulting buyers in each of these years and for these countries, the total claims paid in each industrial sector. I have placed a copy of the list in the Libraries of the House.
  660W
  Figures for 2001–02 have not been provided as these have not yet been audited.

  Career Packages (R and D)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve the career packages offered to scientists and engineers working in research and development; and if she will make a statement on the recommendations in Sir Gareth Roberts' review, "SET for success", concerning the tackling of recruitment and retention problems. [56053]

  Ms Hewitt
  The career packages offered to scientists and engineers working in research and development are a matter for the employer. The Roberts' review's report "SET for success" identified a clear need for employers to improve the attractiveness of careers in R and D in order to compete effectively for talented staff.

  In 1997 the Research Careers Initiative (RCI) was established to focus on the policy dimension of improving the career management and development of research careers in the UK. The RCI identifies, encourages and disseminates good practice in the career management and development of contract research staff.

  More recently, Sir Gareth Roberts recommended that higher education institutions, as employers of scientists and engineers, should ensure that postdoctoral researchers have clear career development plans and access to training, and that researchers and academics should be better paid. He further recommended that R and D businesses should also offer improved career packages to attract the best science and engineering graduates and postgraduates that the UK has to offer.

  "SET for success" recommended that businesses must review their recruitment mechanisms, the salaries offered to researchers, their career structure (including levels of responsibility and opportunities to progress), and the training and continued professional development opportunities that they make available. Sir Gareth also recommended that a group of R and D employers should monitor employers' progress in rising to these challenges.

  The Government are formulating a response to the Roberts review, in tandem with the current spending review, and a statement on how the Government will be taking forward the recommendations will be made in due course.

  "SET for success" is available electronically at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Roberts.

  Council of Ministers (UK Delegation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 21 May and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective pre-Council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [55997]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I shall represent the UK at the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council on 21 May. Pre-Council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament is a matter for that Parliament and for the Scottish Executive. Council
  661
  agendas are sent to Scottish Executive officials as are the letters circulated by my officials setting out the prospects for each council meeting. They stand ready to provide other information in line with the provisions of the concordat.

  Productivity
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets her Department uses to measure productivity in the UK(a) for year on year growth, (b) in comparison with other EU countries and (c) in comparison with other G7 countries
  [55903]

  Ms Hewitt
  The joint DTI/HM Treasury PSA target is to improve UK competitiveness by narrowing the productivity gap with the US, France, Germany and Japan over the economic cycle. The method for measuring this target is set out in 'Public Service Agreement 2001–04 Technical Notes', which is available from DTI's website
  http://www.dti.gov.uk/about/spendingreview/ psatechnicalnotes.htm.

  Budget
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from businesses regarding the 2002 Budget statement; and if she will make a statement. [55908]

  Ms Hewitt
  As with all other Budgets, I have received a number of representations, for which I am grateful, from businesses and their representative bodies since the 2002 Budget statement.

  Many welcomed the Budget announcements on enterprise, including cuts in corporation tax and capital gains tax, the proposed new training tax credit and the R and D tax credit for large companies, which complements the tax credit already available for smaller companies. I am also aware of business concerns about the Government's decision on employers' national insurance contributions. But there is widespread recognition in the country of the need for more investment—and reform—in our system of healthcare.

  Rail Freight (Channel Tunnel)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will support the complaint made by EWS to the European Commission relating to France and the treaty of Rome free movement of goods provisions in relation to the movement of rail freight through the channel tunnel. [56030]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission has already invoked the Free Movement of Goods Regulation in this case. We remain in close contact with the Commission and France about the action that is required by the French authorities to enable normal rail freight services through the channel tunnel to resume. Representations to the Commission from affected businesses will help underline the need for this action.

  UK Competitiveness
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has 662W
  received from businesses regarding the competitiveness of the UK in comparison to (a) EU countries and (b) G7 nations. [55909]

  Ms Hewitt
  Benchmarking the UK's performance against the world's leading economies including other EU and G7 nations is frequently part of the discussions my Department has in its work with consumers, employees and business to drive up productivity and competitiveness.

  Franchises
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what EU block exemption is available for franchises between 1990 and 2000; and whether this block exemption contains definitions for franchise, franchisee agreement and master franchise agreement; and if she will make a statement. [56439]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Until 31 May 2000, Commission Regulation 4087–88 provided the block exemption for franchising. This regulation contained definitions of franchise and master franchise agreement. With effect from 1 June 2000 (subject to transitional arrangements), Regulation 4087–88 was replaced by Commission Regulation 2790–99, which covers all types of vertical agreements, including franchising. Regulation 2790–99 contains no definitions of franchise, franchisee agreement or master franchise agreement, but the accompanying administrative guidelines (ref: 99/C 270–42, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. C270 of 24 September 1999) on the regulation contain a definition of franchise agreements.

  Wind Farms
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many wind farm proposals her Department has opposed on the basis of advice from the Ministry of Defence in the last five years; and where those proposals were situated. [56412]

  Mr. Wilson
  Consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a 80 MW wind farm at Kielder in Northumberland was refused after an objection by the Ministry of Defence. Wind farms with a capacity of 50 MW or less are considered by the relevant planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of consumers about future legislation relating to the electricity supply industry. [55044]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Following the passage of the Utilities Act 2000, the Government have no plans for primary legislation relating to the electricity supply industry. Secondary legislation relating to such supply is introduced as appropriate, both by DTI and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. Proposals for such legislation are subject to consultation with interested parties, including consumers' representatives.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days of sick leave were taken in her
  663W
  Department last year; how many related to employees suffering (a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to her Department. [56473]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 May
  2002]: The average number of staff days lost per staff year through sickness absence in the DTI Group in 2000 (the most recent figure available) was 7.5. The figure is taken from the annual report on public sector sick absence commissioned by the Cabinet Office each year. The DTI Group, in addition to DTI HQ, consists of: ACAS, Companies House, Patent Office, Insolvency Service, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Employment Tribunals Service, and the Radiocommunications Agency.

  In answer to the second part of the question, both parts (a) and (b), the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The DTI is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence generally (as contained in our published service delivery agreements), and has a commitment to reducing working days lost due to work-related injuries and illness arising from the Government's revitalising health and safety initiative.

  East of England Development Agency
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the composition is of the board of the East of England Development Agency; and on what basis each member was appointed. [56547]

  Alan Johnson
  The following members make up the board of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA):

  Vincent Watts (Chair)

  Alan Cherry

  Greg Grant

  Peter Martin

  Richard Powell

  Neville Reyner

  Marie Skinner

  Ruth Bagnall

  Sal Brinton

  Marco Cereste

  Leo Murray

  Chris Paveley

  Yasmin Shariff

  Roger Ali.

  The board is currently carrying a vacancy.

  Appointments to the boards of all the RDAs are made in accordance with the Code of Practice set out by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This means they are made on merit, following fair and open competition.

  The RDA boards are business-led and the aim is that at least half of all the board members should have current or recent business experience. Four board members have local authority backgrounds and the rest of the board is made up of people with experience in some area relevant to the work of the RDA. In effect this means trade unions,
  664W
  further and higher education and the voluntary and community sectors.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the powers are of the East of England Development Agency. [56546]

  Alan Johnson
  The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) is one of the eight regional development agencies in England outside London established by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Each regional development agency (RDA) has five statutory purposes. They are:
  to further the economic development and the regeneration of its area to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in its area to promote employment in its area to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so.
  Section 5 of the RDA Act empowers the RDAs to do anything they consider expedient for their purposes, or for purposes incidental thereto, subject to the following provision:

  An RDA may only

  (a) give financial assistance,

  (b) dispose of land for less than the best consideration which can reasonably be obtained, or

  (c) form, or acquire an interest in, a body corporate,

  if the Secretary of State consents; and an RDA may only provide housing by acquiring existing housing accommodation and making it available on a temporary basis for purposes incidental to its purposes.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have been made to the 2002–03 allocations of the regional development agencies since 16 April. [57318]

  Alan Johnson
  There has been no change to the overall budget for the RDAs, but, following consultation with the RDAs it has been decided slightly to revise the size of the central contingency fund for in-year shocks. £5 million has been redistributed between the RDAs. The new individual budgets are shown in the table.

  Allocation1

  RDA

  Gross

  Net of receipts

  Advantage West Midlands

  194,640

  192,169

  East of England

  75,000

  76,307

  East Midlands

  99,980

  101,247

  London

  295,820

  286,327

  North West

  284,740

  274,827

  One North East

  192,360

  185,338

  South East of England

  101,360

  100,480

  South West of England

  91,880

  93,840

  Yorkshire Forward

  220,220

  186,620

  Total

  1,556,000

  1,497,155

  1Including additional programmes (regional selective assistance, broadband and regional centres for manufacturing expertise)

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial visits were made to Rwanda between 1979 and 1997; and how many have been made since 1997. [52224]

  Mr. MacShane
  Information on how may ministerial visits were made to Rwanda between 1979 and 1995 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, from 1995 when the British embassy in Rwanda opened there have been 11 ministerial visits to Rwanda. The majority of ministerial visits have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (seven). She has visited Rwanda every year since 1997 and twice in 2002.Baroness Chalker visited in August 1996. My hon. Friend the Member for
  Manchester. Central, then Minister of State in the FCO, visited Rwanda twice in 1998 and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Rwanda with his French counterpart, Hubert Vedrine, in January 2002.

  Correspondence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter dated 26 September 2001 from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell relating to Mr. Jones of I West Farm Avenue, Ashtead, Surrey. [48208]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My office has no record of having received the letter to which the hon. Member refers. Once made aware that the hon. Member was still awaiting a reply, we immediately obtained a fax copy of the letter from his office. We received this on 11 April 2002. I have now replied.

  Coolants
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the climate change impact will be of the use of HFC 134A to chill the water at the new GCHQ building. [56390]

  Mr. Straw
  During its operational life, HFC 134A—a non-ozone depleting refrigerant—will be used in a sealed system and will have no impact on the climate. If a non-ozone depleting, non-global warming product becomes available commercially, the HFC 134A will be replaced.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe. [56564]

  Mr. MacShane
  The International Bar Association visited Zimbabwe in March 2001 and concluded that the rule of law there was in peril, and that the Zimbabwe Government had acted in a way that put democracy at risk. We are not aware of any more recent assessments by expert legal organisations of the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Government ignored the recommendations of the International Bar 666W
  Association. and continues to apply pressure to members of the legal profession. Our judgment is that this pressure has seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary.

  Exports to Iraq
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods subject to strategic controls have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [57317]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export laboratory equipment to UNESCO for use by higher education institutions in northern Iraq. The export included bacterial growth media and potassium cyanide subject to the UN Import/Export (IMPEX) regime. Potassium cyanide is also subject to the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000 as amended. The conclusion that this export does not represent a proliferation threat has been reached after careful assessment.
  The UN Iraq Sanctions Committee approved this export to Iraq under the Oil for Food programme (OFF). Under OFF Iraq is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil to fund the purchase of humanitarian goods. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations to ensure the people of the Western Sahara have the opportunity to vote on their future in a referendum; and if he will make a statement. [56587]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  United Kingdom representatives in New York have worked in the United Nations Security Council and through informal contacts and groupings to find a resolution to the dispute over Western Sahara.

  During discussions on this matter, the UK's position remained consistent. The UK was impartial in this dispute and fully supported the position of the Secretary-General and his personal envoy, James Baker, to find a just and lasting solution to the situation in Western Sahara. The UK sought a just and durable outcome that allowed the people of the Western Sahara the right to self-determination. The UK wished to see both sides become flexibly engaged in the search for a long term solution, which at this point seemed stalled by their mutually exclusive objectives.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the status of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [55860]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 396W.
  667W
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 15 May.[57316]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the Spanish Foreign Minister today to continue our discussions on Gibraltar. There was a friendly and constructive atmosphere. We noted that we have made good progress since July 2001 and remain committed to reaching agreement by the summer. At the same time we both acknowledged that there are real difficulties which remain to be resolved. We agreed to convene a further formal Brussels Process meeting in late June or early July.

  Pakistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Mr. Ayub Masih, a Christian citizen in Pakistan; and if he proposes to monitor his appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the charge of blasphemy. [562601]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are deeply concerned about the misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the fate of all Pakistani citizens, including Mr. Masih, who have been imprisoned and sentenced to death under these laws. Officials in London and Islamabad are in regular contact with human rights groups and Pakistan's minority communities. Together with our EU partners, we have raised our concerns at regular intervals with the Pakistani authorities, citing specific cases including Mr. Masih's. We raised his case again with the EU on 10 April 2002 and are now considering what further action we should take in support of Mr. Masih's Supreme Court Appeal.

  Middle East
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967; and if he will make a statement. [55992]

  Mr. Badshaw
  UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 affirmed the need for a just and lasting peace in the middle east, including Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict, and the right of all regional states to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. Together with more recent UN Security Council resolutions, this continues to form the basis of our policy on the middle east.

  Belarus (Weapons Export Contracts)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what weapons export contracts have been signed by UK companies with Belarus since August 2001; what weapons and services were sold in these contracts; what each contract value was; and if he will make a statement. [55156]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of commercial contracts are confidential between companies and their customers. However, details of the Government's export licensing decisions and information on the export of military weapons in major categories are published in the annual report on strategic
  668W
  export controls, copies of which are available from the Library of the House. The 2001 edition is currently being prepared.

  Occupied Territories
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of damage caused to, and the likely costs of repair to, projects in the west bank and Gaza which are funded by Her Majesty's Government and EU institutions during(a) Israeli military incursions in April and (b) Israeli military action between September 2000 and April 2002; and if he will list the projects involved. [54860]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 877W, and I May 2002, Official Report, column 843W. A list of damaged projects was placed in the Library of the House.

  The recent Israeli re-occupation has moved the issue of damage and assessment to an entirely different scale. A detailed damage assessment is being conducted by the international agencies. A joint World Bank/UNSCO (UN Special Co-ordinator's Office) paper is due to be circulated by 13 May, and follow-up action discussed at a local aid co-ordination committee meeting later next week. EU contribution to reconstruction efforts will be considered there (from the Commission and from member states).

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Technical Adaptation Committee on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55228]

  Dr. Whitehead
  European Council Directive 89/391/EEC makes provision for committees to work on
  "the purely technical adjustments to the individual directives provided for in Article 16 (1) to take account of: the adoption of directives in the field of technical harmonization and standardization, and/or technical progress, changes in international regulations or specifications, and new findings …"
  The UK representatives at such meetings would be drawn from staff with the relevant technical and policy responsibilities within the Health and Safety Executive. During the last 12 months they have received no invitations to such technical meetings; nor are any currently scheduled.
  669W
  Together with member states, the European Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February (Commission Document 5685–02). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the system of charging for the use of transport infrastructure is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The committee of Government experts on charging for the use infrastructure was established by the Commission following the publication of its 1998 White Paper "Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU" (COM(1998)466). It is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The terms of reference set for the group were to develop and advise the Commission on Community guidance on methods to estimate the marginal costs of transport; develop practices to promote transparency of accounts; promote the development of 'transport accounts' at member state level; and to advise the commission on statistical and research needs and priorities. The committee has met once in the last twelve months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £1,000. No items are currently under consideration by the committee.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council decision 1999/468/EC, to

  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process. the UK Government have encouraged the commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee for granting community 670W
  financial aid in the field of trans-European transport networks is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55639]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The transport trans-European network (TEN) Financial Assistance Committee is established under the provisions of Article 17 of the TEN financing regulation (Regulation (EC) 2236–95). The Committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the Committee is to consider—and, where appropriate, to vote upon—budgetary measures proposed by the Commission. The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £2,000. The Committee will next consider a proposal from the Commission for the allocation of the 2002 transport TEN budget.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on aids to transport by rail, road and inland waterway is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55683]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Committee was established under the provisions of article 6 of the 1970 regulation on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (Regulation (EEC) No. 1107–70). The remit of the Committee is to assist the Commission in its examination of aids granted for transport by rail, road and inland waterway. When it met, the Committee was composed of representatives of member states and was chaired by the European Commission. But, as far as we are aware, the Committee has not met for several years. Were it to meet, the UK would be represented by officials from my Department. There have been no costs to public funds in recent years. No items are currently under consideration by the Committee.
  671W
  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the commission".
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of Committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both houses on 26 February (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of legislation concerning the transport of dangerous goods is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of legislation concerning the transport of dangerous goods is established under the provisions of article 9 of Council directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road (the so-called ADR framework directive), as amended. It also deals with the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the technical annexes to Council directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (the so-called RID framework directive), as amended; Council directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road, as amended; Council directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC on the appointment and vocational qualification and minimum examination requirements of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterways; and Council directive 99/36/EC on transportable pressure equipment, as amended.

  The Committee is composed of representatives of the member states and is chaired by the Commission. Representatives of relevant European trade associations are also often invited to attend. The remit of the Committee is to consider—and where appropriate to vote upon—amendments to the technical annexes to the various directives listed above. The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months, and usually meets biannually. It often meets in tandem with a 'group of experts on the transport of dangerous goods' to discuss matters of mutual interest. The UK is represented by officials from my Department, usually accompanied by officials from the Health and Safety Executive, and the cost of its work, and that of the 'group of experts', to public funds is about £5,500.

  The Committee is next scheduled to meet on 25–26 June 2002 but, since there is unlikely to be the need for a formal vote, it is anticipated that this will be
  672W
  in the form of the 'group of experts'. Items on the agenda are likely to be question and answer information on transportable pressure equipment; consideration of national derogations under articles 6.9 and 6.10 from the ADR and RID framework directives; consideration of formal amendment of the technical annexes of the ADR and RID framework directives; and possible measures on the security of dangerous goods in road and rail transport.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the development of trans-European transport networks is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the development of the transport trans-European network (TEN) is established under the provisions of Article 18 of the transport TEN guidelines (decision no. 1692/96/EC). The Committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The Committee exchanges information on member states' transport TEN plans and programmes and assists the Commission in preparing its biennial report on the implementation of the TEN guidelines and its quinquennial report on the need for revisions to the guidelines. The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £2,000. The Committee is currently considering the scope of a revision to the transport TEN guidelines scheduled for 2004.

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

  673W
  electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Planning
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the balance was between(a) favourable and (b) unfavourable responses to the proposal in the planning Green Paper to regionalise planning responsibilities held at county level. [55772]

  Ms Keeble
  An analysis of the responses to the planning Green Paper is contained in the report of the consultants Smith and Williamson. copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Spoiled Ballot Papers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a list of the number of ballots rejected owing to want of an official mark in the local elections held on 2 May broken down by(a) London borough and (b) London borough election ward. [56134]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Marine Environment
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the Government intends to combine simplification of the coastal development regulatory system with continuing to protect the marine environment and maintain stakeholder involvement. [56047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current regime for consenting development in coastal waters has developed over many years in a piecemeal way. There is general consensus among stakeholders that it has become too complex. The Government will therefore review the system with the aim

  £ million

  Item

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue support grant

  1—

  90

  95

  93

  99

  98

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  1—

  50

  55

  61

  60

  65

  Central Government capital grant

  7

  5

  9

  8

  2—

  2—

  Credit approvals available 5

  10

  10

  8

  13

  2—

  2—

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  0.6

  1.0

  Single Regeneration Budget

  2.5

  2.8

  3.1

  3.2

  3.8

  3.5

  European Funding

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.8

  0.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 No figures available.

  2 These figures have come from returns made by Tameside MBC to the Department. Figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not yet available.

  3 The 1997–99 Objective 2 Programme provided £l38 million European funding to the Manchester City Pride Area which includes the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency.

  4 The 2000–06 Objective 2 Programme is providing £36 million European funding to the Manchester sub region which includes the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency.

  5Covers housing, transport, social services, education.

  674W
  of streamlining it and at the same time ensuring that Government's objectives for protection of the marine environment can be met. Stakeholders' views will inform the review and any proposals emerging from it will be fully consulted on. The terms of reference for the review will be announced shortly.

  Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre Executive Agency for 2002–03. [57291]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The agency's principal financial target for 2002–03 is to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £300,000.

  An operational target has been set to achieve combined room occupancy of 400 days in the three key conference areas within the centre.

  The agency is also being required to achieve a total of at least 25 stand-alone banqueting events. It also has the following quality of service targets:
  Overall score for value for money satisfaction of 90 per cent.The number of complaints received to be less than two per 100 events An average response time when answering complaints of less than four working days.

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact his Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54330]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to Tameside metropolitan borough council since 1997 are shown in the table. It is for the borough council to decide where within its boundary, including the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency, these resources are applied.

  Departmental Report
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to publish his Department's annual report. [56033]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.
  675W

  Nesscliffe Bypass
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the completion of the Nesscliffe bypass on the A5 road. [56185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 15 May 2002:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson. has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about completion of the A5 Nesscliffe Bypass.Work on Nesscliffe Bypass started in February this year and is on schedule for completion in Spring 2003. Current work includes site clearance. earthworks, drainage and the diversion of water, electricity and telecommunications services. Construction of the Wolfshead roundabout, which will link the new road with the existing A5, has begun and, during the early Summer, there will be traffic management on the A5 to enable the roundabout to be completed. The planting will be done towards the end of the contract.If you require any further information, Paul Tully, the Project Sponsor for this scheme, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL or by telephone on 0121 678 8456.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of public bus services in England have been operated by Arriva in the last three years for which figures are available. [56190]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected by my Department. However, information in the Bus Industry Monitor 2001 (published by TAS Publications & Events Ltd.) indicates that Arriva services represent around 15 per cent. of the total bus market, measured by turnover.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public subsidy has been paid to Arriva to maintain public bus services in England in the last three years for which figures are available. [56191]

  Ms Keeble
  Arriva, like many other bus companies, receives public support for maintaining bus services in the form of local authority funding of contracted subsidised services and concessionary fares and fuel duty rebate from my Department.

  My Department does not collect information on the amounts received by individual bus companies from local authorities.

  The amounts paid to individual claimants for fuel duty rebate are regarded as commercially confidential.

  We are undertaking a review of bus subsidy mechanisms to ensure that they contribute as effectively as possible to the achievement of our objectives.

  Road Bridges (Railways)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he takes to ensure that contractors accessing pylons are not endangering road bridges over railways. [56050]
  679W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Contractors working on pylons on behalf of their operators are expected to comply with work practices that satisfy current safety legislation. This includes interaction with any related or third party structures.

  Parking
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been raised in England and Wales from the issuing of parking tickets in the last financial year for which figures are available. [55753]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 26 March 2002,Official Report, columns
  962–63W.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Network Rail's business plan will be published. [55784]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if EU state aid rules allow the Government(a) to provide initial financial support to Network Rail and (b) to provide subsequent, additional aid through the standby facilities from the Strategic Rail Authority; [55711]

  (2) what rights exist under EU law to permit the Government to provide state aid to Network Rail to acquire the assets of Railtrack. [55773]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government will make sure that any state aid provided to Network Rail, if it is successful in its bid to acquire Railtrack plc, is fully compatible with the EC Treaty, bearing in mind the rescue and restructuring guidelines and also articles 73 and 86(2) of the Treaty. That is equally true of any initial financial support and any standby facilities.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Strategic Rail Authority expects Network Rail's business plan to require an interim review. [55783]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Any decision to apply to the rail regulator for an interim review would he a matter for Network Rail, if the company succeeds in its bid to acquire Railtrack plc and becomes network operator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions through what mechanisms Network Rail's management will be held to account for their performance. [55781]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In common with other companies, Network Rail's management would be responsible to the company's board and also to the membership. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when he outlined the structure of a possible company limited by guarantee, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195W–97W, management would need to be properly incentivised to deliver a quality rail network. Discussions are continuing on the company's incentive

  677W
  proposals. Finally, if Network Rail succeeds in its bid to become network operator, the company would, like Railtrack, be subject to the regulatory system.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) which members of Network Rail's management team have previous management experience in the heavy rail industry; and if he will make a statement; [55782]

  (2) how many salaried employees Network Rail has; [55777]

  (3) who will be responsible for the recruitment of board members to Network Rail; [55774]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The details of its proposals are a matter for Network Rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has received from the Office of National Statistics about the status of debt raised by Network Rail. [55776]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The ONS took a preliminary view in October 2001 that the proposed company limited by guarantee described to them at that time would not be classified within the public sector. The ONS will take a view upon the Network Rail proposals once negotiations are completed.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who took the decision to recruit each of the directors of Network Rail; and if he will list the directors. [55775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When Network Rail was launched on 25 March 2002, the company announced that three non-executive directors—Ian McAllister, Adrian Montague and lain Coucher—had been appointed. These appointments were made on the initiative of the CLG bid team. Further appointments are a matter for Network Rail. Appointments to the CLG bid team were covered in my reply to the hon. Member on 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 213W.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much surplus office space London Underground has. [56427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground currently has no surplus head office space. Over the last few years, as part of a controlled programme of disposal of surplus assets, London Underground has disposed of virtually all of its commercial office space which can be separated from the railway undertaking.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects(a) London Underground and the infrastructure companies to complete their draft final contracts for the London Underground and (b) to sign approval of the final contracts; what processes up to this latter stage are still to be (i) undertaken and (ii) completed; and if he will make a statement. [55808]
  678w
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground Limited has agreed commercial terms for the Tube modernisation plans and signed agreements on 8 May to that effect with two consortia, Metronet and Tube Lines Group.

  There are a number of detailed processes which need to be completed prior to the contracts taking effect, in addition to putting in place the necessary finance, and securing safety and other regulatory clearances.

  I expect the contracts to take effect this summer, once these arrangements have been completed.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the legal status of the financial guarantees by the Government to the Railtrack administrator will be if administration lasts beyond 30 September. [55710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's guarantee of Railtrack plc's commercial borrowing will continue in full force and effect until all guaranteed borrowing has been repaid. Under the terms of the commercial loan agreement Railtrack plc's commercial borrowing must be repaid no later than 23 September 2002.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he estimates that the target to end Railtrack administration by the end of July will be met. [55712]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail said at the time of making a bid for Railtrack plc that, if accepted, Railtrack could be released from administration by the end of July. Network Rail has not indicated that its timetable has changed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that this is a challenging time scale.

  Air Pollutants
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department's Health committee on the medical effects of air pollutants has made to aldehydes in the last five years; what conclusions have been drawn; and if he will make a statement. [56259]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  In December 2000, the Department's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (COMEAP) published a statement on the effects on health of aldehydes in ambient air. The statement reflected the committee's conclusions of the evidence of the effects on health of aldehydes.

  A copy of the statement follows, and is also available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uld comeap/statementsreports/aldehydes.htm

  Committee on the medical effects of air pollutants statement on effects on health of aldehydes in ambient air

  Aldehydes found in ambient air include irritant compounds such as formaldehyde and acrolein. It is possible, though unlikely, that exposure to the concentrations of these compounds found commonly in ambient air in the UK could cause symptoms of irritation of the eyes or mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract. Outdoor concentrations of formaldehyde are generally low in comparison with concentrations that have been

  679W
  shown to produce irritation. Concentrations indoors may, on occasion, be sufficient to cause irritation: this is due to the release of aldehydes from building materials and from house fittings.

  Though formaldehyde is a carcinogen in rats, the risks to humans associated with exposure to ambient concentrations, if any, will be extremely small.

  Occupational exposure to high concentrations of formaldehyde has been linked with the development of asthma and a hypersensitivity response to this compound. The evidence is not clear cut: much more convincing is the evidence regarding the response to glutaraldehyde, though the concentrations of this compound in ambient air are very low. It is highly unlikely that exposure to ambient levels of aldehydes would lead to allergic and respiratory problems. There is some evidence to suggest that exposure to formaldehyde indoors is associated with asthma symptoms in children. However, the overall evidence is not, however, completely clear cut and more research will be necessary before this issue can be finally resolved.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Hook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason service invalid pensions are classed as occupational pensions when deciding the benefit entitlement from incapacity benefit; and when this rule was introduced. [53311]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We introduced changes to the treatment of occupational pensions in incapacity benefit in April 2001. We believe it is right to take account of pensions which duplicate the purpose of incapacity benefit, which is to provide some replacement of earnings for people of working age. Benefit is reduced by 50 per cent. of pension income in excess of £85 a week.

  Pension income includes occupational pensions paid on cessation of employment. Armed forces service pensions paid on cessation of service are occupational pensions and are treated in the same way as other occupational pensions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the written questions asked of him between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) I to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54082]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: At 30 April there were 10 written questions from January that remained unanswered, 18 from February, 82 from March and 114 from April. Of these, 33 were not due for answer until 1 May or later. The identification numbers and the names of the hon. Members who tabled the questions have been placed in the Library. For the reasons for delay
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. John Bercow) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 225W.
  680W

  Pension Entitlements (Public Sector)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers he has to intervene against public sector employers who withdraw pension entitlements from their work force. [55629]

  Mr. McCartney
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to intervene against public sector or private sector employers who withdraw pension entitlements (i.e. pension rights that have been accrued in an occupational pension scheme) from pension scheme members. In the exceptional circumstance where an employee may have their entitlements withdrawn (for example if the employer becomes insolvent), then the matter would be handled by the competent authority—for example the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, Pensions Advisory Service or the Pensions Ombudsman.

  Public service pension scheme benefits and conditions are the responsibility of the sponsoring Departments, and are not the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

  Benefits Decision Makers
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average length of time that decision makers involved on benefit entitlement have remained in their posts before being transferred to other duties has been over the last 12 months for which figures are available; [54151]

  (2) what the average annual salary of decision-makers deciding on benefit entitlements is; [54149]

  (3) what the average length of service of decision-makers employed in deciding on benefit entitlement is. [54150]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for making personal advisers available for social fund applicants. [51049]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The role of the personal adviser is to provide work-focused advice and support to people of working age to give them the opportunity to work where they are able to do so. Many social fund applicants will already have had the opportunity to see a personal adviser, for example people making new or repeat claims to benefit at integrated Jobcentre Plus offices, people claiming jobseeker's allowance and people participating in the new deals.

  Staff administering the social fund aim to provide the best possible advice to their clients over the telephone or in person, and this will continue under Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the companies from which his Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43411]
  681W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Current data capture systems do not enable the information to be reported in the format requested.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many United Kingdom companies have ended their final salary pension schemes in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [42713]

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many final salary schemes have closed in each year since May 1997; how many people have been

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Schemes closed

  542

  113

  116

  157

  103

  schemes frozen

  1,095

  49

  57

  98

  37

  Schemes starting to wind up

  11

  19

  632

  306

  228

  Schemes completed winding up

  800

  917

  681

  576

  278

  Total schemes closed, frozen, starting to wind up or completed winding up

  2,448

  1,098

  1,486

  1,137

  646

  Notes:

  1. The information is based on data held by the Pension Schemes Registry (PSR). It relates to final salary schemes only. There is a large minority of schemes on the Register where the scheme type is unknown, there are also some schemes offering a mixture of salary related and money purchase benefits. None of these schemes are included in the table.

  2. Closed schemes do not admit new active members, but allow existing members to continue to accrue benefits. Frozen schemes do not allow any future accruals. Schemes starting to wind up are also frozen. Schemes that have completed wind up have no members—all assets are realised and all liabilities are discharged.

  3. The information relates to schemes, not employers. Some employers operate several schemes. Closure of a scheme may be due to a bulk transfer of members to another scheme.

  4. The PSR system holds information on the most recent change in scheme status and the effective date of the change. Because of the way the data is held a later change will overwrite an earlier change, so data for earlier years become increasingly inaccurate. Trustees are required to report changes within 12 months so there is likely to be a lag before the data reflects what is happening currently.

  Industrial Action (Jobcentre Plus)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research has been undertaken by his Department into the effectiveness of security screens in preventing physical assault upon staff in Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices. [32651]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The Department has undertaken a thorough review of the impact of screens in protecting staff from physical assaults. The review has taken account of the experience of a number of major public and private sector employers, both in the UK and abroad, as well as the results of an investigation carried out by the Tavistock Institute for the Employment Service. A copy of this latter research report has been placed in the Library. The general conclusions to emerge from this work are that the presence of screens tends to make communication between staff and customers seem more unfriendly and uncaring, which is, in turn, more likely to predispose agitated or anxious people towards aggression.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethical Trading Initiative
  5. Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking 682W
  affected; and what estimate he has made of how many such schemes he expects to close over each of the next five years. [44683]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is given in the table.

  Data for the 1997–98 tax year include many schemes where a change occurred at an earlier date which was not reported to the Registry. This was because many schemes were not required to pay a levy until the Pensions Act 1995 came into force in April 1997. In these cases a default date of 1 April 1997 has been used therefore artificially inflating the figures for that year.

  Defined benefit schemes that have closed, frozen, started to wind up or completed winding up.

  to strengthen the work of the Ethical Trading Initiative in promoting core labour standards in developing countries. [54741]
  Hilary Benn: DFID has supported the Ethical Trading Initiative since its establishment. The ETI's corporate members have a combined turnover of -100 billion and, working with trade unions and NGOs, they are trying to improve labour standards in supplier companies. We recently agreed funding of -1.3 million for the ETI over the next three years.
  19. Mr. Patrick Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is providing to the ethical trading initiative in 2002–03. [54756]

  Clare Short
  I recently agreed funding of -1.315 million to strengthen the work of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) over the next three years. This will be disbursed in yearly tranches. The tranche for 2002–03 is –513,000. This is 47.5 per cent. of total ETI income in this year. Subsequent years will see a decrease in the proportion of DFID funds as a proportion of total funds, to 40 per cent. in year two and 26.5 per cent. in year three.

  We have provided –780,000 since the ETI was set up in 1998 to the end of March 2002. This new three-year grant of £1.315 million represents 38 per cent. of total ETI income over this forthcoming three-year period. This new funding will enable the ETI to build on the excellent progress it has made over the last three years and to

  683W
  develop expertise and knowledge in new areas which will help its increasing number of members continue to improve labour conditions in the supply chains of corporate members. The remaining 62 per cent. will be generated by corporate and NGO membership fees and a small amount of trading income from services provided to non-members, such as for training. The corporate membership fee total over the period is expected to be -1.92 million, or 56 per cent. of total income. However, ET1's "learning by doing" approach is very demanding on members' time and other resources and this contribution has been conservatively valued as a further -1.8 million over three years.

  DFID has supported the Ethical Trading Initiative since its establishment in 1998. It is an alliance of major British retailers, non-governmental organisations and trade unions dedicated to the improvement of labour standards throughout the supply chains of its corporate members. The ET1's corporate members bring together almost -100 billion in annual turnover. Significant proportions of the corporate members' supply chains are located in developing countries and the ETI therefore has a considerable worldwide reach. The corporate members are committed to independent verification, and work to bring their supply chains into compliance with International Labour Organisation standards in a way that brings benefits to workers in developing countries.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on debt relief for poor countries. [54742]

  Clare Short
  So far, 26 out of a total of 42 countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and we expect Cote d'lvoire to qualify soon. Five countries either are not opting or do not qualify for HIPC. Many of the remaining countries are in conflict and cannot gain debt relief until they make peace.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on debt relief for poor countries. [54748]

  Clare Short
  So far, 26 out of a total of 42 countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and by the autumn, Cote d'lvoire could be added to the list of countries benefiting from the Initiative. Relief of more than US$60 billion will be provided to these countries, reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average. Of the 26 countries, 21 have reached decision point and are receiving interim debt relief on their 'flow' of payment, and five have completed the HIPC process, and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. We hope that a further three will reach their completion point this year. The prospects for the remaining eleven unsustainable countries are not good. Six—Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia and Sudan—are still affected by conflict; Togo has governance problems; Central African Republic, DR Congo and Comoros might go through next year and Lao PDR is undecided as to whether to opt for HIPC relief. Angola, Kenya, Vietnam and Yemen are regarded as sustainable cases, eligible for relief from the Paris Club.
  684W

  Peacekeeping Units (Balkans and Chechnya)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the MOD over restoring payments from her budget to military units engaged in peacekeeping for local development work in(a) the Balkans and (b) Chechnya. [54744]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID works closely with the MOD in peacekeeping operations.

  In Bosnia and Herzegovena and in Kosovo we have provided funding to British forces, initially to support humanitarian assistance activities and then to encourage refugee return.

  There is no international peacekeeping force in Chechnya.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her oral statement of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 558, on Afghanistan, what action she has taken to provide farmers with a chance of making a living by planting crops other than poppies. [54745]

  Clare Short
  There is no quick or easy solution to the problem of drug cultivation in Afghanistan. We are supporting long-term development and poverty reduction strategies in order to create an environment in which a reduction in the opium poppy crop can be sustained beyond the next harvest.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [54746]

  Clare Short
  Good progress is being made with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The Interim Afghan Authority has prepared a national development framework and draft budget. Major investment and advisory projects are being designed in key sectors. The Afghanistan0 Reconstruction Trust Fund has been established. Preparations are well advanced for the Emergency Loya Jirga next month that will appoint a Transitional Authority for the coming two years. Meanwhile, humanitarian assistance continues to be provided. Recovery activities are gathering pace, although it will take some time for the benefits to be felt by ordinary Afghans. Refugees are returning to Afghanistan in increasing numbers. But the security and political situation is still fragile. Much remains to be done: reconstruction will require a long-term effort.

  At the Tokyo conference in January, donors pledged $4.5 billion in aid over the next two and a half years. The agreed objective was to support the establishment of a secure and stable sovereign state based on the rule of law, able to absorb returning refugees, no longer a haven for international terrorists and drug traffickers, and in stable relationships with its neighbours based on mutual respect and non-interference. The continuing necessity of humanitarian relief was recognised.

  The conference also emphasised the need for close coordination between international donors and the Afghan Interim Administration. Donors have participated in

  685W
  multi-donor missions covering a range of areas, including health, education, agriculture, public finance, transport, infrastructure and community development.

  The UK is playing its part, in the political, military and development arenas. Our leadership of the International Security Assistance Force has helped to bring stability to Kabul, establishing the authority of the Interim Administration. We have provided support for poppy crop eradication. We have disbursed around £60 million since 11 September through direct contributions to multilateral agencies and quick impact projects. We have plans in hand for further expenditure of about £40 million this financial year. It is clear that this year, and perhaps next, the majority of this assistance will need to continue to fund humanitarian and recovery programmes. As now, this will include direct contributions to UN agencies and NGOs, quick impact projects to kick-start the recovery process and to underpin the Interim Administration until the Emergency Loyal Jirga, practical support to the political process, and help to establish the Afghan Authority for Assistance.

  For the longer term reconstruction effort, we believe it will be important to avoid overburdening the Transitional Authority with many bilateral programmes, each funded by different donors with their own procedures and reporting mechanisms. For that reason we will channel much of our assistance through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. We intend to commit at least half of our Tokyo pledge—£100 million—to the fund. We have already paid in our first contribution—the first donor to do so. We are encouraging other donors also to maximise their contributions to the fund, which we believe should be the main source of funding both for the reconstruction programme and for any quick impact recovery work.

  Our bilateral technical assistance is deliberately focused on support for capacity building in the Ministry of Finance and Central bank, in conjunction with the World bank and IMF. We also plan to support security sector reform, drawing on funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. [54754]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains serious. However, although some areas remain inaccessible due to volatile security conditions, the United Nations is now able to access 80 per cent. of the country, humanitarian aid is being delivered in significant quantities, and agencies are adapting their programmes from the provision of relief to include recovery activities. Since October 2001, the international community has contributed over $750 million to Afghanistan to meet humanitarian and recovery needs, as identified by the United Nations in its Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugees have returned to Afghanistan from (a) Iran and (b) Pakistan in the last six months; and what proportion of these have been provided with adequate food and shelter when they return. [55891]
  686W
  Clare Short
  The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimate that approximately 820,000 people have returned to Afghanistan from Iran and Pakistan in the last six months: 145,000 from Iran and 675,000 from Pakistan. Approximately 535,000 (65 per cent.) of those have returned with assistance from UNHCR as part of their assisted voluntary return programme. As well as transportation, returnees taking part in UNHCR's programme receive plastic sheeting, a repair kit, blankets, kitchen equipment and other relief items. Assisted returnees also receive an emergency ration of 150kg of wheat from the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the poppy fields used for drug cultivation in Afghanistan have been destroyed. [55890]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to the Interim Administration a total of approximately 16,000 hectares of opium poppy have been destroyed so far. This is equivalent to approximately 74 tonnes of heroin which is up to three times the estimated UK annual consumption. The amount destroyed represents about a third of the crop in the main poppy-growing areas. Eradication continues in regions where the harvest starts later.

  Kaliningrad
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had about programmes to support the development of civil society and to combat social problems in Kaliningrad. [54747]

  Clare Short
  The focus of DFID's bilateral programme in Russia is at the federal level and in two partner oblasts-Leningrad and Nizhny Novgorod. Kaliningrad is not one of the partner oblasts. However, we are major contributors to the European Commission's TACIS programme, which does work in Kaliningrad.

  Developing Countries (Political Systems)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to strengthening political systems in developing countries. [54749]

  Clare Short
  Most poor countries have adopted formal democratic institutions. We work in many countries to support their efforts to strengthen these institutions so that all their people, especially the poor, have effective representation and participation. To this end we have supported the development of the better working of formal political institutions: electoral processes, parliaments, civil society, the media; and political panties on a non-partisan basis.

  In supporting these areas we often work through international organisations such as the Commonwealth and independent bodies such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
  687W

  Malawi
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in Malawi. [54750]

  Clare Short
  My Department is managing a £70 million programme this year, making DFID the largest donor in Malawi. Assistance is concentrated on rural livelihoods, health, education and governance.

  There has been a substantial shortfall in Malawi's 2002 maize harvest (the country's main staple). DFID is at the forefront of efforts to help. Since January, my Department has provided an additional £4.6 million in direct food relief for distribution through local non-governmental organisations. We have provided a further £1.2 million for "winter" food production (expected to yield 75,000 metric tonnes of maize by September) and a much larger programme, timed to coincide with November rains, is in preparation.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to improve food distribution by NGOs in southern Africa, with particular reference to Malawi. [55892]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £5.1 million for NGOs to distribute food to those who are worst affected by maize shortages in Malawi. Now that the 2002 harvest is coming in, there is time to concentrate on improving national food security strategy. DFID is supporting joint Government, NGO, private sector, donor working groups to this end.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of cholera in Malawi; and what is being done to reduce levels of cholera. [55880]

  Clare Short
  According to WHO, Malawi's recent cholera epidemic was one of the worst that the country has experienced with 981 deaths resulting from 33,510 cases. The epidemic started last October and reached a peak in March 2002, since when case numbers have returned to pre-epidemic levels. The average cholera case fatality rate was particularly high this year because the outbreak coincided with food shortage. In these circumstances, reduced attention to hygienic practices in food preparation and consumption led to increased infection rates; these contributed to higher death rates. A national shortage of intravenous fluids contributed to the difficulties in treating the abnormally high case load. The Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) only presented a situation report and appealed for assistance in mid-March, by which time it was too late to co-ordinate an external response and the epidemic was already waning. The MOHP and development partners in the health sector are planning support for improved disease surveillance and response to avoid the same situation arising next year.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the prospects for famine in Malawi; and if she will make a statement. [56202]

  Clare Short
  We are in contact with FAO which is making an assessment of the food situation in Malawi and neighbouring countries. Their report is expected within 688W
  the next two to three weeks. DFID has spent £5.1 million since January on food relief in Malawi. We stand ready to do more in the light of FAO findings.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the (a) European Union and (b) United Nations about a co-ordinated response to the humanitarian situation in Malawi. [56203]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with all donors represented in Malawi including the European Union and the World Food Programme. FAO will complete an assessment of the food situation in Malawi and the region within the next 2–3 weeks. Donors will then discuss with the Government of Malawi what steps should be taken to cover the maize shortfall.

  United Nations Children's Summit
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was agreed at the UN children's summit. [54751]

  Clare Short
  The UN General Assembly Special Session on Children agreed an outcomes document entitled "A World Fit for Children" which sets global priorities for tackling child poverty and promoting child rights and repeated the UN commitment to the millennium development goals. The document gives particular emphasis to health, education, child protection and HIV/AIDS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the special session and urged world leaders to provide additional finance to tackle child poverty.

  EU Aid Budget
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in reforming the EU aid budget. [54752]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 387W.

  Georgia
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further steps she plans to take to assist Georgia. [54753]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to providing direct assistance to Georgia, in support to the Government of Georgia's poverty reduction and economic growth programme, working closely with the World bank and the EU.

  DF1D's proposed direct assistance to Georgia over the next three years will amount to £6.75 million.

  We also contribute to multilateral assistance to Georgia. For example in 2000 we contributed £1.7 million through the EU, £0.3 million through the UN and £0.8 million through the World bank.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reforms she plans to support the heavily indebted poor countries initiative when the issue is discussed at the autumn meetings of the World bank and the IMF. [54755]
  689W
  Clare Short
  We are currently examining a range of options for discussions about the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative at the Annual Meeting of the World bank and IMF this autumn. Our key priority is to ensure that no country exits the HIPC Initiative with an unsustainable debt burden. We also need to look at debt relief in conjunction with other policies and instruments, to ensure that countries committed to poverty reduction are able to finance their poverty reduction strategies.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to address the issue of debt sustainability for those countries which have qualified under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. [54758]

  Clare Short
  The Government has been working to try to ensure that countries exit the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative process with sustainable debt levels. At the Annual Meetings of the World bank and IMF in Ottawa last November, we raised this concern and asked the World bank staff to revisit the debt sustainability analyses of all commodity dependent low-income countries, including H1PCs. The IMF and World bank analysis, published last month, shows that, although the situation varies from country to country, the external debt indicators for most HIPC countries have deteriorated, and several HIPC countries now face unsustainable debt burdens as a result. Following UK pressure, the World bank and IMF boards have agreed to provide additional relief to countries in this situation. This was reconfirmed at the Spring Meetings last month, and Burkina Faso became the first HIPC country to benefit from 'topping up' at Completion Point. We are also pressing the Bank and Fund to take more concrete action to encourage non-Paris Club creditors that have not yet delivered debt relief, to do so.

  Debt relief is, however, not a panacea and further measures, including sound economic and debt management by H1PCs themselves, will be required beyond HIPC, to enable countries to maintain debt sustainability levels. To this end, the UK is co-financing a multi-donor funded project to help strengthen the debt management capacity in HIPC countries.

  Developing Countries (Effective Negotiation)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to help developing nations negotiate effectively in international organisations; and if she will make a statement. [54757]

  Clare Short
  In our second White Paper on international development, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor (2000), we made a commitment to work towards a stronger and more effective voice for developing countries in the policy and regulatory mechanisms of the international financial system. To this end we are providing capacity-building support in diverse ways, bilaterally and in collaboration with other donors, to small states and least developed countries in order to strengthen their negotiating capacity.
  690W
  In addition to many capacity building projects in-country, we are collaborating with other donors to provide support at key institutions. Examples of this include support to:
  the multi-donor Debt Capacity Building Programme, which assists countries negotiate HIPC relief with the International Financial Institutions and the Paris Club;the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation, which helps countries with little or no representation at the WTO in Geneva;the independent, Geneva-based, Advisory Centre on WTO Law which helps countries take a case through dispute settlement at the WTO;a Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights and Development Capacity Building Project with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development), which aims to improve the ability of country partners to participate effectively in negotiations on intellectual property rights; and the Caribbean Community's (CARICOM) Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) to strengthen the region's capacity in trade negotiations with the European Union on the Cotonou Agreement, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

  EU Development Funds
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what improvement there has been in the way EU development funds are allocated since 2000. [54759]

  Clare Short
  In 2000 only 38 per cent. of EC official development assistance payments went to poor countries down from 52 per cent. in 1999. Accurate figures for EC spending in 2001 will be available early next year. However, it is likely that the share of EC spending in low income countries will have risen since expenditure from the European Development Fund in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries-most of which are low income-is reported to have increased significantly.

  There have also been improvements in the budgetary allocations for Asia, which has the largest number of poor people of any region. Last year we secured an extra e70m for Asia including humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. In the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2003 these increases have been sustained and are balanced by cuts in assistance to the Balkans now that the emergency reconstruction phase has ended.

  The poverty focus and effectiveness of EC allocations is still low. My Department continues to push for allocations based on developmental needs to countries committed to reducing their poverty.

  Debt Cancellation
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress towards cancellation of unpayable debt owed by the poorest countries to the IMF and World Bank she expects from the G8 summit in Canada. [54760]

  Clare Short
  Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, the World Bank and IMF have agreed to meet their share—estimated at US$10.8 billion—of the total estimated US$36.4 billion costs for the Initiative. We are currently exploring with our G8 partners whether there are further actions they might wish to support
  691W
  on debt. It is important to ensure the full financing of any multilateral debt relief, to reduce the risk of skewing development resources away from other very poor countries who have handled their debt well. We will therefore be raising the issue of HIPC financing, and the possible need for further contributions to the HIPC Trust Fund.

  Investment (Social Responsibility)
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to help promote socially responsible business practice by UK companies that invest in developing countries. [54761]

  Clare Short
  Many companies are now recognising the key role they are able to play in making globalisation work for the poor. They are also realising that socially and environmentally responsible business practices in developed and developing countries can make their operations more sustainable. Many UK businesses are playing a leading role in the development of socially responsible business practices, but there is still much progress to be made. My Department supports a number of socially responsible business initiatives aimed at improving the social, ethical and environmental impact of businesses operating in developing countries. It is also supporting research to develop tools to measure the poverty impact of such initiatives.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made to the EU with regard to removing barriers to trade for developing countries. [54762]

  Clare Short
  The UK recognises that, even with the preferential trade access available to many developing countries, the highest tariffs continue to fall on historically sensitive products of interest to developing countries, particularly agricultural goods, textiles and clothing. In order to tackle the substantial barriers to trade, a new trade round was launched at the fourth WTO ministerial meeting in Doha in November last year with a pro-development agenda. The meeting resulted in agreement on the need to reduce barriers to trade in agriculture and manufactured goods. In response to this, my Department is working with the DTI and DEFRA to ensure that these commitments become a reality.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is providing to Zimbabwe; for what purpose; and what steps they are taking to ensure that it reaches the intended destination. [54763]

  Clare Short
  DFID provided assistance of approximately £16 million for Zimbabwe in 2001–02. Our programme is fully focused on mitigating the humanitarian crisis and combating HIV/AIDs.

  Due to the continuing poor policy environment, I have recently permanently closed a number of activities which were previously suspended, as it is now impossible for these to achieve their original objectives. This included a project on poverty monitoring and analysis with the
  692W
  Ministry of Social Welfare, and the civil society Land Resettlement Challenge Fund. One remaining programme, supporting a local district council, will cease in September on completion of outstanding works. All other programmes work with non-Governmental and multilateral organisations, and we continue to monitor these very closely to ensure maximum impact on intended beneficiaries.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to reduce levels of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe. [55884]

  Clare Short
  With an adult HIV infection rate of 35 per cent., it is estimated that AIDS claims the lives of over 2,000 Zimbabweans weekly and that up to 900,000 children have lost one or both parents. AIDS is a major factor in poverty, affecting the lives of sufferers and those who care for them and orphaned children. It is a priority for DFID' s programme in Zimbabwe.

  Currently DFID is spending around £6 million annually in Zimbabwe on the provision of condoms and other contraceptives; targeted HIV prevention; the provision of drugs for sexually transmitted infections and TB; and strengthening civil society organisations that care for people living with AIDS. DFID supports innovative ways of reaching young people, sex workers, and mobile populations including partnering with Coke-Zimbabwe to promote condom use in rural areas.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the New Partnership for Africa's Development in bringing good Government to Zimbabwe. [55885]

  Clare Short
  As an African owned and led initiative, we believe that NEPAD is of significant importance, but is a long-term process. Peer review of governance issues is one of its key elements. If Zimbabwe signs up to this, such reviews can help increase pressure for reform, a message that may carry greater weight coming from Africa's leaders.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last held meetings with officials from the Government of (a) South Africa and (b) Nigeria to discuss the political situation in Zimbabwe. [55888]

  Clare Short
  I have had no such meetings recently. Officials from my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have frequent contacts with representatives of African Governments to share concerns about developments in Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last held discussions with representatives from the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe. [55886]

  Clare Short
  I last met Morgan Tsvangirai and other senior members of the MDC leadership on 2 July 2001. DFID officials have continued a dialogue with MDC representatives and with a wide range of civil society organisations on matters of developmental and humanitarian interest.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to improve food security levels in Zimbabwe. [55882]
  693W
  Clare Short
  It is for the Government of Zimbabwe to provide leadership in improving food security in Zimbabwe. As yet there is no credible national plan to tackle the problems, which continue to deteriorate. DFID has provided £3.5 million to the World Food Programme and £4 million to NGOs to help feed children and vulnerable adults. We are waiting for the results of a new UN food assessment that is currently under way, and we will consider any new proposals that may arise from its findings.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policy her Department is pursuing to encourage the restoration of democratic Government to Zimbabwe.
  [55881]

  Clare Short
  We believe that the restoration of democratic Government to Zimbabwe is essential if Zimbabwe is to restore its economy and services to its people. Her Majesty's Government will continue to work closely with colleagues in the EU, the Commonwealth, the United States and other countries to impress this on the Zimbabwe authorities. We are also working closely with African countries to this end.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what NGOs and charities her Department supports in Zimbabwe. [55883]

  Clare Short
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the levels of political violence in Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement on her Department's strategy to deal with political violence in Zimbabwe. [55887]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe continues unabated.

  We deplore the failure of the Zimbabwean Government to take steps to stop the violence. In response, the international community, including the UK, has imposed a number of measures against the Zimbabwean regime, including an arms embargo, a travel ban and an assets freeze aimed at senior figures. The EU, US and others have said they will consider additional measures if the political violence and abuses of democratic principles do not stop. We support this.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how much aid has been given to the Palestinian Authority. [54764]

  Clare Short
  The international community has provided financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority since the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993 and 1994. This has been designed to support the delivery of basic social services, and help develop the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to participate effectively in the peace process. Total donor assistance since 1994 (figures most readily available) for the Palestinian Territories and for Palestinian refugees was $3.87 billion.
  694W
  The major contributor has been the European Commission, the UK share of which comes from the Department for International Development budget. Between 1994 and 2001, EC aid for the period totalled euro 1.446 billion. The UK share of this is an estimated euro 245 million. Over the same period, the World bank provided about £13 million between 1994 and 2001. The UK share was £650,000.

  UK bilateral aid for the period 1996–97 to 2001–02 totalled £48.838 million. Between 1997 and 2001, the UK also provided –65.9 million to UNRWA for Palestinian refugees.

  Sierra Leone
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she plans to give to Sierra Leone. [54765]

  Clare Short
  We intend maintaining a development programme of around £40 million annually over the next few years. Our primary aims are to help the Government restore and maintain security throughout the country, improve standards of governance, help ensure better management of the country's diamond resources, and combat the endemic corruption that has put a brake on the country's developmental progress.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of recent Israeli military actions on British and EU-funded development projects in the west bank and Gaza. [54766]

  Clare Short
  The recent escalation of the conflict has resulted in the destruction of infrastructure, damage to private property and government buildings. This includes British and other European-funded development projects. It has clearly had a dramatic effect on the Palestinian people—further endangering livelihoods, disrupting the delivery of basic services, and undermining the institutions of government. But the high morale and dedication on the part of project staff and community partners has often enabled good progress to continue in the most adverse conditions.

  Together with our EU partners we have raised with the Israeli authorities grave concern about the damage to EU and other donor-funded projects and demanded that this practice stop. The EU has reserved the right to demand compensation.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many criminal offences have been (a) created and (b) abolished by her Department since 1997. [55427]

  Clare Short
  No legislation introduced by the Department for International Development since 1997 has contained criminal law provisions.

  Southern Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid is being
  695W
  provided to each country in southern Africa this year
  (a) through her Department's bilateral aid budget and
  (b) via the EU aid budget. [55879]

  Clare Short
  DFID plans to spend £40 million this year through its bilateral programme for the five countries of the Southern African Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland). This will be spent partly on activities in individual countries, and partly on regional activities covering several countries.

  The EU does not publish expected annual disbursement figures for the current year. In 2001, the EU spent 5 million euro in Botswana, 12 million euro in Lesotho, 11 million euro in Namibia, 112 million euro in South Africa and 7 million euro in Swaziland. The UK contributes 19 per cent. of the EU's spending in South Africa (which is from the EU budget), and 12.7 per cent. of the EU spending in the other four countries (which is from the European Development Fund).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department is taking to prevent the occurrence of famine in southern Africa this year. [55893]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £13 million for feeding programmes in Malawi and Zimbabwe. We are in contact with the World Food Programme who, once their assessments in the countries affected are completed, will confirm regional needs in early June.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the possibility of famine in southern Africa this year. [55899]

  Clare Short
  We have been monitoring food shortages in the region since September 2001. Six countries in southern Africa will not produce sufficient maize to meet their requirements this year. Localised food shortages are likely to occur as household stocks run out.

  Montserrat
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations her Department has received on the siting of an airport for Montserrat. [55702]

  Clare Short
  Following an assessment of the options, the Government of Montserrat has selected Gerald's Park as the site for a new airport. Although some reservations about this decision have been raised by a local nongovernmental group, detailed design work is proceeding.
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member about this shortly, in response to his letter of 28 April.

  Palestine
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent discussions she has had with the Israeli Government regarding the destination of UK funds provided to the Palestinian Authority; [55895]

  (2) whether her Department has evidence that (a) EU aid and (b) UK aid has reached (i) the Fatah movement and (ii) the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; and if she will establish an investigation into allegations relating to the diversion of aid to those organisations; [55894]
  696W
  (3) what assessment she has made of reports that EU aid to the Palestinian Authority has been misappropriated for terrorism; [55897]

  (4) what recent discussions she has had with Commissioner Patten regarding the destination of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority. [55896]

  Clare Short
  The allegations made by the Israeli Government about the misuse of European development funds relate to budgetary support provided through the European Commission (EC). Commissioner Patten wrote to EU Foreign Ministers on 7 May stressing that to date the EC has had no evidence corroborating the allegations that EU moneys have been misused to finance terrorist activities; or for anything other than their original purpose. The EC attach strict conditionality to the direct budgetary assistance provided to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The conditions mainly reinforce the need for transparency on the PA's public finances, strengthening the prudent management of the budget, and encouraging progress on overall financial and administrative reform. We are satisfied that the EC, with the assistance of the IMF, is ensuring the conditions are met.

  Child Soldiers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what organisations her Department supports which are working for the disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation of child soldiers. [55898]

  Clare Short
  We are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence to prevent and manage conflict through the Africa and Global Conflict Prevention Pools. We are contributing £3 million from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to UNICEF over a three-year period to build its capacity to implement programmes which will prevent children becoming involved in, or otherwise affected by, armed conflict, including the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers. This is part of a broader capacity building programme designed to strengthen UNICEF's programming in crises and conflicts.

  £3 million is also being contributed from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children to support his advocacy and research work to reduce the impact of conflict on children, including the use of child soldiers by state and non-state actors alike. The work of these two institutions spans a wide range of countries in Africa, Asia and Europe.

  We are also supporting the Quakers Office in New York to carry out a research programme into the experiences of girl soldiers, a little-acknowledged and researched aspect of child-soldiering, including disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration issues.

  DFID collaborated with the Government of Sierra Leone, UNICEF and other partners in the DDR programme in Sierra Leone, which resulted in the demobilisation of 6,485 child soldiers. DFID continues to support local communities involved in the reintegration of ex-combatants, many of whom were recruited as children.

  697W
  Through its regional offices, DFID has also supported Save the Children UK in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and in Sudan to help demobilise and reintegrate child soldiers. Similarly, in Rwanda DFID has supported UNICEF to help reintegrate child soldiers into communities.

  On 12 April, the UK pledged £25 million contribution towards the World bank Multi-Country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the Great Lakes region. This programme is aimed at the disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of some 350,000 soldiers and militia in the region. It is envisaged that part of this $500 million programme over five years will include the demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers.

  The UK was among the first 60 states to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court, which will come into force in July 2002. This statute makes it a war crime to recruit or use children under 15 in armed conflict.

  Burma
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions she is taking to promote democracy in Burma following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. [55889]

  Clare Short
  The UK has played a leading role in pressing for change in Burma. My Department continues to work closely with the FCO in support of efforts to bring about national reconciliation and facilitate political progress. The apparent unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest is a welcome step forward but much more remains to be achieved. We will continue to do everything in our power to facilitate and support national reconciliation, human rights, the restoration of democracy, and thereby the conditions for eventual re-engagement with the international community.

  Palestinian Refugee Camps
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what Palestinian refugee camps in (a) Lebanon and (b) Syria are (i) run directly by her Department, (ii) run by organisations with DFID involvement and (iii) run by UK non-governmental organisations; and if she will make a statement; [55998]

  (2) what Palestinian refugee camps in (a) Lebanon and (b) Syria are (i) directly funded by her Department,

  (ii) funded by projects co-funded by her Department and

  (iii) funded by UK non-governmental organisations; and if she will make a statement. [55991]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government do not run or fund Palestinian refugee camps. This is the responsibility of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), the local authorities, and the camp communities. We provide voluntary contributions to UNRWA, the camps' main services provider, and have funded UK NGOs engaged in camp community development projects.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b)) executive agencies and
  698W
  (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of her Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56313]

  Clare Short
  DFID civil service staff are located in London, East Kilbride and, increasingly, overseas. The number of posts currently located in Scotland is 530, which represents just over 33 per cent. of the total.

  We do not hold detailed records of civil service jobs relocated to Scotland between 1997 and 2002 but the information we do hold indicates that staff numbers in East Kilbride increased by around 70 in that period.

  No posts within the three non-departmental public bodies under the remit of the Department have been relocated to Scotland.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she plans to take at the Development Council Meeting at the end of May to promote the pursuit of the millennium development goals for education. [56163]

  Clare Short
  On 30 May EU Development Ministers are expected to approve a Council resolution on education and training in the context of poverty reduction in developing countries. This recognises that education, especially of girls and women, is central for poverty reduction and sustainable development, and the community and member states undertake to adjust their policies and allocation of resources to reflect this.

  Reiterating the Council's strong commitment to the education millennium development goals and to the Dakar framework for action on education for all (EFA), the resolution indicates that universal and free primary education should be the first priority of the community and member states' development cooperation strategy for education. The main responsibility for meeting these goals lies with developing country Governments. But the Commission and member states will strongly support their efforts, undertaking to increase the volume and improve the delivery of assistance for primary education and to cooperate more effectively with other international organisations, like UNESCO and the World bank.

  The UK has been actively involved in the drafting of this resolution and will strongly support, and closely monitor, its implementation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will indicate the whereabouts of the Home Office file on a constituent of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Home Office reference: E105598); and when that constituent's case will be resolved. [46653]

  Angela Eagle
  The original papers relating to this file have been mislaid and despite a number of searches have not yet been found. Searches for the file are continuing.
  699W
  In view of this, further information has been requested separately and, once received, the case will be considered as a priority.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the letters from the hon. Member for Ashford of 16 January and 21 March, concerning the site of the former Aldington prisons. [55088]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply to the hon. Member was dispatched on 7 May 2002.

  Police
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to review legislation governing police powers and procedures. [56902]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am initiating a review of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Codes of Practice issued under it. The review will be carried out jointly by the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. PACE and its Codes are vital parts of the framework providing the police with the powers they need to combat crime. I am determined, however, that this should be taken as an opportunity to reduce the administrative burdens on the police, not allow them to be tied in procedural knots which prevent them bringing criminals to justice. I want to ensure that after nearly 20 years PACE is still a useful tool supporting the police and, if changes are needed, I will have no hesitation in making them.

  Refugees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change to international conventions and treaties on refugees it is his policy to promote; and if he will make a statement. [28041]

  Angela Eagle
  In June 2000, my right hon. Friend Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary, called for the international community to examine how better the 1951 Geneva Convention could be operated to deal more effectively with issues caused by large mixed flows of migrants. Later that year, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) launched a series of global consultations on the legal framework, operation and gaps in the 1951 convention. The consultations will conclude this year. I reaffirmed, on 12 December 2001, the United Kingdom Government's commitment to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol at a commemorative meeting to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its signing.

  At European Union (EU) level the Treaty of Amsterdam requires that a community instrument must replace the Dublin Convention by May 2004. The commission has presented a draft proposal for a Council regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examination of asylum applications made within the EU. The Government's view of this draft regulation can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 23 October, deposited in the Library.
  700W

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) for telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) ministers and (y) staff. [34316]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 126W.

  National Insurance Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to (a) his Department, (b) agencies of his Department, (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of his Department, (d) the Police and (e) the Prison Service. [52076]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Smith), on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. next year.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report of the inter-departmental review of family visitor appeals. [54107]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the announcement of the abolition of the fee by m} right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) on 24 April 2002, the report is now being finalised.

  Damilola Taylor
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the actions that he plans to take as a consequence of the Damilola Taylor case.
  [54120]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  First of all I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy for the Taylor family who still have many questions left unanswered despite an intensive police investigation and a lengthy trial.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) has said there should be no rush to judgment. This was always going to be a difficult case.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the handling of the case, to consider whether there are implications for the conduct of future cases and to make recommendations. Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate will be involved in the review. In particular, the Director has been asked to

  701W
  examine whether the time has come to introduce a system where, before trial, interviews of certain key witnesses are conducted by the prosecutor in a limited category of cases. The review will report by mid-summer.

  We are already taking steps to help children and other vulnerable or intimidated witnesses give their best evidence.

  In June 1998 the Government published "Speaking up for Justice", a report of an interdepartmental working group on the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the Criminal Justice system. It proposed a coherent and integrated scheme to provide appropriate support and assistance for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. Key recommendations include a range of special measures available for use at the trial including:
  screens around the witness box:clearing the court, in certain circumstances, so that evidence can be given in private;removal of wigs and gowns;video recorded statements to replace the evidence-in-chief; video recorded pre-trial cross-examination;live television links;assistance with communication if necessary, including the use of an intermediary.
  The measures requiring legislation were included in Part II of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

  Implementation of the special measures is imminent and they will be an improvement on the current arrangements. In January I announced a phased implementation programme starting on 24 July this year. In the Crown court all the special measures will be implemented for vulnerable witnesses, with the exception of intermediaries and pre-trial cross-examination which will be subject to pilot projects. The same measures, with the added exception of video-recorded statements, will be implemented at the same time for intimidated witnesses.

  All other measures will be introduced in 2003-04 for all qualifying witnesses.

  In magistrates courts implementation of special measures in July 2002 will be restricted to television links and video recorded evidence for child witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, violence (including threats) and cruelty. This will provide protection for children in cases involving assaults, muggings and domestic violence. It will also bring the adult magistrates courts into line with the current provision in the Youth court. Most of the measures will be extended to magistrates courts by 2003-04 (after their evaluation in the Crown court) to bring them in line with the Crown court.

  Over the next year or two we will also be starting pilot projects on video-recorded pre-trial cross-examination and the use of intermediaries.

  A whole range of guidance and training materials for the criminal justice agencies have been published including:
  "Achieving Best Evidence", which is comprehensive guidance on preparing for and conducting interviews with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses (both adults and children). It will replace
  702W
  the "Memorandum of Good Practice in Video Recorded Interviews With Child Witnesses For Criminal Proceedings" from 24 May 2002;A practice guide on early special measures meeting between the police and Crown Prosecution Service and meetings between the Crown Prosecution Service and vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. From July, prosecutors will meet vulnerable witnesses to discuss special measures that can be taken in connection with their giving evidence.
  We are working closely with a full range of agencies in the criminal justice system and voluntary sector in implementing these measures. Arrangements are already in place to evaluate the special measures once they have had a chance to bed down. We will also be looking closely at the findings of the inquiries being conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police to see if there are any lessons to be learned for the measures needed to enable children and other vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence.

  On the wider front, Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts was published in October last year which resulted in a public consultation. The report contains 328 recommendations and makes wide proposals for reforming the courts and their proceedings. The Government is looking at the report and the results of the consultation carefully as well as other ideas for modernising the criminal justice system. We will publish a White Paper setting out our proposals for the way forward shortly.

  Christopher Edwards
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish a public inquiry into the death of Christopher Edwards at Chelmsford Prison; [55407]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the homicide of Christopher Edwards at Chelmsford Prison. [55409]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to my hon. Friend for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 438W.

  I see no grounds for a new inquiry. The Court recognised the changes that have taken place since

  Mr. Edward's death and found no grounds to order further investigation.

  Policing Costs (Commonwealth Games)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision on the funding of policing costs which will be incurred by Greater Manchester police in connection with the Commonwealth Games. [55043]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 603W.

  Prisoners (Suicide Risks)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last review was undertaken of
  703W
  procedures to be followed in prisons, for inmates considered as possible suicide risks; and if he will make a statement. [55199]

  Beverley Hughes
  A three-year strategy was launched in February 2001 following the Prison Service's review "Caring for the Suicidal in Custody", which recommended a radical move from awareness to prevention, including a commitment to reduce self-inflicted deaths in prison. The strategy embraces targeted, preventative measures within a holistic approach that seeks a supportive prison culture based on good prisoner/staff relationships; a physically safe environment with reduced opportunities for self-harm; and strong multi-disciplinary partnerships within prisons, with the courts, police and other criminal justice partners and with voluntary agencies particularly the Samaritans. Related work is tackling bullying and violence.

  The strategy focuses additional resources where the risks are highest such as the busy local prisons. Included in the strategy is a "care of prisoners at risk" project which is reviewing procedures and processes for identifying and supporting prisoners at enhanced risk. New procedures are being developed and will be trailed later this year.

  Life Sentence Tariffs
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the range is of life sentence tariffs; and what the average tariff for (a) women and (b) male prisoners convicted of murder is. [55278]

  Beverley Hughes
  Tariffs for murderers range in length from four years to whole life. Excluding whole life tariffs, the average length of tariffs set for women currently serving mandatory sentences for murder is 13 years one month, and for men 14 years two months.

  Lost Property
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the laws governing the ownership of lost property; and if he will review them. [55788]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Civil law governs questions of ownership of property, and that it is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The criminal courts consider questions of ownership on the facts of each case, in the light of the applicable law. The Government have no plans to review this area of the law.

  Released Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance is provided for (a) prisoners being released after serving their sentence and (b) prisoners who are released as a result of their conviction being overturned. [55620]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: While there is no statutory obligation on the probation service to provide support on release to offenders who complete their sentences in prison, support can be provided to an offender seeking help, if local resources allow. The current position is the same in respect of prisoners released after a successful appeal against conviction. However, I am currently considering proposals for an advice service
  704W
  specifically for those who have successfully appealed against conviction and will be making an announcement shortly.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the privately run prisons in England and Wales. [56295]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are nine privately managed prisons in England and Wales: Altcourse prison, Ashfield young offender institution, Doncaster prison and young offender institution, Dovegate prison, Forest Bank prison and young offender institution, Lowdham Grange prison, Parc prison and young offender institution, Rye Hill prison and Wolds prison.

  Conviction Statistics
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women in prison in the United Kingdom are convicted of (a) murder and (b) manslaughter of male partners and former partners; [55277]

  (2) how many men in United Kingdom prisons have been convicted of (a) murder and (b) manslaughter of female partners and former partners. [55280]

  Beverley Hughes
  No data are held centrally on whether people in prisons in England and Wales were related in any way to the victim or victims of their crime.

  Provisional information shows that at the latest available date (31 March 2002) there were 3,533 males and 138 females in prisons in England and Wales that had been convicted of murder, and 583 males and 42 females that had been convicted of manslaughter.

  Chapter Four of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales" contains further information on homicides and the relationship between the victim and the main suspect of the crime. Extracts of the 2000 edition are available at the website address: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.co.uk/document/cm53/5312/crimestats.pdf.

  Information about prisoners in Scotland and Northern Ireland should be sought from the Scottish Executive (Helen Liddell) and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Animal Testing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of safety tests where animal testing is required by law. [56018]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Home Office neither sponsors safety tests involving the use of animals, nor does it set any requirements for data produced by any such procedures. Examples of specific legislative requirements under which procedures on animals may be carried out include the Medicines Act 1968, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations, the Control of Pesticides Regulations, European Union Pesticides Directives, and the Food Safety Act. These requirements are matters for the relevant sponsoring Department.
  705W
  Where testing using animals is required, we ensure that the 3Rs are rigorously applied (the use of alternatives which replace animal use entirely, reduce the numbers of animals used, or refine the procedures to minimise suffering). In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act also requires that the likely benefits of the programme are weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.

  In addition, in August 2000, we announced an interdepartmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests. Progress in implementing the concordat is currently being reviewed.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which animal tests provide a reliable model on which to estimate likely reactions in humans. [56014]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that regulated procedures can only be authorised and performed if there are no scientifically suitable alternatives that replace animal use, reduce the number animals needed, or refine the procedures used to minimise suffering. The likely benefits to humans, other animals or the environment must be weighed against the likely welfare costs to the animals involved.

  Although it has been suggested that information derived from procedures on animals cannot be extended to humans, these views do not reflect the consensus in the wider scientific community. This recognises that while there are physiological or bio-chemical differences between species, there are greater similarities. Species differences are taken into account within the design of research projects and the results of testing a new drug, for example, on animals can be used to predict the effect on humans.

  Animal procedures are, in any case, only one element of the tests carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of products. Before animals are used, they will also have been subjected to a variety of other screening processes including the use of computers, cell cultures and other non-animal tests. Clinical trials in humans also play an important part. It is not justified, therefore, to single out animal experiments for criticism when unexpected results are seen in full-scale clinical use. The simple fact is that biological science is not exact. However, until other suitable alternatives are developed, animal tests will continue to play an important part in minimising the adverse effects to humans caused by unexpected reactions during clinical trials and use.

  Yarl's Wood
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his statement of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 442 on the Yarl's Wood fire, if he will list the different expert sources that informed his decision not to fit sprinklers. [49845]
  706W
  Angela Eagle
  The Minister responsible took advice not only internally but also from the local fire service and from our contractors.

  Asylum Seekers
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on asylum seekers leaving the premises allocated to them under the National Asylum Support Service and moving to another area without housing support from NASS. [55610]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Information is not currently available on asylum seekers who leave accommodation allocated to them by the National Asylum Support Service.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contract to carry out forced removals of asylum seekers whose applications have been refused. [49966]

  Angela Eagle
  Enforcement action is employed in cases where the subject is unwilling to comply with removal of their own volition. This includes the use of detention.

  Where necessary, private security companies are employed to provide escort services. This ensures the safety and well being of the individual who is being removed, as well as that of fellow passengers.

  The same carrier is required, under the Immigration Act 1971, to remove failed asylum seekers for whom there is evidence of inbound carriage. Where there is no evidence of inbound carriage, removal will take place at public expense.

  The Immigration Service also uses charter flights, for which the most competitive tender is sought.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Coroners (Maternity Leave)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the entitlement of coroners to maternity leave. [34894]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  As office holders, coroners have no entitlement to the statutory provisions for maternity leave, unless they are also employees. However, it is open to any coroner to negotiate contractual terms with the local authority who pays their salary, including in relation to maternity leave. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently undertaking a review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights, and this is looking at certain groups excluded from employment rights legislation, including officeholders.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when her Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as
  707w
  part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [54410]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State at the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs on 9 May 2002,Official Report, columns 274 and 275W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when her Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff (a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54420]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 274W.

  Consultation Document (Making Decisions)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list those organisations and individuals who have been sent copies of the consultation document "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves". [55289]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The consultation document "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves" has been sent to the organisations listed who have an interest in all aspects of mental incapacity. Many private individuals have also received copies on request and the document is available on our website.

  List of Organisations

  Mencap

  Mind

  The Alzheimer's Society Action on Elder Abuse Age Concern

  Age Concern Cymru

  Help the Aged

  Values into Action

  People First

  British Medical Association

  General Medical Council

  Royal College of Nursing

  The Law Society

  The Bar Council

  Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners

  Solicitors for the Elderly

  Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  National Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux

  The Local Government Association

  The Voluntary Euthanasia Society

  The Association of Directors of Social Services

  The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities
  708W
  Citizen Advocacy Information and Training

  Christian Action Research and Education (CARE)

  The Pro-Life Alliance

  Alert

  Carers UK

  The Abbeyfield Society

  Action for Victims of Medical Accidents

  Advice Services Alliance

  Advocacy Partners Age-Link

  The Ann Craft Trust Association for Residential Care

  Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes

  British Association for Service to the Elderly

  British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  British Geriatrics Society

  British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association

  British Society of Dentistry for the Handicapped

  Careline

  Centre for Policy on Ageing

  Consumers' Association Contact the Elderly

  Continuing Care at Home Association

  Counsel and Care

  Mental After Care Association

  Mental Health Media Legal Action Group

  Disabilities Alliance Educational and Research Association

  Disability Awareness in Action

  Disability Law Service Research into Ageing

  The National Autistic Society

  Social Care Association

  The Society for the Autistically Handicapped

  United Kingdom Homecare Association

  VOICE UK

  National Association for Mental After-Care in Registered Care

  National Benevolent Fund for the Aged

  National Care Homes Association

  National Council for Hospice and Special Palliative Care

  National Development Team for People with Learning Disabilities

  National Pensioners Convention Council

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care

  Nuffield Foundation

  Voluntary Organisations Disability Group

  Down's Heart Group

  Down's Syndrome Association

  Christian Council on Ageing

  Pensioners' Voice Relatives Association

  Research Institute for Consumer Affairs

  Dementia Care Trust Home from Hospital

  Headway National Head Injuries Association Ltd.

  Long-Term Medical Conditions Alliance

  Forum of Chairmen of Independent Hospices
  709W
  Hospice Information Service

  Law Centres Federation

  RESPOND

  Retirement Trust

  United Response

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  SANE

  Sign—Campaigning for Services in Mental Health and Deafness

  Patients Association

  Stroke Association

  Patient Concern

  Better Government for Older People Network

  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation

  British Association of Brain Injury Case Managers

  Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society

  Rehab Without Walls

  Relatives and Residents Association

  RESCARE

  SCOPE

  Prince's Royal Trust for Carers

  Terence Higgins Trust

  London Lighthouse

  Body Positive

  Mary Ward Legal Advice Centre

  Caring Matters

  Tizard Centre

  Medical Defence Union

  Medico-Legal Society

  Society for Advanced Legal Studies

  Society of Clinical Psychiatrists

  President of the Family Division

  Royal College of GPs

  Royal College of Surgeons

  Association of Wardens of Sheltered Housing

  Association of Home Care Agencies.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assistance she received from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society prior to publication of the consultation document, "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves". [55290]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The consultation document, "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves" seeks views on a series of leaflets which offer practical guidance and set out the current legal position with regard to decision-making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults. As part of the compilation of this guidance, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society commented on factual information that was to be provided on advance directives.

  Jury Service (Exemptions)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people summoned for jury trial last year were excused on the basis of the statutory exemption of their profession. [55458]
  710W
  Mr. Wills
  During the 2001 calendar year, 579,157 summonses were issued by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. 175,644 (30.3 per cent. of those summoned) people were excused from jury service, of which 32,321 (5.6 per cent. of those summoned) were excused as of right.

  We do not collect statistics of the individual reasons why people are excused by right. We have however taken a three week sample in eight courts to obtain an estimate of the number of excusals. The sample showed that 1.3 per cent. of those summoned were excused on the grounds of their profession. If this figure is accurate then nationally this would equate to under 7,500 of the 579,157 summoned.

  Ministerial Papers
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances the 10-year rule applies with regard to the pulping of ministerial papers; how long the rule has been in existence; and who is responsible for determining which material is to be destroyed. [56027]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have no knowledge of any 10-year rule concerning the pulping of ministerial papers. Ministers' official papers are public records and, in common with all public records, are reviewed for disposal or preservation in line with the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958 and the 'thirty-year rule'. The Public Record Office has recently published guidance entitled 'Management of Private Office Papers', which is available on the Public Record Office website at http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/standards/privateoffice.htm.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what options are being considered by the Courts Service for improving the quality of Crown court accommodation and for the provision of new Crown court buildings in Buckinghamshire. [55831]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service is constantly seeking to improve Crown Court accommodation to meet modern standards and changing requirements. Various options are being considered for replacing the current Crown Court accommodation in Buckinghamshire. We have concluded that the existing accommodation cannot be refurbished to meet modern standards. The options, including the possibility of entering into a Private Developer Scheme, need to be developed further and the appropriate funding secured.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has for the future of the Crown Court buildings in Aylesbury. [55832]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service is currently seeking to renew the leases under which it occupies the Crown Court accommodation in Aylesbury for terms expiring in March 2007. Options are being considered as to how the longer term accommodation needs in Buckinghamshire can best be met.
  711W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations have claimed responsibility for terrorist or criminal acts in Northern Ireland since Good Friday 1998; and for which acts. [53689]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have made inquiries with the police service of Northern Ireland concerning the issue raised and they have advised that it will take some time for them to investigate the matter. I will reply to the hon. Member in due course.

  Paramilitary Beatings
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many paramilitary beatings were carried out between 31 March and 30 April by (a) Loyalists, (b) Republicans and (c) others. [55721]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks

  31 March

  1–30 April

  Attributed to Loyalists

  Assaults

  1

  7

  Shootings

  —

  4

  Attributed to Republicans

  Assaults

  —

  3

  Shootings

  —

  4

  Note:

  2002 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment at a later date.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts are being made to encourage more women and members of ethnic communities, with particular reference to the Chinese community, to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [55720]

  Jane Kennedy
  Consensia have taken particular account of the need to attract more women and members of ethnic communities in both the design and publication of advertisements for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Familiarisation days, consisting of presentations from various specialisms within the Police Service, have also been held for both females and the Chinese community in the course of marketing the PSNI as a worthwhile career.

  Under section 48 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Policing Board are required to make an action plan for monitoring the number of women in the service, and for increasing their numbers if they are underrepresented.

  In addition, part-time working arrangements have been introduced to encourage more women to consider a career in the Police Service.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ms C. Booth
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the role he has asked Ms C. Booth QC to play in connection with Government policy formulation; [55834]

  (2) if he will list the official functions which he has asked Ms C. Booth QC to undertake since 1 January 2000; [55835]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the public accountability of Ms C. Booth QC in respect of activities she undertakes which contribute to the work of Government; [55836]

  (4) whether Lord Birt was present at the recent transport seminar chaired by Ms C. Booth QC; [55837]

  (5) if he will list those who attended the recent seminar on transport at No. 10 Downing Street chaired by Ms C. Booth QC; [55838]

  (6) if he will make it his policy that seminars held at No. 10 Downing Street will henceforth be chaired by elected Ministers; [55742]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent transport seminar at 10 Downing Street chaired by Ms C. Booth QC; [55743]

  (8) if he will list the dates since I May 1997 on which Ms C. Booth QC has chaired seminars at 10 Downing Street listing in each case (a) the subject under discussion and (b) which Ministers attended. [55744]

  The Prime Minister
  Mrs. Blair does not participate in the work of the Government and therefore the issue of accountability does not arise. She has not chaired a policy-making seminar at No. 10.

  The nature of the lectures Mrs. Blair has attended at No. 10 was made clear in the press notice issued by my office of 5 January 1999: "The Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair will launch a debate on Britain in the new millennium by hosting a series of lectures by leading figures to highlight some of the challenges we will face in the next century. The 1999 millennium lectures will cover education, work, leisure, wealth creation, science, arts and culture and what it means to be British in the 21st century". The lectures are not part of the policy-making process and there are no formal outcomes. Mrs. Blair has invited questions from guests when I have been unable to remain for the duration of the lecture, and hosted the drinks reception after the lecture. She plays no part in the discussions.

  Mrs. Blair has attended the following lectures:

  27 January 1999—Professor Jonathan Gershuny on work and leisure.

  11 March 1999—Professor Susan Greenfield on science.

  26 May 1999—David Potter on wealth creation and the knowledge economy.

  15 July 1999—Sir Geoff Hampton on education.

  13 October 1999—Derrick Anderson on art and culture.

  8 December 1999—Professor Linda Colley on Britishness.
  713W
  6 March 2000—Sue Page on health.

  4 December 2000—Tessa Tennant on the environment.

  17 December 2001—K. Y. Amoako on Africa.

  11 February 2002—Jeremy Acklam on transport.

  13 May 2002—Martin Narey on the criminal justice system.

  It is not my practice to list individual names of guests invited to receptions and events at 10 Downing Street.
  714W
  People who attended were from Government and a wide range of outside organisations. Representatives from the media have been invited and have attended the series of lectures. Lord Birt did not attend the transport seminar.

  For details of official and charity receptions hosted by Mrs. Blair and me, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 1444–48W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion (Transport)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress the Social Exclusion Unit has made in its project on transport and social exclusion. [57434]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Social Exclusion Unit will publish interim findings from its transport and social exclusion project, 'Making the Connections—Transport and Social Exclusion: Interim Findings' on its website (www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk) on Thursday. Copies will be placed in both Libraries of the House in due course.

  Child Care
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 April 2002 to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint),Official Report, columns 315–16, on the National Child Care Strategy, if

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Core Cabinet Office

  1,068

  1,192

  1,223

  1,326

  Central Office of Information

  298

  195

  237

  4411

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies

  70

  116

  118

  137

  1This includes training partly funded by the Civil Service Modernisation Fund.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 May 2002, what proportion of the £730 million annual budget for a regional assembly in the north-west would be constituted of funds at present spent by(a) local government and (b) central Government Departments. [56489]

  Mrs. Roche
  All of the £730 million estimated annual budget for a regional assembly in the north-west will be made up of funds currently allocated by central Government Departments, their agencies and public bodies. Of this total my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions allocates £130 million to local authorities, for housing capital investment to improve their own housing stock, to support new build by housing associations and to renew private stock. Should an elected assembly be established in the north-west, it would be responsible for providing resources to local authorities in the north-west for these purposes.

  Consultation Exercises
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the conduct of consultation exercises; and if he will make a statement about conformity with Criterion 6 Cabinet Office Guidelines. [55707]

  Mr. Leslie
  No formal discussions have taken place with ministerial colleagues on the general conduct of consultation exercises. The conduct of such exercises is the responsibility of each Government Department and its agencies. Compliance with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation, including conformity with criterion 6 of the Code, also rests with each Department.716W
  he will break down the total expenditure on the new tax credit system into figures showing the cost of each individual credit. [56469]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The costs of the new tax credit system are shown in Table A.1 on page 154 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report April 2002. It is not possible to split these costs between the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years.[52729]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information concerning specific types of training is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, total training expenditure can be broken down as follows:

  Parliamentary Branch
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Branch; [56271]

  (2) if he will list the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Branch's (a) planned and (b) outturn budgets for electronic hardware and software for each financial year since 1997–98 to the last year for which budgets have been set; [56251]

  (3) for each year since 1997 to the latest year for which the information is available, (a) how many staff were working in the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Branch and (b) what the total cost of the operation of the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Branch was. [56248]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Cabinet Office Parliamentary Branch supports all Ministers within the Cabinet Office, as well as the Lord Privy Seal, in all their dealings with Parliament.
  A total of –9,613.85 including VAT was spent on a database for Cabinet Office parliamentary questions in December 2000. The branch is also supported by the Cabinet Office in its usual contract for IT equipment. There are no plans for any further expenditure on IT hardware.

  Expenditure for the Parliamentary Branch is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£000)

  Post Numbers

  1997–98

  106

  4

  1998–99

  142

  5

  1999–2000

  147

  5

  2000–01

  1162

  5

  2001–02

  1171

  6

  717W
  1From 2000 the budget for Parliamentary Branch was incorporated into the Parliamentary and Ministerial Support Services therefore the specific information requested on the Parliamentary Branch could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Therefore the costs listed above are for Parliamentary Branch staffing only.

  Internet Access
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households, broken down by(a) class, (b) age and (c) region, have a PC; and what figures he has collated on other major European countries in terms of rates of household and work place access to the internet. [55873]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 15 May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions regarding information on British household computer ownership broken down by (a) social class, (b) age and (c) region, and rates of household and workplace access to the Internet in major European countries. (55873)The tables below show the most recently available percentages of households in Great Britain with a home computer broken down by social class of head of household (table 1), age of head of household (table 2) and region and country of Great Britain (table 3). The latest headline estimate is that 49 per cent. of households in the UK had a home computer in the quarter October to December 2001. A more detailed analysis has to be based on a full sample over a 12-month period.

  Table 1: Percentage of households in Great Britain with a home computer by social class of head of household; April 2000 to March 2001

  Social class of head of household

  Percentage

  Professional etc.

  80

  Managerial and technical

  70

  Skilled non-manual

  55

  Skilled manual

  47

  Partly skilled occupations

  39

  Unskilled occupations

  24

  All households

  45

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey, 2000–01

  Table 2: Percentage of households in Great Britain with a home computer by age of head of household; April 2000 to March 2001

  Age of head of household (years)

  Percentage

  Under 30

  44

  30 and under 50

  61

  50 and under 65

  48

  65 and under 75

  23

  75 or over

  7

  All households

  45

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey, 2000–01

  Table 3: Percentage of households with a home computer by Government Office regions and countries of GB; April 2000 to March 2001

  Government Office region and country of GB

  Percentage

  North East

  37

  North West

  42

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  41

  East Midlands

  43

  West Midlands

  44

  718W

  Table 3: Percentage of households with a home computer by Government Office regions and countries of GB; April 2000 to March 2001

  Government Office region and country of GB

  Percentage

  East

  47

  London

  50

  South East

  50

  South West

  51

  England

  46

  Wales

  38

  Scotland

  37

  Great Britain

  45

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey, 2000–01

  Table 4 below shows the percentage of households and enterprises with Internet access for major European countries for 2000, the latest available consistent estimates.

  Table 4: Percentage of households and enterprises with Internet access for major European countries; 2000

  Percentage

  Country

  Households with Internet access1

  Enterprises with Internet access2

  United Kingdom

  32

  63

  Sweden

  54

  90

  Germany

  27

  67

  France

  12

  3—

  Italy

  15

  66

  1Source: UK—Family Expenditure Survey (April 2000 to March 2001); Sweden and Germany—Eurobarometer; France and Italy—National Statistics Institutes.

  2Source: Eurostat co-ordinated e-Commerce surveys 2000. Enterprises with 10 or more employees. Richard Deiss (2002): "e-Commerce in Europe, Statistics in Focus".

  3Not available

  Like all estimates from sample surveys the figures presented are subject to sampling variability. This is greater for sub-groups of the population than for national estimates.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the occasions when departments have sought his Department's guidance in accordance with paragraph 8 of his Department's guidance on the sponsorship of Government events in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, stating in each case the (i) department and (ii) event concerned; [56249]

  (2) whether records are held within his Department for the purpose of enforcing paragraph 3 of his Department's guidance on sponsorship of Government events. [56252]

  Mr. Leslie
  The 1999 guidelines, "Sponsorship of Government Events", were superseded in July 2000 by the current guidelines, "Guidance to Departments on Sponsorship of Government Activities".

  Individual Departments are responsible for ensuring that the central guidance is appropriately applied when they are seeking sponsorship for their events and activities. My officials provide advice to departments on a case-by-case basis when requested to do so. Not all requests will be recorded as some will be no more than a passing request for advice in the margins of other discussions.
  719W

  Higher Rate Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to freeze the level of the threshold for the higher rate of income tax in 2003–04. [52951]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No, the Government's plans, as set out in the Budget, assume the indexation of the basic rate limit (£29,900 in 2002£03).

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many records of individuals were stored in the national insurance record system as at 31 December 2001; how many of these records concerned individuals who are known to be deceased; and in how many of these records there has been no contributions activity since 1 January 2001. [54723]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On the basis of information held, the position is that 69,852,367 individual records were stored in the national insurance record system at 31 December 2001.

  5,987,933 of those concerned individuals who are known to be deceased. Records are retained beyond death because of potential and ongoing claims by dependent spouse.

  There has been no contributions activity on 5,784,733 of these records since 1 January 2001.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the taxation of small firms that trade as(a) limited companies and (b) unincorporated businesses. [56853]

  Number of—(a) dependent children in lone parent families and (b) dependent children in all families; and (c) lone parent families with dependent children by London Boroughs, 1991

  Thousands

  London Borough

  Dependent children1 in lone parent families (a)

  Dependent children1 in all families (b)

  Percentage of dependent children1 in lone parent families(a) divided by (b) times 100

  Lone parent families with dependent children (c)

  City of London

  ·07

  ·20

  33

  ·05

  Camden

  9·8

  30·4

  32

  6·2

  Hackney

  15·1

  44·8

  34

  9·2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9·2

  25·7

  36

  5·6

  Haringey

  13·0

  42·8

  30

  8·2

  Islington

  12·2

  33·2

  37

  8·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6·4

  22·4

  29

  4·3

  Lambeth

  19·6

  49·5

  40

  12·6

  Lewisham

  16·4

  48·2

  34

  10·3

  Newham

  13·7

  55·7

  25

  8·3

  Southwark

  18·3

  47·2

  39

  11·2

  Tower Hamlets

  10·6

  44·2

  24

  6·4

  Wandsworth

  12·3

  44·7

  28

  8·1

  Westminster, City of

  6·5

  25·7

  25

  4·3

  720W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Small firms trading as limited companies are subject to corporation tax on their trading profits. The owners of small firms trading as unincorporated businesses are subject to income tax on the trading profits of the business.

  Lone-parent Families
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children are in lone-parent families in(a) London, broken down by borough and (b) in the Battersea constituency. [55803]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Martin Linton MP, dated 15 May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the number of children in lone-parent families in (a) London, broken down by Borough, and (b) in the Battersea constituency. (55803)Estimates of the number of dependent children living in one-parent families in each London Borough are only available from the 1991 Census and are shown in the attached table.A 1991 census estimate of the number of dependent children in one-parent families is not available for the Battersea constituency, although some population estimates (including those of children), by household composition, were published in: "New Parliamentary Constituency, Key Counts Census Monitor, 1991" (HMSO, 1996)See also:Estimated numbers of one parent families and their prevalence in Great Britain in 1991, John Haskey, Population Trends 78, HMSO (London, 1994) (gives some other estimates for one-parent families by London Borough, using 1991 Census data)One-parent families and their dependent children in Great Britain, John Haskey, Population Trends, 91, The Stationery Office (London, 1998) (gives latest available national estimates)Regional Trends No 36 (2001 edition), Sub-regions of England (Table 14.4 page 199) (gives projected—from earlier censuses up to and including the 1991 Census—percentage proportions of households which are lone parent households in 1999 by London Borough)(Copies of Population Trends, Regional Trends and Census Monitors are held in the House of Commons Library.)2. Counts from the 2001 Census will become available during 2003 and will be placed in the House of Commons Library.721W

  Number of—(a) dependent children in lone parent families and (b) dependent children in all families; and (c) lone parent families with dependent children by London Boroughs, 1991

  Thousands

  London Borough

  Dependent children1 in lone parent families (a)

  Dependent children1 in all families (b)

  Percentage of dependent children1 in lone parent families (a) divided by (b) times 100

  Lone parent families with dependent children (c)

  Inner London

  163·3

  514·8

  32

  102·6

  Barking and Dagenham

  6·1

  31·7

  19

  3·9

  Barnet

  9·7

  63·5

  15

  6·1

  Bexley

  6·2

  47·4

  13

  4·0

  Brent

  13·0

  53·7

  24

  8·2

  Bromley

  8·0

  59·0

  14

  5·2

  Croydon

  12·4

  67·9

  18

  8·1

  Ealing

  11·3

  59·1

  19

  6·9

  Enfield

  9·1

  57·0

  16

  5·8

  Greenwich

  13·1

  48·2

  27

  7·5

  Harrow

  5·3

  44·4

  12

  3·5

  Havering

  6·4

  49·4

  13

  4·4

  Hillingdon

  7·1

  49·2

  14

  4·6

  Hounslow

  8·4

  46·0

  18

  5·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  3·2

  26·2

  12

  2·3

  Merton

  5·4

  34·0

  16

  3·6

  Redbridge

  6·1

  49·3

  12

  4·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  3·9

  30·1

  13

  2·7

  Sutton

  5·2

  35·1

  15

  3·2

  Waltham Forest

  10·2

  45·6

  22

  6·4

  Outer London

  150·1

  896·8

  17

  95·5

  Greater London

  313·3

  1,411·6

  22

  198·1

  1A dependent child is either a person aged 0–15 in a household; or one aged 16–18, never married, in full-time education, and economically inactive.

  Note:

  Estimated numbers have been calculated at London Borough level then summed to obtain estimates for Inner London, Outer London and Greater London

  Source:

  1991 Census (based on 10 per cent. Census figures, grossed up)

HEALTH

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to his Department's guidance HSC/LAC (2001) 1 Intermediate Care, if he will publish a breakdown of the allocation of the £900 million spending announced in the NHS Plan for Intermediate Care. [52279]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health service circular 2001/001: local authority circular (2001)/1 Intermediate Care, issued on 19 January 2001, explains that, as part of the extra £900 million made available by 2003–04 for intermediate care and related services to promote independence, around £255 million is specifically for national health service investment in intermediate care. This is on top of the extra £150 million available recurrently from 2000–01, and a further £64 million is for community equipment services.

  The circular also confirms that £100 million will be available in 2003–04 for a personal social services (PSS) performance fund, focusing initially on development of intermediate care. Beyond that, a substantial component of the £900 million relates to resources being provided to local government, mostly through the PSS standard spending assessment. Deployment of those resources remain a decision for councils to make in the light of local circumstances.

  The circular is in the Library.
  722W

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52500]

  Jacqui Smith
  Quality Protects is the Government's flagship programme to improve the management and delivery of children's social services. Participation of children and young people underpins the Quality Protects programme and is a priority area for special grant funding. In September 2000, the Department formed a Quality Protects young people's reference group to ensure the contemporary views of children and young people inform the development of the programme. The Department meets with this group three times a year. The last meeting took place on 6 April 2002. Topics discussed included the Department's review of foster care (Choice Protects) and draft advocacy standards.

  In addition to the Quality Protects reference group, the Department meets regularly with A National Voice—a young people's organisation which exists to enable young people currently or previously in care to have an effective voice in consulting and developing policies that will bring about positive change for young people. A National Voice is unique in that it is managed and staffed by young people with experience of having been in care.
  723W
  Further, as part of the paediatric cardiac review, the Department has consulted children, young people and parents about their experiences of heart treatment and care. Visits took place to 14 heart units across the country in September 2001 and November 2001.

  Consultation on policy developments relating to children routinely takes place involving organisations representing young people, alongside other organisations.

  GP Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a statement on the review process of the qualification level for health authorities to receive the extra golden hello funding incentive for recruitment of general practitioners in their area. [53328]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: We are currently reviewing the list of under-doctored primary care trusts which qualify for an additional general practitioner golden hello payment. We expect to publish our proposals shortly and the revised list to take effect from 1 October 2002.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [53493]

  Ms Blears
  None of the buildings owned and occupied by the Department for its own use has solar panels installed.

  This reply does not include information about the national health service.

  General dental service: gross and net fees by health authority in the north-west region, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Health authority

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Bury and Rochdale

  10·8

  7·7

  10·8

  7·7

  11·6

  8·2

  11·8

  8·4

  12·1

  8·5

  East Lancashire

  12·9

  9·1

  13·3

  9·4

  13·9

  9·7

  14·3

  10·0

  13·9

  9·8

  Liverpool

  14·5

  11·7

  14·6

  11·8

  15·1

  12·2

  15·3

  12·2

  15·5

  12·4

  Manchester

  14·8

  11·6

  14·8

  11·6

  15·6

  12·2

  16·3

  12·7

  17·0

  13·1

  Morecambe Bay

  7·8

  5·0

  7·9

  5·1

  8·2

  5·2

  8·5

  5·3

  8·8

  5·4

  North Cheshire

  7·9

  5·5

  8·1

  5·6

  8·4

  5·8

  8·8

  6·1

  9·2

  6·3

  North-west Lancashire

  13·6

  9·3

  14·1

  9·7

  15·0

  10·3

  15·8

  11·0

  15·9

  10·9

  Salford and Trafford

  14·5

  10·4

  14·4

  10·3

  15·1

  10·8

  15·4

  11·1

  16·0

  11·4

  Sefton

  8·6

  5·9

  8·9

  6·1

  9·3

  6·3

  9·2

  6·1

  9·0

  5·8

  South Cheshire

  17·6

  11·5

  18·3

  12·1

  19·0

  12·5

  18·5

  12·2

  19·5

  12·8

  South Lancashire

  6·7

  4·7

  7·0

  4·9

  7·6

  5·1

  7·9

  5·4

  8·6

  5·9

  St· Helens and Knowsley

  9·1

  7·0

  9·6

  7·3

  9·9

  7·5

  10·0

  7·5

  9·9

  7·4

  Stockport

  8·8

  5·6

  8·9

  5·6

  9·4

  5·9

  9·6

  6·0

  10·2

  6·4

  West Pennine

  14·3

  10·4

  14·6

  10·5

  15·1

  10·7

  15·9

  11·4

  16·2

  11·4

  Wigan and Bolton

  16·7

  11·6

  17·4

  12·1

  18·4

  12·7

  18·5

  12·9

  18·8

  13·1

  Wirral

  9·5

  6·7

  10·0

  7·0

  10·9

  7·5

  11·3

  7·7

  11·7

  8·1

  North-west region total

  188·1

  133·8

  192·6

  136·8

  202·5

  142·7

  207·2

  145·9

  212·1

  148·6

  724W

  NHS Dentistry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review dental services in England. [53708]

  Ms Blears
  During 2001 the Chief Dental Officer led a working group to look at options for change to modernise national health service dentistry building on the Government's strategy document "Modernising NHS dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan" published in September 2000.

  This group has completed its deliberations and the Government announced on 25 April that we intend to move forward plans to reform NHS dentistry developed by the "Options for Change" group. The ideas behind "Options for Change" need practical testing and demonstration sites will be set up across the country, with the assistance of the NHS Modernisation Agency. The sites will explore a variety of new methods for providing NHS dentistry, such as allowing primary care trusts to commission all NHS dental services and allowing dentists to choose to work in different ways at different times in their careers.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on NHS dental treatment in each of the past five years in each of the health authorities of the north—west of England. [55110]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Fee expenditure in the general dental service is shown in the table, both gross and also net of patient charges. Figures are given by health authority in the north-west region for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Fee expenditure covers dentists' claims for treating patients and patient registrations payments. It excludes some other payments to dentists where a breakdown by health authority is not collected centrally, for example reimbursement of practice rates.

  Expenditure by other national health service dental services is not collected centrally.

  General dental service: gross and net fees by health authority in the north-west region, 1996–97 to 2000–01
  725W

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the percentage changes in the incidence of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in(a) the NHS and (b) the private sector in each of the past five years. [54015]

  Yvette Cooper
  The mandatory reporting of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteraemias by national health service acute trusts began in April 2001. The system does not cover private hospitals. The data are published quarterly in the CDR Weekly. The data collected so far can be used as baselines only and do not indicate trends.

  Laboratory reports of staphylococcus aureus isolated from blood and their susceptibility to methicillin: England and Wales, annual totals 1997–2001

  Total reports

  Susceptibility not reported

  Sensitive to methicillin

  Resistant to methicillin (MRSA)

  Total susceptibility reported

  Percentage (MRSA)

  19971

  9,328

  1,719

  5,312

  2,297

  7,609

  30·2

  19981

  9,374

  1,746

  5,020

  2,608

  7,628

  34·2

  19991

  10,813

  1,848

  5,624

  3,341

  8,965

  37·2

  20001

  11,635

  1,667

  5,792

  4,176

  9,968

  42·0

  20012

  12,631

  1,238

  6,626

  4,767

  11,392

  41·8

  1 Corrected data (PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre 1999–2000 Review of Communicable Diseases)

  2Provisional data (CDR Weekly)

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason it was decided to establish a national stockpile of smallpox vaccine; who took the decision; and on what date. [53930]

  Mr. Hutton
  The United Kingdom has held a substantial stockpile of smallpox vaccine for contingency purposes since smallpox vaccination ceased in the 1970s. The existing stock of vaccine is nearly 30-years-old. Although the vaccine has retained its potency, the technology underpinning these stocks is now also 30-years-old. In the aftermath of the events of September 11, we reviewed our ability to deal with terrorist attacks involving biological weapons. We have decided that the sensible course of action is to up-date our existing smallpox vaccine supplies with new supplies of cell based vaccines to reflect advances in vaccine development and safety standards.

  Ministers took the decision to proceed to purchase smallpox vaccine on 11 March, and a contract was signed with PowderJect on 11 April.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of smallpox vaccine have been procured; at what cost; and how was the number of doses determined. [54022]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is not putting information about the size of its smallpox vaccine stock or its deployment in the public domain as this is information that might be useful to terrorists. As smallpox has been eradicated since the 1970s, its re-introduction into the UK is only likely if there is a terrorist attack on the United Kingdom. This therefore raises issues of national security. The cost 01 the current procurement is £32 million.
  726W
  Microbiology laboratories in England and Wales have been voluntarily reporting MRSA bacteraemias to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) for many years. Provisional quarterly data are published in the CDR Weekly. Corrected annual data have been published recently in the 1999–2000 Review of Communicable Disease.

  Some private microbiology laboratories report some infections to the PHLS, but these are a very small proportion of reports received.

  Data from a voluntary system are shown as follows:

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the smallpox vaccine to be supplied by Powderject will be trialled. [53932]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no plans to undertake clinical trials of the smallpox vaccine in the United Kingdom. Since smallpox does not currently exist in the population, trials of protective efficacy are not possible.

  The European Union committee for proprietary medicinal products is currently considering the requirements for the development and manufacture of second generation smallpox vaccine, which will include guidance on the design of clinical trials.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which population of humans will be targeted in clinical testing of smallpox vaccines; and what tests will be used to determine immunity protections. [53902]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: There are currently no plans to undertake clinical trials of the smallpox vaccine in the United Kingdom. Since smallpox does not currently exist in the population, trials of protective efficacy are not possible.

  The European Union committee for proprietary medicinal products is currently considering the requirements for the development and manufacture of second generation smallpox vaccine, which will include guidance on the design of clinical trials.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 460W, on the smallpox vaccine, who the members of the specially convened sub-group of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation are; what their institutional and commercial affiliations are; and how often the sub-group meets. [53897]
  727W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The expert sub-group, under the chairmanship of the chair of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI), was convened by the Department. The sub-group was comprised of those core members of the JCVI with experience relevant to smallpox vaccine issues, other experts with related expertise in virology, communicable disease control, smallpox eradication, intensive clinical care, smallpox research, and vaccine production and licensing. The Ministry of Defence and the Department were also fully represented at the meeting. In the interests of national security, the discussions were confidential as they related to the nation's preparedness to deal with a bioterrorist attack, and the experts gave their individual views on this basis. The names of the participants are therefore not being made public.

  A declaration of interests and their academic affiliations is required of all members of the JCVI and a full list of members and their interests is shortly to be placed in the Library.

  The expert sub-group has met five times since 11 September on an ad hoc basis to advise on medical countermeasures and outbreak control issues for smallpox and other biological agents. The sub-group was convened on an ad hoc basis and there is no timetable for regular meetings.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to issue information on smallpox vaccination quantities and deployment to(a) local authorities, (b) local hospitals and (c) the police. [53903]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: As smallpox has not occurred naturally in the world since the 1970s, its re-introduction into the UK is likely to be as the result of a direct terrorist attack on our country. This raises issues of national security as well as public health. For this reason the Department is not making public details about the quantities of vaccine stocks or vaccine deployment, as this might be information that could be useful to terrorists. The Department issued guidance to all health authorities and regional directors of public health on the procedures to be followed in the event of a deliberate release of smallpox and other biological agents, on 17 October. At the same time, guidance for medical and laboratory staff was issued by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) concerning the precautions to be adopted in the event of an outbreak of smallpox. This advice is available on the PHLS website: http:// www.phls.co.uk/advice/smallpox—guidelines.pdf

  In the event of an outbreak, more detailed information for patients and the public will be made available.

  Dr. Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long it will take Powderject to develop the plant and methodology to produce smallpox vaccine. [53901]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: PowderJect's chosen UK partners, Bavarian Nordic, are already producing the smallpox vaccine to meet the UK contract.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contact his officials have had with Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornav in connection with the supply of smallpox vaccine. [54863]
  728w
  Mr. Hutton
  An official from the Department accompanied officials from the Ministry of Defence on a visit to Bavarian Nordic and Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornav at the end of January on a fact-finding visit to discuss vaccine developments and manufacturing techniques and capacity for both types of smallpox vaccine being made by the company.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the smallpox vaccine to be acquired under the contract with PowderJect Pharmaceuticals is to be manufactured; and which company will be responsible for its manufacture. [54864]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the contract recently awarded to PowderJect, the smallpox vaccine will be manufactured in Germany under the responsibility of PowderJect and its collaborative partner Bavarian Nordic.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of eligible children in Surrey were vaccinated with the MMR vaccine in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001-02. [55033]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Information about children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) in East Surrey and West Surrey health authorities, by their second birthday and fifth birthday, is shown in the table.

  Percentage of children immunised against MMR

  By their fifth birthday

  At 31 March

  By their Second birthday

  First dose

  First and second dose

  East Surrey

  1999

  83

  —

  —

  2000

  82

  87

  72

  2001

  80

  86

  62

  West Surrey

  1999

  87

  —

  —

  2000

  84

  89

  66

  2001

  81

  89

  58

  Note:

  Information about uptake of MMR immunisation at age five was collected for the first time in 1999–2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3

  Vasectomy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Under-Secretary of State for health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castlefold (Yvette Cooper), will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Salisbury dated 7 January about her policy on vasectomy [53958]

  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was sent on 10 May.

  Salt
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Department of Health plays in the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's review of the evidence on salt; in what form the SACN will publish the results of their consideration of evidence on salt in
  729W
  the diets of adults and children; and whether consultees will be given the opportunity to comment on the draft of SACN's report on salt prior to publication. [54245]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department provides the joint Secretariat for Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) with the Food Standards Agency.

  SACN's review of salt will be the first such report published by this new committee (which held its first meeting in June 2001). The final form of the report has not yet been decided. It will be placed on the SACN website to make it available to stakeholders as soon as it has been agreed by the committee. There are no plans to conduct consultation on the report before this is done.

  Violence (Hospitals)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) red cards and (b) yellow cards were issued in each hospital taking part in the trials to reduce violence; and what changes have taken place in the levels of violence in (i) those hospitals using the schemes and (ii) those who are not. [54462]

  Mr. Hutton
  No trials have been undertaken by the Department on the yellow and red card schemes. Barts and the London NHS Trust introduced a policy on the withdrawal of treatment from violent patients, also known as the yellow and red card scheme, in September 2000. The policy has had a deterrent effect, and although the trust has issued 12 yellow cards (formal written warnings), it has proved necessary to issue only the one red card (withdrawal of treatment).

  Barts and the London NHS Trust have provided the following information on the number of reported violent incidents.

  Quarter

  Total reported incidents

  July-September 2000

  56

  July-September 2001

  102

  April-9 May 2002

  40

  The trust attributes the increase in reported incidents to increased staff awareness of the importance of reporting all incidents, which has been achieved through publicising the trust's policy in staff bulletins, and on posters, and wage slips.

  The Department issued national guidelines, based on the Barts scheme, to national health service trusts to help develop policies on withholding NHS treatment from violent and abusive patients on 2 November 2001. All trusts must consider the need to develop a local policy on withholding treatment from violent and abusive patients. Such policies and procedures should form part of local policies addressing safer working conditions and should have been in place by April 2002.

  Information on violent patients who have had treatment withheld because of their violent behaviour is not collected centrally, but may he held at a local level by NHS employers.

  NHS Staff ( Assaults)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults there have been on NHS staff in Surrey in each of the past five years. [55034]
  730W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: This information is held by individual national health service trusts and, therefore, is not available centrally.

  Health Teams
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) crisis resolution teams, (b) early intervention teams and (c) assertive outreach teams have been set up since the NHS Plan; and how many such teams have been set up, and where, in the northern and Yorkshire NHS region. [54684]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers and distribution of these teams are monitored in the adult mental health services mapping exercise. Figures for England, and for the northern and Yorkshire region, are shown in the table.

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Local implementation team

  Assertive outreach teams

  Crisis resolution teams

  Early intervention teams

  Bradford

  2

  1

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  County Durham and Darlington

  5

  —

  —

  Craven

  —

  —

  —

  Dewsbury (north Kirklees)

  1

  —

  1

  East Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  1

  —

  —

  Hambleton and Richmondshire

  1

  —

  —

  Harrogate

  1

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  1

  1

  —

  Huddersfield (south Kirklees)

  1

  —

  —

  Hull

  1

  —

  —

  Leeds

  2

  1

  —

  Middlesbrough

  1

  —

  —

  Newcastle and north Tyneside

  1

  1

  —

  North Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  1

  2

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  1

  1

  —

  Selby

  1

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  1

  —

  —

  Stockton

  1

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  3

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  —

  York

  1

  —

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  31

  7

  1

  Total for England

  184

  52

  16

  Treatment Abroad
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights an NHS patient has to demand treatment overseas as a result of the recent European Court ruling. [54896]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the Decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the cases of Garaets-Smits/Peerbooms (C157/99) and Vanbraekel (C368/98), my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced last autumn that he was removing the obstacles in domestic legal provision to allow health care commissioners in England to purchase care elsewhere in the European Economic Area (EEA) for English residents.

  These arrangements for direct purchase of care operate alongside the provisions of European Community law in Regulation (EEC) 1408–71. This allows referral of patients from the country of residence to the state medical sector in any of the member states of the EEA specifically to receive treatment for a pre-existing medical condition,

  731W
  using EC Form E112. The procedures for obtaining this document are set out in the Department of Health leaflet `Health Advice for Travellers' available from Post Offices (copy available in the Library).

  In considering the national legislation of the Netherlands at issue in the Garaets-Smits/Peerbooms case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said that their system which required prior approval from the patient's sickness insurance institution for treatment in other EEA states, was contrary to the freedom to provide services provisions of the treaty establishing the European Community. However, the ECJ said that, provided certain conditions were met, such a rule was justified in the interests of maintaining the financial stability of the Dutch national health system.

  In the light of the ECJ rulings, the United Kingdom continues to operate a requirement that prior authorisation for treatment elsewhere in the EEA must be obtained. In the case of E112 referrals responsibility for this prior authorisation rests with the Department. Direct commissioning of health care services by national health service bodies by its very nature requires prior authorisation by the referring NHS organisation. Patients arranging treatment elsewhere in the EEA without obtaining the appropriate prior authorisation are personally liable for the costs involved.

  Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have taken place to invoicing arrangements for care homes since the introduction of payments for nursing care.[54898]

  Jacqui Smith
  Invoicing arrangements are matters for care home providers to agree with individuals and local authorities, according to the terms of any contract. From 1 October 2001, no one should be charged for the care they need to receive from a registered nurse.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirement there is in the new National Care Home Standards for minimum corridor widths; and how this will apply to homes in older properties. [54897]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national minimum standards do not specify corridor widths.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has commissioned the website www.nhsonline.net to provide an Internet directory of care homes. [55003]

  Jacqui Smith
  No.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on incentive schemes that are(a) in place and (b) planned to encourage the study of medicine by students. [54581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The study of medicine continues to be a very popular option among university applicants offering as it does the opportunity of a challenging, worthwhile and highly esteemed career within a huge range of possible job opportunities. Universities and colleges 732W
  admissions services data are showing that home applications have increased by almost 17 per cent. in the current application cycle.

  In recognition of the longer length of medical training courses and the need to guarantee the increased future supply of medical staff, the Government have already introduced special financial support arrangements for undergraduate medical students. English domiciled pre-registration medical students who joined their courses from 1 September 1998 onwards, qualify for NHS bursaries in their fifth and subsequent years of study. NHS bursaries are also available to English-domiciled students undertaking the new four-year graduate-entry medical courses. These students qualify for NHS-funded support in years two to four of the course.

  Medical and dental students receive the same package of support as other health professional students studying at degree level and are therefore eligible for a means tested NHS bursary of up to £2,640 for students studying in London (rate for academic year 2002–03), supplemented by a non-means tested reduced rate student loan. In addition all NHS-funded students have their liability for a tuition fee contribution (£1,100 for academic year 2002–03) met in full, and without means testing. Additional allowances are available for older students, individuals with disabilities, single parents and others with dependants, and also to take account of the longer academic year attended by health professional students.

  During the first four years of the undergraduate medical course, students are supported under the Department for Education and Skills (DIES) student support regulations. On 3 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris) announced her Department's plans for a fundamental review of mainstream student support arrangements. The Department will be working with DfES to ensure the needs of medical students are taken fully into account in the design of any new arrangements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Ashford of 10 April 2001, 16 July 2001 and 17 December 2001, on Ehlers Dantos Syndrome. [55069]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department had been unable to trace the hon. Member's letters. Duplicates were requested and a reply was sent on 10 May.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 28 January concerning Mr. Wong of Chelmsford from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. [54678]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The hon. Member's office has been asked to supply a duplicate.

  Social Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of(a) the cost to (i) local authority social services and (ii) North

  733W
  Yorkshire county council social services, of the proposed bed blocking fines and new NI rates and (b) the increase in funding for social services for (i) and (ii). [55028]

  Jacqui Smith
  None. The new approach is about putting in place the right incentives to ensure that people are able to leave hospital as soon as treatment is completed and it is safe for them to do so. Councils that meet their responsibilities in reducing delayed discharges will not be disadvantaged. We will consult on the details of the scheme in due course.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give priority in the provision of digital hearing aids to former service men whose hearing was damaged during the course of their service duties as defined by the War Pensions Agency. [54460]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: National health service hospitals should ensure that they give priority to war pensioners, both as in-patients and as out-patients, for examination or treatment relating to the condition for which the patient receives a pension or received a gratuity (unless there is an emergency case or another case demands clinical priority).

  Rheumatologists
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of rheumatologists per head of population. [55274]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1999, the number of consultant rheumatologists has increased from 371 to 411, an increase of 11 per cent.

  The requested information is shown in the table. The standard ratio used in the Department is per 100,000 of the population and these data have also been provided.

  Hospital, medical staff within the rheumatology specialty—England at 30 September 2001

  Number

  Per head of population

  Per 100,000 population

  All staff

  900

  0·0

  1·8

  of which Consultant

  410

  0·0

  0·8

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental work force census.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are blocked in Surrey hospitals because patients cannot be discharged: and what the average cost is per bed per day of these blocked beds. [55035]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Quarterly information on delayed discharges, by health authority, has been placed in the Library. The most recent figures available are for quarter 3 of 2001–02.

  The cost to national health service trusts resulting from delayed transfers of care is management information and, as such, is not collected centrally.
  734W

  Hospital Discharges (Elderly People)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what power local authorities will have over hospital discharges when the penalty system on local authorities for delays in discharging elderly people from hospitals is in place; [55591]

  (2) what discussions he and his officials had with the Treasury prior to the Budget regarding the plan to penalise local authorities for delays in discharging elderly people from hospitals; [55589]

  (3) what will constitute a delay in discharge of an elderly person from hospital under the proposed penalties on local authorities for delayed discharge; [55592]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of the proposed fines for delays in discharging elderly people from hospitals, broken down by category of authority.[55590]

  Jacqui Smith
  Before the Budget, Departments had a wide range of discussions with Treasury. Councils will need to use the resources announced in the Budget to ensure that people are able to leave hospital once their treatment is completed. If they are successful in that they will have the freedom to use these resources to invest in social care services.

  We will consult on the details of the scheme in due course.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set targets for the reduction in delayed discharges of elderly patients from hospitals for each local authority. [55593]

  Jacqui Smith
  The current target is for a continued reduction in the number of delayed discharges from hospitals so that there will be 20 per cent. fewer blocked beds in March 2003 compared to March 2002.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the funding by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority of proposed crisis and home treatment services for the mentally ill in 2002–03; [55636]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority in respect of (a) ring-fencing NHS funding for the modernisation of mental health services and (b) the allocation of NHS funding for mental health between the provision of (i) medium secure units and (ii) crisis and home treatment services. [55637]

  Jacqui Smith
  At this time discussions on the service and financial framework for Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority are still on-going. I can assure the hon. Member that the importance of providing appropriate mental health services for the local people who need them is fully recognised by both the Department and the local health authority.

  It is for local health authorities in partnership with primary care trusts to determine how resources are used to provide the greatest benefits for patients. For that reason no guidance has been issued on the funding of specific mental health services. From 2002–03 it will be

  735W
  possible to identify precisely how the earmarked allocations, including those for mental health services, are being spent.

  East Cheshire Hospice
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide extra funds to Cheshire Social Services and the Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust to enable them to increase support for the East Cheshire Hospice. [55417]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) is working closely with East Cheshire Hospice and is investing significantly in the services it provides. This follows a comprehensive review of cancer services, including palliative care, by the former South Cheshire health authority, which developed a four-year strategy in consultation with all relevant partners, including the hospice itself. Funding has risen in real terms over the last year. We have pledged, in the NHS Cancer Plan, that the national health service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care will increase.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area have been waiting(a) over 12 months and (b) over 15 months for treatment. [55738]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: At 31 March 2002 Mid Essex Hospital Services national health service trust had 320 patients waiting more than 12 months for elective admission. The trust had no patients waiting more than 15 months.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioner and (b) practice nurse vacancies there are within the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area.[55736]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Department first carried out a survey into general practitioner (GP) recruitment, retention and vacancies in 2000. The information is collated on a health authority basis.

  In the 2001 survey North Essex health authority reported that it had 27 GP vacancies outstanding at some time in the 12-month period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  Results from the 2002 survey should be available later in the year.

  Information on practice nurse vacancies is not collected centrally.

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford in the last available month; and what percentage of the cancelled operations were carried out within four weeks. [55734]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Data are collected quarterly. In Quarter 3 2001–02 there were 88 operations cancelled at Mid Essex Hospital Services
  736W
  national health service trust at the last minute (operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on, or after the day the patient was due to be admitted). Fifteen patients were not readmitted within one month.

  From 1 April 2002 if a patient has their operation cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the(a) income and (b) expenditure of the Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals was during the financial year ended on 31 March; [53912]

  (2) how much money has been borrowed by the Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals NHS trust to cover overspending in each of the past three years; and what arrangements are being made to repay this money. [53913]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals national health service trust's final audited accounts for the 2001–02 financial year are still to be produced.

  The trust received planned support at the beginning of the 2001–02 financial year from West Surrey health authority (HA) in the form of non-recurrent revenue support. This was given as part of an agreed performance improvement plan. No in-year brokerage has been received by the trust in the last three years. The trust has also received cash support from West Surrey HA to support its historical debt but this does not effect its break even position.

  The trust is aware of its statutory duties to achieve a financial balance over a three year period and has made plans to ensure that this is achieved by the combination of land sales and the introduction of a savings action plan with North Surrey primary care trust.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure students are informed about their eligibility to pay medical prescription charges when they arrive at university. [55329]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: Posters are made available for display at general practitioner surgeries, pharmacies and hospital out-patients departments, drawing attention to the availability of free national health service prescriptions. Leaflet HC1 I—'Help with health costs'—provides more details and is available from main post offices, benefit offices and NHS hospitals. Some universities make this leaflet and other relevant literature, for example claim form HC1–'Help with health costs', available to students through student unions and campus medical sites.

  In addition, the notes on the reverse of the prescription form advise patients to obtain leaflet HC 11 if they need information about exemption from prescription charges or refunds.
  737W

  Health and Social Care Act
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement Part IV of the Health and Social Care Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [54579]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Sections 50–55 and 59 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 have already been commenced. Sections 49 and 56–58 have been partially commenced. It is intended that they will be fully implemented by April 2003.

  Chelmsford Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prescribing budget is for the Chelmsford PCT in 2002–03. [55735]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: I am advised that Chelmsford Primary Care Trust has allocated from their 2002–03 unified budget £13.452 million towards the anticipated cost of prescribing for their general practitioners.

  Pesticide Residues
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to publish the results of the monitoring programme for pesticide residues in fruit supplied to the National School Fruit Scheme. [57435]

  Yvette Cooper
  The first set of results has been published today on the website of the Pesticide Residues Committee and a copy has been placed in the Library. I have been advised by the Food Standards Agency and the Pesticides Safety Directorate that none of the residues found would give rise to concern for consumer health generally, and specifically for children's health. Further results will be published at regular intervals.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many military hospitals have been used in the past two years to supplement the national health service. [53935]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Within the last two years, the Royal Hospital Haslar has treated NHS patients as part of arrangements with the NHS which enable Defence Medical Services personnel access to a wide mix of cases necessary to develop and maintain their clinical skills for their operational role. A small number of NHS patients have been treated at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick.

  Asbestos-related Illness
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of compensation received by(a) mesothelioma sufferers and (b) those suffering from the effects of asbestos. [42632]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The levels of compensation awarded by the courts in relation to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are a matter for the discretion of the court in the
  738W
  individual circumstances of the case. The Judicial Studies Board produces guidelines for the assessment of personal injury damages, based on existing case law. The most recent edition of the guidelines, published in 2000, indicates that at that time awards in respect of mesothelioma or asbestosis causing severe impairment both of function and of quality of life usually fell within the range of £40,000 to £50,000.

  European Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those European hospitals which have received official visits from his Department since 1 January 2001. [42313]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The list shows hospitals that received visits from a Minister or officials since January 2001 according to data held by the Department.

  Belgium

  Genk Clinic

  Denmark

  Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen

  Finland

  University Hospital, Helsinki

  France

  La Louviere Polyclinic, Lille

  Centre Hospitalier Privé de la Loire, St. Etienne

  Germany

  Gilead Hospital, Bielefeld

  Das Klinikum, Osnabruck

  Henriettenstiftung, Hanover

  Lutherhaus, Essen

  Klinik für Minimal Invasive Chirurgie, Berlin

  Zentralkrankenhaus Bad Berka, near Erfurt

  University Hospital in Munster

  Norway

  National Hospital, Oslo

  Spain

  Alcorcon Foundation Hospital. Madrid

  Alzira Hospital, near Valencia

  Hospital de Madrid

  Sweden

  Medocular Cataract Clinic in Stockholm

  St. Gorans Hospital, Stockholm

  Hospital in Simrishamn, Lund

  Helsingborg Hospital Ltd., Lund

  St. Goran's Hospital, Malmo.

  Human Cloning
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human cloning research licence applications have been received to date by the HFEA; in whose name the applications have been made; who the grants organisations are financing the proposed research; and who the peer reviewers assessing the applications will be. [50901]

  Yvette Cooper
  No applications for research involving cell nuclear replacement (therapeutic cloning) have yet been received by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
  739W

  Organ Donation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the organ donation campaigns targeted at the Black and Asian communities. [52451]

  Jacqui Smith
  The South Asian campaign was launched in 1999 and an evaluation was carried out by the Department in August 2000. The evaluation indicated that awareness levels were rising within the South Asian community.

  The Black campaign was launched in March 2002 and the Department will monitor the progress of this campaign carefully.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52702]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Ministers have not received voice coaching provided by an external supplier and paid for by the Department in any of the last five years. Any voice coaching bought in for individual officials would represent individual minimal expenditure. A trawl for accurate data could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Colorectal Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representatives concerned with treatment of colorectal cancer sit on NICE appraisal panels assessing drugs used to treat colorectal cancer. [53297]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Membership of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence appraisal panels are decided by the Institute. However, I understand that organisations representing patients and professionals had the opportunity to submit evidence, to nominate experts and patients to speak directly to the appraisal committee, and to participate in consultation on the committee's provisional determination. I understand that nominees of the Royal College of Surgeons (a reader in medical oncology) and the Royal College of Nursing (a colorectal cancer nurse specialist) attended the first meeting of the appraisal committee.

  Obesity
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government have taken to encourage people to walk more and use cars less for health reasons. [54792]

  Yvette Cooper
  We support measures to encourage businesses, schools and other organisations to develop and implement travel plans that include measures designed to reduce car use and increase walking to and from particular sites.

  The national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD) contains a milestone that every local health community, as an employer, should develop "green" transport plans. To assist national health service bodies in developing a travel plan, the Department has funded four regional seminars for NHS staff, and the
  740
  production of a travel plan newsletter. Local strategies on increasing physical activity, including walking, are also being developed as part of the NSF CHD.

  In January 2002 the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), in association with this Department, published "Walk in to Work Out", a pack which provides practical assistance on how to give people more choice about walking and cycling to work. A copy of this pack has been placed in the Library.

  DTLR intends to publish a national walking strategy later this year which will cover the health benefits of walking. These benefits will also be featured in a series of regional seminars this summer for local authority walking officers, businesses and other interest groups.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have specialist units for treating obesity; and what plans he has to increase their numbers. [54794]

  Yvette Cooper
  The national health service's future health improvement plans are expected to take account of guidance on effective strategies to address overweight and obesity in supporting the implementation of the national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD) and ultimately diabetes. This is to be agreed at a local level and should include the assessment for the need for specialist obesity units, which will be addressed locally.

  As part of the NSF CHD milestones, all NHS bodies need to contribute to the delivery of local programmes of effective policies on overweight and obesity. The Department has commissioned the health development agency to produce briefing that will help primary care trusts to design effective policies and strategies on healthy eating, physical activity, overweight and obesity, and tobacco control.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correlation he has calculated exists between the incidence of undetected oral cancer and the number of NHS dentists in a given locality; and if he will make a statement. [55444]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is not possible to measure the incidence of undetected oral cancer. However, we have investigated the number of dentists and the rate of admissions for oral cancer and have found no relationship between oral cancer and the number of dentists or dental availability.

  This summer, the United Kingdom national screening committee (NSC) will also be considering outcomes from workshops to identify what part public awareness, professional development and research priorities can play in the issue of oral cancer. In forming any proposals they make to Ministers, the NSC draws on the latest research evidence and assesses new screening programmes against a set of recognised criteria to ensure that they are as beneficial as possible.

  Children's Commissioner
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report,

  741W
  column 108W, if he will make a statement on the differences between the role of a children's commissioner and the role of a children's rights director. [55302]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no one standard model for a children's commissioner. The models that have been adopted in other countries vary considerably, and arise from the specific needs and individual circumstances of each country. While only Wales, among the devolved Administrations, has established the role of a children's commissioner, the possible forms of such a role within Northern Ireland and Scotland, now being considered in those countries, show both similarities and differences to the model introduced in Wales.

  The role of the children's rights director, located within the national care standards commission, was established by the Care Standards Act 2000. The primary role is to safeguard those children who are in receipt of a range of regulated services. These services include those provided by children's homes; independent fostering agencies; local authority fostering services; the welfare aspects of boarding schools; and, in due course, residential family centres, voluntary adoption agencies, and local authority adoption services. Regulations specifying the children's rights director's functions are expected to commence on 24 May 2002.

  Shellfish Hygiene
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notification he has received as to the proposed dates for the visit by the European Commission Health and Consumer Directorate regarding shellfish hygiene; and which Government offices it will be visiting.[55018]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The date for this visit has yet to be finalised, however discussions with the European Commission indicate that it is likely to take place in the middle of July. Once the dates have been agreed, the Food Standards Agency will produce an agenda, taking account of the comments of the Commission on where they wish to visit and what they wish to see.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the health service across England will be ready to implement the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme for beta interferons from its start date of 6 May; [55317]

  (2) how many people he estimates will receive beta interferon under the prescription-plus monitoring scheme; [55307]

  (3) what progress has been made on the prescription-plus monitoring scheme for disease-modifying drugs for MS; [55308]

  (4) how long he estimates it will take for all people who may benefit from beta interferons to have been assessed by a neurologist for the prescription-plus monitoring scheme; [55309]

  (5) when he estimates that all people who may benefit from beta interferons will be in receipt of them; [55310]
  142W
  (6) if he will list the centres that will be authorised to prescribe beta interferons through his Department's prescription-plus-monitoring scheme; [55311]

  (7) what predictions each centre authorised to prescribe disease-modifying drugs for MS has made on how long it will be before all people who may benefit from beta interferons and glatirimer acetate have been assessed by a neurologist for the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme; [55313]

  (8) which authorised centres have begun prescribing beta interferon and glatirimer acetate under the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme for disease-modifying drugs for MS. [55314]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: It has been estimated that up to 9,000 multiple sclerosis patients in England and Wales may be eligible to receive treatment under the risk-sharing scheme, which started on 6 May 2002. Some centres have now started prescribing under the scheme, though the guidance in HSC 2002/004 recognises that appropriate NHS infrastructure may not yet be in place in some localities. It may take 18 months or longer before all potentially eligible patients are assessed under the scheme. The list of locally agreed prescribing centres is not yet finalised. The scheme co-ordinator, whose appointment will shortly be announced, will collect information on progress and activity under the scheme.

  Sheppey Community Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the appointment of new GPs to the GP surgery attached to the Sheppey Community Hospital. [55465]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The new Sheppey Community Hospital is still under construction and is not expected to be completed before September 2002. The appointment of general practitioners to the practice on the hospital site will be a matter for Swale Primary Care Trust.

  Health Action Zones
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has collated on changes in health levels of residents within health action zones; and if he will make a statement; [55625]

  (2) if he will list, for each year of their existence, and projected for 2002–03, the expenditure of each health action zone. [55612]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The available data relating to specific causes of mortality collected for the years 1996–98 and 1997–99 has been placed in the Library.

  For details on expenditure for health action zones, may I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 22 February 2002, Official Report, column 1079W, which provided details of the expenditure of each health action zone from 1999–2000 to 2001–02, and projected expenditure for 2002–03. Expenditure for each health action zone for 1998–99 has been placed in the Library.
  743W

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 1184W, if he will provide equivalent figures for unfilled vacancies for speech therapists. [55915]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Vacancy information was not collected prior to 1999.

  Vacancy information by trust for 1999 and 2000 has been placed in the Library.

  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 991W, for vacancy information as at March 2001.

  Clinical Negligence
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the(a) legal costs of defending clinical negligence claims against the NHS and (b) estimated costs of administration and management time incurred in defending clinical negligence claims against the NHS, in each of the last five years. [56008]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Information on costs for legal defence and management/administration for clinical negligence claims against the national health service are not identified separately in the National Audit Office summarised accounts for the NHS (England).

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of clinical negligence claims paid by the NHS was for 2001–02. [56009]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The total cost of clinical negligence claims paid by the national health service for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a White Paper on clinical negligence. [56007]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: In July 2001 the chief medical officer was asked to set up an advisory group to look at the reform of clinical negligence in the national health service. It has not yet been possible to publish proposals for reform, because of the complexity of the issues raised by potential reforms, the need to consult widely (including through the Lord Chancellor's Department on how compensation is paid) and also to consider how potential proposals sit alongside a concurrent review of the NHS complaints procedure. Nevertheless, the chief medical officer has now held the last of his advisory group meetings and will shortly publish the findings along with recommendations for reform.

  Suicide
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the number of suicides by young men. [56424]

  Jacqui Smith
  In December 1997 the Department launched the campaign against living miserably (CALM) telephone helpline in Manchester. The helpline, aimed at young men, offers advice, guidance, information and counselling at the onset of depression. CALM has been extended to Merseyside and Cumbria and Bedfordshire and we are looking to make it available in other areas in 744W
  partnership with local agencies. Ultimately, we hope that the helpline will help to bring down the suicide rate in young men.

  In addition, the Department is in the process of developing, under the direction of the national director for mental health Professor Louis Appleby, a coherent national suicide prevention strategy to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent suicides. This strategy was launched for public consultation on 26 April 2002. Copies of the strategy are available in the Library.

  Expenditure (NHS Bodies)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, on the basis of the information currently available to his Department in respect of the 2001–02 outturn figures, he will list the NHS trusts and other bodies which used brokerage to remain within their revenue resource limits, capital resource limits and cash limits; and the amount of that brokerage. [56281]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The information for 2001–02 is not yet finalised.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much of the allocation for 2002-03 for each primary care trust is earmarked for(a) mental health, (b) coronary heart disease, (c) cancer, (d) information management and technology, (e) primary care and (f) capacity; [56284]

  (2) how much of the allocation for 2002–03 for each primary care trust is (a) recurrent and (b) non-recurrent. [56287]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: Health authorities share their total recurrent allocation between their constituent primary care trusts (PCTs) in line with guidance issued by the Department.

  In 2002–03 health authorities were instructed to allocate earmarked funding to PCTs on the same basis allocations were made to health authorities.

  Figures on primary care trust shares of health authority total recurrent allocations and earmarked funding within this have been placed in the Library. Information on the allocation of the non-recurrent funding to primary care trusts is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, in terms of(a) value and (b) percentage, of the budget for 2002–03 of each primary care trust is expected to be spent on (a) specialist commissioning, (b) other consortia-based commissioning, (c) primary care prescribing and (d) meeting the deficits of local provider trusts. [56285]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: This information is not available centrally. However, it is expected that this type of information would form part of the overall commissioning plans of primary care trusts. Strategic health authorities have a responsibility in performance managing the delivery of these plans.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, on the basis of the information currently available to his Department in respect of the 2001–02 outturn figures, he will list those NHS trusts and other bodies whose recurrent expenditure exceeded their recurrent income; and if he will state for each such body(a) the amounts

  745W
  involved, (b) how the imbalance was funded in 2001–02 and (c) how the imbalance will affect the finances of the body in 2002–03. [56282]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, on the basis of the information available to his Department in respect of the 2002–03 budgeted or projected figures, he will state which NHS trust, strategic health authority and primary care trust expects(a) to exceed its recurrent expenditure, (b) to exceed its revenue resource limit, (c) to exceed its capital resource limit and (d) to exceed its cash limit; and what amounts are involved in each case. [56283]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Information on national health service trusts, strategic health authorities and primary care trusts expect in their recurrent expenditure to exceed their recurrent expenditure is not collected centrally.
  746W
  We expect all strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to operate within their agreed resource and cash limits.

  All NHS trusts are expected to operate within their agreed capital resource and external financing limits.

  Allocations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total increase in allocations for 2002–03 is for the NHS; and how much of that, in(a) value and (b) percentage terms, is accounted for by (i) generic cost pressures (ii) increases in primary care prescribing costs, (iii) increases in medical negligence costs and (iv) increases in earmarked funding. [56286]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Health authority allocations for 2002–03 increased by £3,704 million, or 9.9 per cent.

  This included funding to meet increases in pay, prices and other pressures faced by all health authorities, but these are not separately identified within allocations. It also included £775 million, or 2.1 per cent. earmarked funding.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Household Electrical Waste: Disposal
Baroness Wilcoxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What preparations are being made for the coming into force of the proposed Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (COM(2000)347) which requires the recycling and safe disposal of all household electrical waste.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proposed directive is in draft. Major policy issues still need to be agreed between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers through the conciliation process. Detailed preparation will commence once a final text is available towards the end of this year.
The first formal consultation was undertaken by the DTI during autumn 2000. There has subsequently been significant informal discussion, and specific small and medium enterprise and retailer focus groups have been established. A series of 20 awareness seminars across the United Kingdom are planned for the summer. We are also monitoring implementation plans in other European Union member states to help to ensure a broadly level playing field.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, does he agree that last month's vote by the European Parliament to remove a time-limited exemption of five years for the micro-businesses to which he has referred from the financing of collecting, recycling and treating electrical waste will cause great, and sometimes insurmountable, difficulties for many of Britain's smaller businesses unless the conciliation committee reinstates its exemption? If he does agree, will he tell the House what efforts Her Majesty's Government will make to reinstate the exemption?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we generally support the directive, but our support is for the common position taken up by member states rather than for the amendments introduced by the European Parliament. So my answer to the noble Baroness's first question is: yes, we agree with her that the amendments are unhelpful—although, of course, they are well meant. In the conciliation process we shall be working hard with the governments of other member states to ensure that we return to a point as close to the common position as we can.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of the amendments by the European Parliament were passed by huge majorities? For
282
example, the amendment to compel producers to provide up-front guarantees for the financing of the future disposal of their products was passed by 525 votes to nine, with two abstentions. In view of the overwhelming weight of opinion in the European Parliament, will the Minister accept that the conciliation process will have to be a genuine compromise, and that some of what I consider to be the excellent amendments strengthening this much-needed directive will have to be accepted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why I said that the European Parliament's amendments were well meant. Some of them are perfectly acceptable and manageable. However, there are particular problems for this country—for example, in the amendment requiring compulsory separation of waste by consumers. It is easier in countries that have fewer personal household-to-household collection systems than we have. The European Parliament has set rather high recovery targets: 90 per cent for white goods and automatic dispensers. We are pretty close to that and it is not too much of a problem for us. However, other member states will find it difficult to achieve those targets. Again, the problem of individual producer responsibility for financing waste extraction, except where that would be uneconomic, presents difficulties. These are genuine differences. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly says, they need genuine compromise.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, whether or not the common position is adopted, what will it mean for disposal? There is presently a "fridge mountain" in this country. European directives came in apparently without any means being available for the disposal of refrigerators to comply with them. Are we to have an electrical waste mountain, or will proper facilities be built before the directive comes into force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the situation is entirely different from what my noble friend refers to as the "fridge mountain". That was a regulation, not a directive, and it had to be enforced immediately. The technology simply did not exist for the recovery of hazardous materials from refrigerators. In this case, this is a directive. There are 18 months for it to be brought into law, and the technology already exists.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords does the Minister believe—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, both noble Lords have subsided. Perhaps we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, first.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the British people would have voted in 1975 to stay in what was then the Common Market if they had known that this sort of ruinously

283
expensive nonsense and thousands of similar regulations were to be forced upon them by what has become the European Union?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply deny that this is a "ruinously expensive nonsense". This is a genuine attempt to improve environmental quality. It has to be done on a European-wide basis rather than on a national basis, because environmental pollution is no respecter of frontiers. Although we have difficulties with some of the provisions, this is a thoroughly desirable directive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, accepting that the Minister's exposition is totally right in terms of the Government's attitude, will he none the less accept that this vast directive is an obvious manifestation of the idiocy of the pretence that the Commission pays any attention to subsidiarity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already answered that question. Environmental pollution does not respect national boundaries, so action has to be taken at European level. That has been the case not just for this directive, but for many environmental directives in the past—and I hope that it will continue to be so in the future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what is the status, if any, of the United Kingdom Parliament in considering these measures? Will Parliament be able to refuse consent to matters that have been agreed in Europe and which will be very costly for British firms and British people? Will it be possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to throw them out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a directive has to be complied with by national legislation, so the matter will come before the Parliament of this country. If your Lordships feel strongly about it, no doubt the European Union Committee could look at the issue.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Conservative Party supports the directive? Does he agree—and he probably does not—that the Government have got to the start line somewhat late in preparing for it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, you could have fooled me. I do not know on what basis the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says that the Government are late at the start line. As I said in my original Answer, we have been consulting on the issue since 2000, soon after it was first raised.

Government Expenditure
2.44 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on underspend of public expenditure by government departments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the public spending system introduced in 1998 provides three-year budgets for departments and allows underspends in one year to be carried over to the following year. Budgets are linked to targets for results set out in public service agreements. This encourages departments to plan their budgets over a longer time-frame and reduces the incentive to spend wastefully at the end of the year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, I think. Does he accept that there is a serious issue here? We are not talking about petty cash. As I understand it, the underspend in departments in the year to April last year was approximately £6.2 billion. In those circumstances, is it the Treasury's policy to ensure that departments underspend and do not rush to spend in March each year, as has happened in the past, not necessarily in the best possible way? Are departments worried that if they underspend for any length of time, that underspend will be transferred to other departments?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am more grateful to my noble friend for the timing of his Question than I am for the accuracy of his supplementary question. The timing is excellent because last Friday we published the public expenditure statistical analysis, which gives the figures for this year, not the figures that he quoted. The up-to-date figures show that total underspending on public services—what we know as departmental expenditure limits—over the past three years has been only 1 per cent of the plans. I call that pretty accurate for any business or government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one department that should not be underspending is the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions where the Minister has problems of staffing and of communicating with the media? He may well be in need of more resources, not less.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, the reforms that we have introduced ensure that if there is an underspend, the money can be spent in succeeding years. We therefore do not have the frantic expenditure during February and March, often on stupid things, which I remember from my time as a member of a local authority. The system is much better for all departments. Of course, there is bound to be slippage on large capital programmes with long lead times. This is expenditure by arm's-length agencies with responsibility for their own finances. I have made it clear that the underspend across government as a whole is very small—only 1 per cent over the past three years.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister has already said that a large proportion of the underspend is capital expenditure. Does he accept that one reason for that is that there has been a serious erosion of the

285
capacity in national and local government to manage projects because of many years of underfunding under the previous administration and during the first two years of this administration? Finally, does he mean that underspend can be carried from one year to the next or, as he said in his second answer, that it can be carried over several years? Could we find ourselves in the ridiculous position of some EU programmes, with bits of budget carried over year after year? When will that end?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not bits of budget that are carried forward. The end of year flexibility provides that last year's underspending can be spent this year. If there is still an underspending at the end of this year, it will not be identifiable as last year's underspending, it will simply be part of an underspending that is carried forward. That ridiculous situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, does not exist here. I do not agree with the noble Lord on his first point. I think that the resources are available in this country and the capacity for the capital expenditure that is necessary for our public services, which is made possible financially by our Budget, helped, of course, by our resource accounting procedures.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, may I underline the seriousness of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and that asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell—neither of which the Minister seemed to take very seriously? Am I right in saying that, last year, the Secretary of State for Transport underspent by £350 million? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no underspending on capital investment in the transport department this year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And I, my Lords, underline the seriousness of the answers that I have given to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Campbell. In point of fact, the most recent figure for underspending by the Department of Transport is not £350 million but £530 million. I say that simply in the interests of accuracy, as always. I shall not, however, give an assurance that every penny of that will he spent in this year because, as I said, the Department of Transport is responsible for very large capital projects with very long lead times. However, if it is claimed that the Government have a problem with underspending either on resourcing or on capital, then that claim is just plain wrong.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate the figures that my noble friend has given. Is he aware, however, that 1 per cent of public expenditure is approximately £4 billion and that 1.5 per cent is approximately £6 billion? He has not answered my specific question about departments such as the Department of Transport. If they have an underspend for more than one year, will that underspend be transferred to other departments to spend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. Departmental expenditure limits are as described. In
286
other words, underspending can be carried forward, but it cannot be carried forward to other departments other than by agreement between the two departments concerned and the Treasury.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, what happens at the end of three years? Can the underspend be carried forward at the end of three years or can it mount up forever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the spending reviews are a rolling programme covering three years' expenditure. One of the improvements which I hope the House will agree is helpful is that departments have their budgets for three years rather than just for one year. Therefore, they can plan properly ahead. Then, every two years, we have an expenditure review, as we shall have this summer, at which the three-year rolling programme is updated. That is a much more sensible way of managing these matters than existed in the past.

European Arrest Warrant
2.52 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What help they intend to give to the 12 British plane spotters convicted by a Greek court of espionage; and whether this case in any way changes their attitude towards the European arrest warrant as set out by the Lord Rooker in this House on 23rd April (Official Report, cols. 229–235).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government are continuing to provide full consular support. Additionally, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting the group and the families on 23rd May. As for the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the answer is no. As everyone knows, in the summer we shall publish a draft extradition Bill which will deal with the European arrest warrant.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has said that the Government will give all the help they can to the plane spotters; that the Foreign Secretary has called the sentences disproportionate; and that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that they have spoken to their opposite numbers several times about the case. Is it not plain from the lengths to which the Government are going that, whatever Ministers say, the Government do consider it a travesty of justice that a woman sitting in a van completing a crossword puzzle should receive a sentence for espionage? As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have to go to these extraordinary lengths to give whatever limited help they can to protect people from the vagaries of Greek justice, is it not clear that there is infinitely greater scope for capriciousness from the European

287
arrest warrant? Will the Government therefore either build in safeguards to the proposals or, better still, drop the matter completely?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would like to comment on those points, but I cannot because the case is subject to appeal. However, extradition was not an issue in this case—
A Noble Lord: Oh!
Lord Rooker: The arrest took place in Greece, not the United Kingdom, so the issue of the European arrest warrant does not arise and one cannot connect the two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for various reasons, may want to use the case as an argument against the European arrest warrant, and I have no doubt that he will do so eventually, but I do not think that the argument holds water. The case is subject to appeal and I think that we should leave it there. When we have the extradition Bill in front of us, there will be plenty of opportunities in this House and in the other place to express all our feelings about other countries' judicial systems.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad, an organisation which has been assisting the defendants in this case. Does the Minister agree that there are serious concerns about the procedure in this case, including for example the fact that the hearing lasted for a more or less continuous period of 14 hours? Does he agree that it is of the highest importance that member states of the European Union should be prepared to adopt and observe common minimum standards of procedure in parallel with the European arrest warrant?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords; I agree entirely with the latter remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have to do that. I believe that such steps in any reasonable judicial system would obviate the need for the type of hearings that took place in this case.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that a project such as the European arrest warrant can work only if the countries concerned have complete confidence in the other countries' judicial systems. How can it be said that we have really reached the stage at which the various countries involved in this project have such confidence?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if and when the European arrest warrant is part of the process, anyone in this country subject to the warrant because of an allegation in another country will be entitled to a hearing before a British judge and to full rights of appeal to higher British courts. It is therefore not a question of people being lifted from this country by foreign police as suggested in the fanciful remarks of some noble Lords. The full legal process will be available in this country.
288
We have already made it clear that, if the alleged crime is not a crime in this country, thank you very much, it will not apply.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, when the Minister introduces his implementing Bill in July, will he undertake to your Lordships' House to include a clause prohibiting extradition unless a judge in this country is satisfied that the criminal procedures of the receiving state comply with Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to play with words, but I sincerely hope that I will not be introducing a Bill in this place in July. This summer, the Government are publishing a draft extradition Bill—that is our intention—which will contain the review of extradition law with which everyone is familiar and the European arrest warrant with the intention of legislating in the next Session. I do not know whether the Bill will be introduced in this House or in the other place, but, for my own personal convenience, it may be better if it goes to the other place first. Those decisions have not been made. However, we would not introduce legislation that was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we have been assured that the terms of the arrest warrant will be subject to parliamentary approval in the legislative process which the Minister has just described. However, is it not the case that the terms themselves are circumscribed by the European framework decision? Will the Minister undertake that the legislation will be completed before the framework decision makes it impossible for Parliament to assert its will?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that I can give the noble Lord the commitment he seeks because I do not have the facts of the negotiations or the relevant dates. However, in introducing the legislation, we shall not seek to short-change anyone of their human rights. I cannot pre-empt the way in which the legislation deals with the terms of the final framework document. However, I realise that the Bill, when it is considered by Parliament, will have to contain an English translation of the terms that the noble Lord mentioned so that we do not get lost in a myriad of crimes which may not necessarily fit our terminology and language, and so that we can understand, in the United Kingdom context, the types of crime we are talking about.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Minister think that if he were to be tried in another country of the European Union, he would get a fair trial in all member countries?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret to say that I did not catch the first part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I asked the Minister whether, if he were to be tried in another country of the European Union, he thinks he would get a fair trial in each of those countries.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that that is a purely hypothetical question to which I shall not attempt a hypothetical answer.

Prison Overcrowding
2.59 p.m.
Lord Eltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to address overcrowding in prisons.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Question standing in the noble Lord's name on the Order Paper today is not the same as yesterday's. Given that it is a topical Question I register a protest as civil servants work their socks off in a very short time to provide briefings for Ministers. Although I accept that the subject still relates to prison overcrowding, the Question is not the same as yesterday's. Therefore, I intend to answer the Question as it was originally tabled.
The Prison Service is aware of the increasing risks to control and continues to monitor the situation closely. The Government will provide the places necessary to accommodate safely and securely those sentenced by the courts and have recently announced in the Budget funding to build 2,320 places at existing prisons. A further 1,290 places will be provided by the new prisons which are planned at Ashford, near Heathrow, and at Peterborough. There is a programme of other activities to try to reduce the prison population.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply I must say in parenthesis that the Question is, I think, in the terms in which I tabled it. There was a "double shuffle" by the authorities, who thought that it was not sufficiently clear, but that does not concern us this afternoon.
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Does he regard the measures he has just described as somewhat short term? Does he not agree that even criminals start life as children? As he so well understands the power of the Treasury to influence policy, will he point out to his right honourable friend at the Exchequer the cost-effectiveness of diverting children from getting mixed up in crime at the beginning of their lives by core funding more voluntary agencies that understand this work and whose staff and members are dedicated to it?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I absolutely accept that the idea is to stop people going to prison in the first place by stopping them committing crimes. But if they do commit crimes, we are absolutely firmly committed to take the line that serious criminals will go to prison. As we all know, not all of the 70,575 people who are currently in prison are serious criminals. We all understand that. I might add that at the present time 10 per cent of the prison population is composed of foreign nationals. We do not have enough repatriation programmes, which is another matter on which we are working.
I point out, as I think I did recently, that, although it is not in the voluntary sector, the Youth Justice Board ran its "summer splash" programmes in over 100 schemes last summer in the most deprived areas of England and Wales with the support of local communities, the voluntary sector and the police.
290
Some 20,000 young people were kept off the streets. It was estimated that in the estates where the "splash" schemes ran there was a 36 per cent reduction in domestic burglary and an 18 per cent reduction in youth crime. The points that the noble Lord raises are absolutely bang on in the sense of stopping people going to prison in the first place, particularly the younger element as the prison population is skewed towards the younger element. However, the fact of the matter is that the Government are duty bound to provide the places required by the courts which send people to prison.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has just raised the question of the younger element, as a high proportion of the younger element are in prison on remand. What steps are being taken to shorten the time in which people are kept in prison on remand, which must have a direct relevance to the original Question?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are trying to speed up the process in the criminal justice system. I regret that off the top of my head I cannot give the right reverend Prelate a figure for the total on remand although I suspect that I have it somewhere. It is obviously too high. People are usually held on remand for good reasons but sometimes we all read about cases, on which it is best not to comment, where there does not seem a good reason why those people are held on remand.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the present rate of overcrowding makes the proposition so often repeated entirely valid; namely, that this is a very expensive way of making bad people worse?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree that it is expensive. It would be even more expensive if we had to use police cells, for example. However, we are looking at increasing the capacity. We are even looking at purchasing another floating facility. The issues have to be dealt with. While the courts are sending people to prison and more criminals are being caught, the Government are duty bound to provide that capacity. But we have to consider sentencing policy and we shall be bringing forward legislation in the next Session on sentencing policy. Therefore, I suspect that we shall have full and frank debates on that issue in the next Session.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister explain why when the crime rate went down between 1995 and 2000 the prison population went up? As he has been robust in commenting on sentencing policy from time to time, has he discussed with his colleagues why we have so many people on remand in custody, why we have mentally disordered offenders in our prisons and why we imprison so many women and children? Has he looked at the case of Mrs Amos, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for the truancy of her children?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have not looked at that case because, frankly, it is sub judice. I understand from the news this morning that there was a court hearing today. I should love to comment on it but I cannot do so as it would constitute interference with the process. I said earlier that we all hear of cases where remand is rightly used and of cases where remand is used in inexplicable circumstances, particularly if the original prison sentence has caused a change in behaviour, which it does in some cases. I repeat the point I made earlier; namely, that there has been a large increase in the female prison population which we have discussed before. As I have already mentioned today, there has also been a substantial increase in the number of foreign nationals in the prison population. Some 10 per cent of the prison population is composed of foreign nationals. One country accounts for a third of that total. Nearly 90 per cent of those foreign nationals have been accused of having committed offences which are drug import or drug export related.

Questions for Written Answer
3.6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Leader of the House this Question. Will he take action to reduce the inordinate length of time during which Questions for Written Answer languish on the Order Paper without response? There are some 500 or so at the present time. Will he suggest to the Procedure Committee that noble Lords wishing to put down such Questions should in doing so specify the department which they believe to be responsible for the matter raised?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, gave me notice of this matter. I know that it is a matter which has concerned in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, because we have been in correspondence about it.
The complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is well justified. It is a long-standing problem. I shall just outline to your Lordships what I am trying to do by way of dealing with it. Last June I realised that it was long-standing and I decided to take on responsibility for overseeing the process. At the moment at every Front Bench meeting I vigorously complain to my erring colleagues. Sir Richard Wilson has written to all departments reminding them of the need for timely and helpful Answers to parliamentary Questions in both Houses. One of the problems which is correctly identified by the noble Lord concerns departmental turf disputes about whose responsibility a Question is. To deal with that we have established a computer database in my office. This will make the allocation process clearer and more prompt. I think that the changes are starting to work.
In response to the representations of the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Peyton, I have asked the House authorities to look into the feasibility of the suggestion that has been made. The Clerk of the Parliaments is helpfully preparing a paper for the
292
Procedure Committee. I wish to give a further word or two of background. There is a large number of Questions. At the moment 45 Questions are over the 21-day period and 53 are over the 14-day period—that is not acceptable. However, 4,376 Questions have been tabled. I think that we are improving but there is a good way to go. I hope that the noble Lord finds my Answer helpful.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord leaves me nothing at all to say except to thank him for his courtesy and to say how much I appreciate the attention that he has given to the matter.

Business of the House: Debates, 21st May
3.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21st May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal to be taken before that standing in the name of the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord King of Bridgwater set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Fowler to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Religious Offences: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I should apologise to the House for the somewhat abrupt way in which I withdrew the Motion yesterday. One is in a difficulty in this regard. There was a mistake in the Motion. I offer no prizes to those who can find out what it was. Having said, "Not moved", I am not allowed to explain why I said that. But today I am pleased to move the Motion.

293
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the law relating to religious offences;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Avebury,

L. Bhatia,

L. Clarke of Hampstead,

V. Colville of Culross (Chairman),

L. Grabiner,

L. Griffiths of Fforestfach,

E. Mar and Kellie,

B. Massey of Darwen,

B. Perry of Southwark,

Bp. Portsmouth,

B. Richardson of Calow,

B. Wilcox;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to plac;
That the Committee do meet tomorrow at 4 o'clock in Room 134, Millbank House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it possible for the Chairman of Committees or the Committee of Selection to set before your Lordships the criteria that were used in deciding who would sit on this committee? In particular, can we be assured that all ranges of opinion, including those who regard the concept of a religious offence as nonsense, will be represented on the committee? That would assure us that the committee will meet the usual high standards of your Lordships' House and approach this matter in a totally objective manner.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord has answered his own question. Committees of this House approach matters in an objective fashion. It may not be possible for all shades of religious opinion—and none—to be included on a Select Committee; that would involve a Select Committee of several thousands. I am sure that all views can be presented to the committee, from whatever quarter they come. I have every confidence that the Chairman and Members of the Committee will approach the subject in a thoroughly impartial way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces
3.12 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwaterrose to call attention to the Armed Forces of the Crown; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard it as a privilege to move this Motion. We are sometimes asked, "What is the House of Lords for?". Anyone who has studied the speakers' list for this debate will have one answer. The defence of our country is not a
294
devolved matter. It is a central responsibility of these Houses of Parliament. Anyone who is familiar with the other place will be aware that at the moment there is, sadly, very little experience of defence and our Armed Forces, despite the noble efforts of the Armed Services Parliamentary Scheme to try to remedy the situation. The speakers' list shows that no fewer than four former Chiefs of Defence Staff are due to speak.
I am absolutely delighted that my noble friend Lord Black of Crossharbour, who has considerable international experience, will make his maiden speech. I am merely the opening bat in what I hope will be a much more distinguished batting line-up to follow. In the time that is allotted to me—I appreciate that I have longer than other noble Lords—I will not be able to do more than sketch in some of the matters that I hope other noble Lords will develop.
In light of that, I hope that the Government will listen. This is not the most experienced team of Ministers that the Ministry of Defence has ever had. I say that with great respect to the Minister and mean no offence by it. They have our good will because they are charged with exceptionally difficult times. I hope that other Ministers, including Ministers in another place, will consider not necessarily my comments but the contributions of other noble Lords. This debate should be read in Hansard; I am sure that noble Lords will make important contributions.
I turn to the responsibilities that we in this House have for our Armed Forces. Ministers of the Crown in recent times have committed our Armed Forces in response to increasingly hazardous and uncertain events. They are entitled to our attention and our warmest praise and admiration. The whole House will join me in recognising that when events have arisen unexpectedly in countries and in situations for which we were unprepared, on each occasion we have asked the Armed Forces to undertake various assignments and they have, without exception, carried them out with great courage, determination and organisation, which has excited the admiration of our friends and allies and the respect of the world.
Ten years ago I handed over my responsibilities, when we were reducing our forces in Germany and anticipating withdrawing from Hong Kong. It appeared that the claim, "Join the Army and see the world", was becoming a pretty limited proposition. There was some presence in Germany, commitments in the Falklands, Cyprus and Gibraltar and continuing obligations in Northern Ireland, but that was about it. No one anticipated that we would find ourselves, 10 years later, also in Bosnia, Kosovo, Turkey, Sierra Leone, the Congo, East Timor and Afghanistan—and possibly in Nepal before too long.
The commitments that have been placed on our Armed Forces have common characteristics. I believe that I am justified in saying that, without exception, those events were unanticipated and that our commitments always last longer than originally anticipated. That leads to the vexed question of stretch. How much are we entitled to ask our Armed Forces to do? How much are we entitled to expect of

295
them in what might laughingly be called peacetime? I say that in view of the state of parts of the world, absences from families and commitments in many different parts of the world.
One difficult issue—it was a common problem in Northern Ireland—is the tour interval. That is the gap between unaccompanied tours and periods when the Armed Forces are on normal regimental and other duties in the unit; when they are in married quarters with their families. When they were on unaccompanied tours, one tried to ensure that the gap before the next tour was regular and significant. I accept that the tour interval now appears to be better; there has been some achievement in that respect. However, as I have said to the Minister previously, one of the problems with tour intervals in my experience is that one looks at units. The trouble is that if those units are under strength, and if people are being borrowed from other units, a major logistical exercise is involved in spotting how many times someone in a unit may be asked and—this is the great military tradition—be willing to undertake exceptional additional duties. Key activities, such as signals, have been under considerable strain. The people who do not overlook that—they are all too aware of it—are the wives and families. One depends on those key people to keep returning and making up the numbers in those key assignments. If too great a load is put on them, slowly the vital core of our Armed Forces—their calibre and quality—will be undermined.
I hope and believe that recruitment is better. However, recruiting new recruits—privates—to the Armed Forces is one thing; the question is whether one can keep one's majors, captains, sergeant-majors and sergeants, who are the central skeleton of the corps. The same consideration applies to similar ranks in the other services; I apologise if I talk entirely in Army terms. I say to the Government that I hope that the situation is being watched very carefully.
One admires the Prime Minister, if that is the right word to describe one's response to his speech at the party conference when he appeared to be wishing to solve all of the problems of Africa and bring peace to the world. However, we have a limited resource. I profoundly believe that we are a force for good in the world and I am proud of what our country is able to do. However, there is a limit, and if it is not observed, the quality and calibre of our forces will be undermined.
Of course, while we are a force for good and can be on our own—and, on occasion, must be on our own—how much better it is to be in an alliance. Of all the alliances with which we are involved, that with the United States is absolutely critical. We have a particular responsibility because we are one of the few nations that is compatible in a significant way with the United States and its forces.
My concern is that we may not sustain our technical investment or appreciate the importance of keeping up to date with modern technology and equipment, which noble Lords have seen deployed to amazing effect in
296
Afghanistan. If, in addition, we cannot keep up with some of the real-time intelligence capabilities and understand the processing of that intelligence—in other words, if we become incompatible—then we shall not be able to provide adequate and proper support in the most important of our alliances.
I am sure that many of your Lordships share the concern that exists about the current relationship between the United States and Europe. There is, in a real sense, a crisis in United States/European relations. I do not believe that many people in Europe understand the strength of feeling that exists in the United States about the appalling hurt and outrage which the people of that country suffered on 11th September. I do not believe that they understand that there is a feeling that Europe does not sympathise sufficiently with the people of the United States or that it is not sufficiently willing to support them in their efforts.
The world's only superpower is deeply hurt and angry and is determined to fight back. It has done so through the destruction of Al'Qaeda bases and the success of its efforts in Afghanistan. Anyone who visits the United States at present will note a palpable sense of power and a sense that its people can correct many of the evils of the world. That is a fairly heady mixture and it needs to be handled with great care. We are one of the United States' best friends and allies, and we need to keep in very close concert with that country in considering the best way to proceed.
I pay tribute to the amazing success of the Afghan campaign. There is no doubt that the United States, aided by its allies, has recaptured the initiative from Al'Qaeda. Before the events in Afghanistan, it appeared that Al'Qaeda had the initiative and that the world was on the defensive. Undoubtedly the impact and scale of the US offensive against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban have led to it recapturing the initiative.
I hope that we have now succeeded in denying Al'Qaeda a base for training and operations. I hope also that the clearest warning has been given to a number of other host countries, which might have been relaxed about having these terrorist elements within their territories, to consider that much more carefully. I believe that time has been bought for the fledgling Afghan Government to become better established. However, more recent events worry me. Are we seeing the beginnings of the classic guerrilla situation in which one can operate from a neighbouring territory without being under great pressure because of the nature of the terrain and can thus continue a successful terrorist campaign?
It is against that background that I gain the impression that a rather more sombre reassessment should be made of the question of any attack, incursion or aggression against Iraq. Clearly the conduct of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable. His development of weapons of mass destruction—whether they be biological, chemical or attempts at nuclear—are unacceptable. His refusal to allow in UN inspectors is unacceptable. But this situation needs to be handled very carefully and it needs to be thought

297
through. The fragility of the situation in the whole region of Israel and Palestine, the change of attitudes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, the current concerns of the Turks and Turkey's nervousness over the situation, and the evidence of Al'Qaeda involvement in Kurdish areas at present, possibly stimulated by Saddam Hussein, are all part of a dangerous cocktail.
In these dangerous times we must ensure that, if we are to play our part in whatever direction the situation takes, we keep up our own capabilities. Perhaps I may cite one particular area of concern. I believe that the Government were very foolish in relation to the reduction in the size of the Territorial Army. I remember that when the SDR was produced it identified with extraordinary precision the future role of the Territorial Army. I shall always believe that one of its key capabilities should be a general availability of trained military manpower. The recent suggestion that it might play its part in homeland defence—whether or not that is realistic—demonstrates how quickly new tasks might be required for which its resources will be needed.
Therefore, if we are to sustain our commitments and take on the wider role, which I believe this country is prepared to do, of trying to make the world a safer place, that will need the resources to carry it through. Of course, no matter what defences we have or what the scale of our military resources, there is no guarantee of total security. If 11th September showed something, it was not only the cunning and ruthless determination of terrorists; it was the vulnerability of modern society. A shock went around the world as people realised the dangers of such terrorist attacks and the implications that they could have. We must be good and ready for the unexpected. We should consider the history of our country. The events in the Falklands, the Gulf War and Afghanistan were all unanticipated. None was predicted, but suddenly we found ourselves in those situations.
If we need one thing in addition to strong, well-trained and well-equipped Armed Forces, it is first-class intelligence. We must ensure that during these times of difficulty and danger our intelligence agencies are properly maintained and supported. They are the strongest single element in our link with the United States. They are a very important card in our relationship and in the maintenance of our close relations with that country, and they must be sustained.
These are dangerous times. While we must ensure that we take all possible steps and precautions, an absolutely key element in that will be the proper provision of resources and support for the Armed Forces of the Crown. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord King, said and pay tribute to our Armed Forces. As the noble Lord rightly said, they have been asked to perform a variety of very difficult tasks in difficult terrain against enemies of different strengths, and they
298
have performed marvellously. I believe that we should be proud of their flexibility and of the depth of their performance. Despite all the problems that we may discuss later, our Armed Forces have performed better than our highest expectations.
Before I proceed, perhaps I may say how much the House is looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black. I apologise to him. I shall not be present when he speaks because I have to be out of the Chamber. I have a pre-arranged appointment and I apologise. However, I shall read his speech in Hansard tomorrow with great care, and no doubt I shall learn a great deal. One thing that defines me in the long list of speakers is that I am the most ignorant on the subject of defence. Long may I maintain that distinction!
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord King, said, it is clearly the case that, in terms of our defence forces, the unexpected always happens. To that extent, it is not possible to plan ahead for certain kinds of battles or strategies. We cannot be like the German Army, which, before the First World War, had detailed train timetables prepared for when they were going to march.
That is where the strength of our strategic thinking lies. Noble Lords are more aware than I am that that strategic thinking has to include how to achieve Armed Forces that are capable of rapid response in unusual and unexpected situations. That rapid response strategy, which has developed, was debated in previous White Papers and is vindicated by our experience, especially since 11th September.
In the long list of theatres of battle mentioned by the noble Lord, he did not say anything about Palestine. Presumably, before long we shall be in Palestine as well, perhaps being shot at by both sides. We shall need to be careful how we cope with that situation. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that there is always the danger of stretch, the flexibility and the ability to turn matters around rapidly is also present now. That is helping us. It helped us to land marines in Afghanistan while, at the same time, not having to withdraw troops from any other places.
A few weeks before the spending review is a good time to debate the Armed Forces. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will appreciate that, while I praise the Armed Forces, we need more resources. We must never forget that although all noble Lords may be in favour of greater economy in all spending departments, one of the most important public services is that provided by the Armed Forces. When we talk about the state of the public services, we must not neglect the Armed Forces, which provide one of the most vital public services of this country.
I believe that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke at the Labour Party conference about our responsibilities in Africa, he did not imply that our only responsibility is in regard to deploying Armed Forces. We must also act on debt relief, on poverty alleviation, on combating disease and on avoiding conflict, as the Department for International Development does. We do not have to wait for the time

299
when armed forces from Britain or the United States have to be deployed in order to sort out a situation of conflict.
In our policy decisions we must remember that we shall always have global responsibilities. That is unavoidable. We shall not be able to withdraw from global responsibilities, because that is part of our position in the world order. I believe that we—more than the United States—will be responsible for nonmilitary interventions on the human development front which may help to avert problems. We must be quite clear that the responsibilities that the Prime Minister promised that we would bear are responsibilities that we cannot evade. We must ensure that we economise on the use of the Armed Forces by being active on other fronts so that as far as possible the Armed Forces are used only as a last resort and not as the first resort.
I believe that a division of labour is emerging between the USA, this country and Europe. The USA favours direct military intervention, for which it has the capacity and the equipment. Although we shall help, the European nations will be called upon to do the washing-up afterwards. The activities of nation building in Afghanistan or problems of settling the Palestinian/Israeli problem through non-military means, and so on, should be tackled by European nations with this country playing the pivotal role on both the military and the non-military fronts.
While more recruitment into the Armed Forces would be welcome, in years of full employment that is not an easy task. That has always been the case. I quite agree that we should be able to recruit better paid and more skilled people into the Armed Forces, but at the same time we have to remember that our primary responsibility is to act on other fronts so that wars do not happen as often as they have in the past.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, for introducing this debate and for doing it so well. I wondered what I would say on this important subject. I thought that my experience of 60 years ago would not be particularly useful, but some things do not change, such as the necessity for dedicated and able people in the Armed Forces.
In times of war people will put up with anything out of patriotic duty, but in normal times the services must compete to employ the best people. "Join up and see the world", as the noble Lord, Lord King, quoted, is completely out of date. Previously, families could go to Hong Kong or to Germany where they had enjoyable experiences. Now people are torn away from their families, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, to serve in strange places for quite a long time.
I have mainly considered the position of the RAF. I have contacted various friends who run stations and such places. On every occasion I received the same complaint—a lack of skilled people. The loss of pilots and aircrew can be serious, and the situation will not
300
always be alleviated by the depression currently affecting airlines. The problem will arise again when the airlines are again competing strongly.
I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my inquiries reveal that bonuses offered to pilots to stay on in the RAF for a 12-year period appear to amount to quite a handsome sum. A typical figure is £35,000. That is not a great amount when one considers training a replacement pilot. The cost must be well over £250,000. Ministers should point out to the Treasury that trying to save money in that way leads, at the end of the day, to spending more.
The RAF does not pay a bonus to skilled tradesmen whose potential is realised only when they have served about two years. Training them must cost about £100,000 but many leave after an initial period to take up well paid jobs in manufacturing industry. The forces should try to keep those people by paying them a bonus to stay in the services.
Home life is very important. In many cases the wives—I should perhaps say "spouses", but we are talking mainly about servicemen—have highly skilled and highly paid jobs and cannot move easily from the area. That brings a whole range of problems that must be addressed if we are to attract the people we need.
In considering further issues and wondering how to discover more about them, I suddenly realised that this House contains probably more top NCOs than any other single place. I refer to our Doorkeepers. I talked to a number of them. They said some interesting things. They mentioned the great irritation on the part of skilled people in the RAF in relation to Options for Change, which cut the number of skilled people doing jobs in the RAF and put the work out to private firms. That must be much more expensive at the end of the day. In farming and other businesses, when something is contracted out, it costs a great deal of money.
It is essential to address the points I raise if our Armed Forces are serving all over the world. We must have people who are satisfied with their jobs; who are willing to go off for short periods, but who also expect to have a home life; and who will be paid the reward they deserve and that is needed to keep them in the services. The subject is very narrow but it applies throughout the services. I hope that the Minister will discuss it.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for introducing this important subject today.
In the course of the debate that we held on Afghanistan just before Easter, the Minister, in his winding-up, drew attention to the number of equipment purchases and developments in the procurement field that the Ministry of Defence had made—all very creditable. But that was in answer to points I had made about the reductions, forced by a lack of resources, in front line strength.
I had particularly drawn your Lordships' attention to the planned loss of the air defence capability of the Sea Harrier force, and the risks that that would mean

301
for the fleet. Since I spoke, that issue has been given a great deal more exposure in debates in the other place and in the media, underlining its importance. It has been well aired, so I do not intend to say more about it, save to ask your Lordships to note how widely shared are my concerns. But it is not only that particularly critical capability that is to be lost. There are other reductions across all three services.
It is sobering to realise that the front line strength of the Royal Air Force has dropped from almost 60 squadrons when I was Chief of the Air Staff to 44 today. That is a huge cut over the past 15 years. Twenty-five per cent of the offensive air power we had planned for after Options for Change has gone, and it seems gone for good. I do not think that anyone could argue that the tasks and commitments faced today have been cut by anything like an equivalent amount. Indeed, we seem to be further committed than ever and the elastic just gets stretched more and more.
In Afghanistan there is a far higher proportion of our front line involved than that of any other nation—far higher relatively even than the Americans. There are other commitments for our forces around the world. Our capabilities are very thinly stretched and there is little or nothing in reserve to make good any major setback or loss.
I have another concern which, while not so eye-watering as the loss of front line units, is none the less vitally important to the operational capability of the three services. I return to the point the Minister made about the procurement of advanced new weapons systems. It is self-evident that service personnel must train and develop the required skills and tactics to make the most effective use of these new systems and weapons. They must be given the opportunity to train and work up with them before they are committed to battle. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say something to reassure your Lordships about the levels of training that are now being provided.
All services and roles have their own particular needs. One of the most demanding is that of front-line aircrew. Fast jet pilots need an absolute minimum of 18 to 20 hours flying per month, depending on their role and the weapons systems concerned, if they are to achieve and maintain their operational expertise. The provision of new smart weapons but without full and complete training and preparation for their use—this of course involves ground crews as well as the aircrew—before crews are sent to a combat zone would he ridiculous folly. We are all conscious of the tragedy of civilian casualties, to say nothing of the damaging adverse publicity caused when a bomb lands wide of its intended target, or there is a fatal blue-on-blue engagement.
Other training considerations apply to the transport helicopter and tanker forces supporting operations at great distances from their home bases. They have been flying way above their peacetime budgeted rates, and so their crews must put in considerably greater numbers of flying hours than is normal and their aircraft need additional spares and engineering support. Unless all that additional activity is fully
302
resourced, the only alternative is to cut back severely on the training and preparation of the crews and servicing personnel who have not begun their operational tasking. When they do move to the theatre of operations, they are not as well prepared for their tasks as they should be.
With the three services active now in a number of different theatres, the Royal Air Force operating over Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, there is a requirement for more resources to sustain our operational capabilities over time. During the Gulf conflict additional resources for urgent operational needs were readily forthcoming. I remember being delighted that it was proving possible to get approval in days for modifications or new equipments that would have taken years to achieve in peacetime. It ensured that the front line forces were getting a really fast response to their latest and urgent needs. All were surprised and indeed delighted. It was good for morale and it was excellent for the fighting capability when it was eventually brought to bear. I do not hear so much about a speedy response happening like that today, and that in spite of the various smart new procedures that have been greatly vaunted by Ministers.
The real difference, of course, between the Gulf experience and that of today was that the ultimate paymaster was not the Treasury and Her Majesty's Government, but the Arab and other states that had pledged cash rather than troops for the fight to boot the Iraqis out of Kuwait. What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to persuade those who are not actively fighting global terrorism to help finance those who are? Perhaps the Minister can give us some encouragement on that so that our troops and aircrew, groundcrew and others involved, will know that what they are doing is backed by the world community and not just by their own Government. There can be no justification for not providing for the full operational needs of our fighting services. If they are to be so heavily committed, the money needed must be made available. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on that in his response.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Black of Crossharbour: My Lords, it is a privilege to be here. After the tortuous course that I pursued getting to your Lordships' House I would be remiss if I did not thank the former Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for their kind persistence on my behalf. I should also like to thank the officers and staff and many of the Members of your Lordships' House for the many acts of thoughtfulness that have been shown to me.
I shall speak, if I may, on the point that is the most important element of the defence of this country and has been for over 60 years, building slightly upon the remarks of my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater; that is, the alliance with the United States.
As was mentioned in your Lordships' House on 8th May, the reason that the queue to join NATO is so much longer and more demonstrative than the queue to join the European Union is the advantage of a

303
military alliance with the United States, of which it is a truism to say that it is more prominent than any country has ever been since the rise of the nation state and today possesses more military power than all the other countries of the world combined. In those circumstances, the advantage, especially to an east European country with a long and troubled history of territorial disputes and of having its frontiers effectively regarded by the Government and people of the United States as of equivalent importance to the frontiers of the United States itself, is obvious.
Unfortunately—I speak as a publisher of newspapers in the United States as well as in this country—there is a growing fear among informed official and public opinion in the United States that the definition of the alliance of many European statesmen and commentators is more one of rivalry with the United States than of alliance with it. I emphasise that that is despite the best efforts of Her Majesty's Government, which are much appreciated by everyone in the US who is involved in such matters.
By way of illustration, your Lordships will recall that there was an exaggerated fear in advance of the American abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and, as my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said, of anticipated military action in Afghanistan. There was an exaggerated response to early reports of treatment of prisoners at Guántanamo and unfair irritation at what was perceived by many to be American failure to impose irresistible pressure on Israel after what was mistakenly initially believed to be a massacre of more than 500 people at Jenin. I shall not go into that terribly intractable issue, other than to say that there is a suspicion in the US that the attempt in many places in Europe and among reasonably friendly Arab countries to link the campaign against terrorism with progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question is not entirely legitimate, given that the two issues are only tenuously connected.
I must tell the House that the perception in the US is that, despite the best efforts of many, the general contribution of most Europeans to the Middle Eastern peace process has been to await an American position and then take up a position more friendly to the Arabs. That may often be objectively correct policy, but it creates a good many frictions and does not in the end contribute a great deal to the peace process. I am merely recounting critically and neutrally certain tensions that I think that it is in the interests of this country to continue to do its best to resolve and ameliorate.
The initial response after the September 11th atrocities in Europe, as in all civilised places, was one of horror and solidarity with the Americans. But there is now a perception of a desire on the part of Europeans for a form of collegiality somewhat replicating the arrangements during the Kosovo activities, during which all of the allies effectively had a right of veto over military responses. Given the extreme provocation to which the US was subjected and given the immense force that it disposes, obviously no such response is acceptable to it. But the allegation
304
against the United States of unilateralism is unjust. Given the gravity of the provocation and the strength of that country, I cannot imagine any country behaving more judiciously, more moderately and yet more effectively than has the United States during the past eight months. That has received inadequate recognition in many sections of the media in Europe, including some sections of the media in the United Kingdom.
As I see it, the relevance of that to the subject of this debate is that if the United States feels that, ultimately, Europe—or much of European opinion—is perilously close to a state of neutrality between the United States and Iraq, which every respectable government in the world recognises as a lawless and dangerous country under its current regime, the United States is apt to conclude that the alliance is of diminished use to it, even though, as we all know, it is the most successful alliance that there has ever been. That would be a tragedy. The western alliance has served us all marvellously and it is hardly necessary to say that if it were to founder on such an issue the fleeting gratitude of the Iraqis, Iranians and like-thinking regimes would be a poor consolation for the end of the continued formal association of Britain and Europe with the United States.
Her Majesty's Government have been exemplary in attempting to conciliate the different interests in play, but I respectfully urge them to redouble those efforts. Of course there is a need and a place for a redefinition of NATO's role. Broadly speaking, I assume that it will take the form of some sort of definition of the civilisation and values that, in general terms, we all share; extending the alliance to all those who share those values, without any jingoism or animosity toward those who do not; and unreservedly to protect—to lock arms and join in the defence of—those values when they are attacked, as they severely were on September 11th last year.
I submit that, as my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said, there is no more important issue in the defence of this country than the retention and strengthening of our alliance with the United States.
3.56 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, as is the custom of your Lordships' House, it is a great privilege for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, on his maiden speech. From the depth of knowledge and strategy that he demonstrated, we know that we have among us a noble Lord from whom we want to hear much more. He has run great enterprises—major enterprises—and from what we have heard today, if anyone knows what is happening in Washington he probably does.
In this jubilee year, the noble Lord has most kindly, with His Royal Highness Prince Philip, agreed to raise money for the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League, which has issued an appeal for £5 million. Throughout the 54 nations of the Commonwealth today there remain 150,000 veterans, out of a total of about 5 million who fought for us in our time of need,

305
living in dire poverty and needing our help. That shows the good of the noble Lord, Lord Black. We hope to see him here often. I congratulate him on a marvellous maiden speech.
Looking at the Government and the military today, I see a spear—a narrow-pointed spear. On that spear, I see nothing but green or red berets. Great as those two formations are, and wonderfully though they have done, the base should be broadened. We have great regiments and great battalions whose forebears fought on the frontier of Afghanistan, climbed those hills and picketed them without the help of helicopter support. They were tough chaps, as are today's fellows.
But we are in danger of having a first and second eleven unless the Ministry of Defence and service chiefs act to make certain that some of those fine regiments are made ready for battle, in the same way that the Royal Marine Commandos and the Parachute Regiment have been. After all, what they are doing in Afghanistan could be done by a normal, well trained, battle-trained infantry battalion. There will be trouble with morale in the ranks unless measures are taken to that effect.
I am concerned about all the talk of how Afghanistan has been a great victory so far. I have some slight experience of guerrillas. I know that when things get tough for them—as we have seen—they fade out of the battle zone and go to friendly places or hide. They re-group and set about new tasks. When they feel that everyone has gone to sleep and things are better for them, they return. Some of the statements about how the Taliban are finished should be treated carefully. Afghanistan is their homeland, and they will return one day. I hope that we are ready for them when they do.
The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, touched on the problem of sustainability of operations. There is a funny sort of line coming out of the Mediterranean from Hamas, cutting across to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kashmir and now Nepal, as the noble Lord said. It could possibly run further eastwards. There is a major terrorist problem, and we cannot discount the fact that our nation is at risk of attack. We must be able to sustain an operation. Although past and present governments have stated that troops will stay somewhere for only two or three months and then go home, mission creep has become a real danger. Given our administrative set-up, we are in some trouble as regards long-term operations.
We have enjoyed some advantages. I am glad to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, a friend with whom I jousted when he sat on the Front Bench. He is right about the aircraft. I have not met a single Royal Air Force officer who wants to fly the Eurobus vehicle, production of which has not even really started yet. The American C17 is, in most people's view, much the better aircraft. I cannot understand why the Government do not increase the rather miserable number—four—of such aircraft that we have at present. I leave that battle to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert; I am sure that he will talk about that.
306
We must indoctrinate politicians and civil servants into the need for a military force—all three services— that is such that, if we go to war, we will win. I do not believe that the real battle has yet arrived.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have two things to say: the importance of trust for any successful defence policy and the need to ensure that our highly professional and dedicated Armed Forces are both properly resourced and used for their primary purpose—the defence of the realm. Throughout our history, that policy has always included a strong expeditionary element and recognised the need to play a part in rebuilding shattered communities. Our borders have always lain beyond this island, and we have fought wars to bring peace. The question is whether we are matching resources to tasks today: and we are not.
I am concerned at the systematic national devaluation of defence, reflected in the failure of successive governments to fund it properly. What other department—and some have been, if not profligate, incompetent—is required to produce a 3 per cent saving every year, while receiving pitifully small increases in its budget for people, as distinct from capital expenditure on equipment? If it were not for the superb professionalism of our Armed Forces, we could not have saved the day in Sierra Leone, as 17,500 UN troops—there at immense cost—continue not to do. If we had not been able to offer those troops both to keep the peace in Afghanistan and fight the war against Al'Qaeda, would we be listened to on vital issues affecting our interests in the Middle East and Afghanistan? I think not.
I am concerned not only by the imbalance between tasks and resources but by the many instances in which the Government have failed to keep faith with the implicit, as well as explicit and wholly natural, expectations of soldiers and their families. There have been too many examples of hope deferred and failed trust. Many Gulf War veterans are still waiting for help after over 11 years. Many service families are still waiting, seven years on, for the upgrading to decent living quarters that was promised by the Treasury on the sale of the married quarters estate. The saga of the Chinook still continues.
Not least there is the mysterious after-thought in the MoD about the scope and conditions for the ex gratin payments announced in November 2000 for former Far East prisoners. It was said that it had taken so long to make the announcement because the War Pensions Agency had to ensure that the regulations were watertight and no one missed out on payment. Under category D, surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War were to qualify. Subsequently, in May 2001, the MoD produced a further eligibility criterion—presumably to save public money—requiring proof of a parent or grandparent born in the UK.

307
As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, has pointed out, that limiting criterion was applied well after the original statement was made. It has excluded a number of honourable and admirable British citizens. I know one of them personally and have the highest admiration for the service that she, like many others, has given the state since. They were all interned expressly because they were British citizens and held British passports. They are now old and frail. Any family records of their grandparents, who would have been born over a century ago, are long lost. We appear to be seeking a mean and despicable saving of money, at the expense of honour and trust. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that wrong will be righted.
We cannot place too high a value on the trust that the Armed Forces and their families ought to be able to place in their country. It could wear out one day, and we will not be able to play our trump card because the troops will not be there. They will have learnt that loyalty is not valued. Their families are weary of overstretch and the destruction of family life. There is already a serious problem with retention. If experienced NCOs leave, who will train the new recruits? Already, good officers doubt whether they have a serious future in a service that is constantly given new tasks, while being told to refocus its all-too-limited existing resources and even to make a 3 per cent saving.
The services will never complain; their tradition is, literally, to soldier on. They are highly skilled and, so far, highly motivated. They must not come to believe that they are not valued by their country. I know that the Armed Forces and the MoD are doing all that they can to listen to and work with families through the task force. A veterans' organisations has emerged from the Gulf War veterans' campaign. My concern is that the Government as a whole are prepared to use the forces as part of their political armoury, without being prepared to fight their corner for resources and a proper share of the national cake.
Over the past few years, the Armed Forces have become highly professional managers. I urge the Government to spend less on the many consultancies that infect the infrastructure and free the considerable sums that they cost to be spent by the services on real priorities.
It was heartening to see in the press recently an indication that Gibraltar may have been belatedly recognised as an indispensable defence resource—a naval base for future operations in Africa or the Middle East— where we have to retain absolute sovereignty. So far, our treatment of Gibraltar—another question of trust—amounts to no more than using it as a bargaining chip in the FCO's manoeuvres to secure Spain as an ally in EU in-fighting. It is an example of the short-termism of a government who seem incapable of thinking strategically. Here too the issue is trust and fair dealing. I have considerable respect for the Secretary of State and the Ministers who serve our Armed Forces. I believe they fight, and sometimes win, some notable battles behind the scenes for good sense and for the national interest.
308
On the other hand, the Government in general, and in particular my favourite friends the termites from the Treasury, are failing to understand the value of a highly professional and loyal asset. They believe they can continue to exploit the efficiency and loyalty of the services for short-term political ends while starving them of resources. Today's soldiers and possible recruits in future are bound to take note of how those who fought in earlier wars are being treated and to draw the conclusion that the nation does not value them.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, although the debate is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord King, to whom we are very grateful, we should not forget that it was originated by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to whom we should also pay respect. I have had the privilege of being on defence missions with him, and I can tell your Lordships that he is a most conscientious and enthusiastic member. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord King. We are pleased to have him with us and we look forward to more speeches of the sort he has just made in this House.
One of the encouraging aspects I have constantly found in various visits to our forces, both here and abroad, is the fantastic esprit de corps. It is most encouraging, and the criticisms that we all level at the Ministry of Defence for this and for that do not seem to have dented the pride which one finds in members of the Armed Forces. It is right for them to be proud, and it is nice to see it.
With actions in such disparate places as have already been mentioned—Sierra Leone and Kosovo, to say nothing of the never-ending position in Northern Ireland—it should be noted that such conflicts are fought against very different backgrounds. Our forces are always being faced with completely different situations, but they do very well indeed.
Inevitably this brings us to the issue of overstretch, a word of which we had not heard some years ago. It is often raised here. We have been told that we can cope with it, but I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that, despite the continuing number of places to which we send our forces, we can cope. We cannot forget the crucial problems of leave and the necessity of people being released for training.
As the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned, it is a great pity that the Government in their wisdom, or lack of it, got rid of the Territorial Army, which had been a great source of strength to us as a back-up to our Armed Forces. It should also be remembered how good it had been for the youth of this country. They had been able to become not amateur soldiers but part-time soldiers, which brought a lot of pride to the country. I am not sure what we can do now, it is all a little late, but I am sure many of us wish wholeheartedly that the Government had not been, in my opinion, so short-sighted.

309
My second question relates to communications for our land forces. In the past we have been rather bedevilled by our perhaps correct insistence that our communications systems are our own rather than bought from abroad. I should be grateful if the Minister would enlighten us on this particular emphasis and on the timetable for our forces having a really reliable communications system. In the past we have had a system with the wonderful name of Long Bow and we are now going for a new system called Bowman. I am not quite sure what all these terminologies mean, but I do hope the Minister can tell us that the darn thing will work. That is very important. We really have been behind the times in this, but luckily so have other people. However, it is no excuse for us.
Another point which I wish to make relates to the tradition of close co-operation which we have had in the past with the older members of the Commonwealth such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I hope that those traditions of close co-operation continue and will include newer members of the Commonwealth. There has been an enormous tradition of co-operation between the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy and our own Royal Navy, and one can extend that to the RAF and to land forces.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the past few days we have been pleased to hear of the agreement between the United States and Russia for the scaling down of nuclear weapons. That is clearly good news. However, I believe it is very important to recognise that this is not necessarily a step towards the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world.
The fact remains that war between nuclear powers is not possible in practice. I believe that even India and Pakistan probably realise that—I sincerely hope that they do. Nuclear weapons have kept the peace for the past half century and I believe and hope that they will continue to do so in terms of world wars for the next half-century.
I should like to say a few words about our own nuclear deterrent, because I think there is likely to be an increase in the never-ending pressure for the reduction, or indeed elimination, of our Trident submarine fleet with its nuclear capability. As your Lordships know, we now have four operational Trident submarines, the fourth of these having been commissioned in 2000. The total cost of establishing the Trident capability was some £12.5 billion. Of course, in present world circumstances we would probably not be undertaking that expenditure or be able to afford to do so. But having got the Trident fleet, I believe that we should keep it. One of the reasons we should keep Trident, apart from my earlier point, is its extraordinarily low cost. The total annual cost of keeping the whole Trident operation available for action is some £400 million, which is only 2 per cent of the total defence budget.
310
The word "only" implies a comparison. Normally the Ministry of Defence, when putting forward the case for expenditure, often makes comparisons between defence expenditure and expenditure on education, health and other major programmes. I should like to put the expenditure on nuclear deterrence in the context of another comparison. I would suggest legal aid. I imagine that your Lordships are well aware that the total cost of legal aid per year is £1.7 billion. Thus, legal aid costs four times as much as our nuclear deterrent. Indeed, our nuclear deterrent is only just over three times the £130 million annual legal aid cost for those asylum seekers who appeal against decisions reached not to grant them asylum. So I hope that that gives some indication of what good value we get for the £400 million that we spend on our nuclear deterrent.
Because I think that it cannot be said too often, when the Minister conies to wind up the debate, I invite him once again to confirm our commitment for the foreseeable future to our Trident deterrent force.
In my remaining four minutes I wish to talk about the position of defence in terms of world expenditure. Our own defence expenditure runs at around £25 billion, which represents around 2.5 per cent of GDP. It is quite convenient that British GDP is £1,000 billion because that makes percentage calculations easy.
Of course the top five countries in the world in terms of defence expenditure account for no less than 61 per cent of the total expenditure. Britain is number five. The United States is responsible for 36 per cent of the total. This underlines the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Black, in a remarkable maiden speech, on the enormous contribution made by the United Slates to the defence of the world.
Before the end of the Cold War it could have been said that most defence expenditure was made in the interests of the countries spending the funds. I believe that the major change which has taken place is that much of the world's defence expenditure is now being made for world purposes rather than just for self interest. I should like to suggest that the Government answer three questions. Who provides defence operations? Who pays for those operations? Should they be the same people?
I raised a similar point some weeks ago when we debated the situation in Afghanistan. Following that debate, the Minister was kind enough to write to me on 12th April because I had discussed the cost of the United Kingdom operations in Afghanistan, which so far is running at around £250 million per year. In the debate I had asked why we were paying for all that. I used the analogy of the Gulf War, where we recovered most of our costs from other Gulf states.
In his letter the Minister said that:
"I should also point out that the United Nations established a trust fund by which the International Community may contribute towards the costs of the International Security Assistance Force, although we have no plans to draw upon it at the moment".

311
I was rather surprised that we had no plans to draw upon it, but I have now read that the American Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Mr Alan Larson, in giving evidence to the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, said on 14th March in reference to that fund—it may not still be the case; I should like to know—that,
"no donor has contributed to date and ISAF is self financing".
The point I wish to make is that I believe that we need a new approach to the funding of international military operations, in particular when they have been authorised or mandated by the United Nations. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in launching such a new approach.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, when the Strategic Defence Review was announced by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, it was rightly praised. In advance of any other country, the Strategic Defence Review announced plans to restructure and produce defence forces appropriate for the times we lived in and ready to face the threats and challenges of the post-Cold War world. But even then there was great concern as regards funding. The defence budget was tight but, provided considerable unforeseen expenditure was not required, the forces could just about manage.
Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and other noble Lords have pointed out, the level of commitments has continued to rise. The Armed Forces are now seriously under-funded for what they are being asked to do. The world seems to have become a more dangerous place and we cannot afford to be complacent about the levels of hollowing out within today's forces. Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. So far as defence is concerned, there has been, in effect, disinvestment. All this, I remind noble Lords, has been happening at a time when to many of us it appears that the threats to our security are becoming ever greater.
We should also remember that most of the operations in which we have been involved over the past few years have been relatively benign; that is, peace support operations. There can be no guarantee that that will always be the case. Within a short time our forces could become involved in much more serious war-fighting operations.
We understand only too well that defence planning is about taking risks. In my judgment, however, we have been lucky and the risks we are taking now have become very great. The margin between success and failure is now extremely narrow. And success, which we have come to expect and take for granted, along with the lives of our servicemen and women, could be hazarded.
312
An increase in the defence budget is needed to address the hollowing out of the armed services. It would also send the important message to the services that their efforts are appreciated by the Government. They have heard the rhetoric and now want defence to be properly funded. They do not want to be asked to go on "making do" the whole time.
Many servicemen and women are puzzled. They know their own Ministers both in this Government and their predecessors. Their own Ministers understand their problems and strongly advocate their case. But they still feel taken for granted. The Chancellor and the Treasury do not understand, do not listen, and show little or no interest in trying to understand one of the few institutions in this country which is still admired both at home and throughout the world. It may not be so admired for much longer if there is no increase in the defence budget. If the Government want defence to be a force for good—and I hope that they continue to do so—they will have to pay for it.
I applaud the Government's decision to add a new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review as a result of September 11th. Defence should not stand still. History is littered with examples of military failures caused by confronting new threats with old approaches. They may well have proved successful in the past but are no longer appropriate.
However, we should beware of a knee-jerk reaction and maintain some balance. The threats identified in the Strategic Defence Review have not gone away. We now have a new threat, the menace of heightened terrorism. That does not mean that we should place less emphasis on those threats that we perceived at the time of the Strategic Defence Review; we should view them as extra threats which must be resourced with extra money.
As already mentioned, we need to look at our homeland defence, and certainly at the Territorial Army. In this case, defence against terrorism does not mean waiting to react to a terrorist attack, but observing the old military axiom that the best method of defence is attack and going after the terrorists wherever they may be.
There have been suggestions that we should create more special forces. I declare an interest as Colonel Commandant of the SAS. I would be very cautious about this. Special forces need to be special and very demanding standards need to be maintained. If larger special forces were to mean reduced standards, we would be seriously eroding our capability. Special forces are not so much about numbers as about capability. We probably have the best and most respected special forces in the world. We should keep them that way.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this important debate which affords us the opportunity to cover so many key defence and security issues. As many noble Lords have said, our Armed Forces, who are deployed across the world,

313
from Afghanistan to Kosovo and from Bosnia to Sierra Leone, have an outstanding professional reputation. I, too, wish to pay tribute to our troops for the distinction with which they have served, and continue to serve, in these operations, and to record the deep debt of gratitude which we in this country owe them.
The quality and readiness of our Armed Forces are recognised as among the best in the world. Yet this is a critical time for our Armed Forces and for our defence planning. The last decade saw efforts to sustain effective Armed Forces with the necessary equipment, training and manpower to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era. Now the post-September 11th era has presented us with new and difficult challenges.
One of the indelible consequences of the terrible events of September 11th was the recognition that our security environment has changed. That change must now be factored into our defence planning and policy. Up until September 11th, many thought that we lived in a world with no direct threats to our and American security. We were wrong and we were not prepared. Although, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, stated, the post-Cold War strategic environment envisaged by the Strategic Defence Review has not transformed completely overnight, nevertheless I would argue that a paradigm shift has taken place. If we wish to continue to play a leading role in promoting international security and stability, it is vital that our defence policy be flexible and able to adapt as the contours of the international landscape change and as we are faced by new circumstances and new threats.
The Strategic Defence Review, now almost four years old, perhaps did not adequately take into account the threat from international terrorism and the growing likelihood of asymmetric action, and therefore it did not make homeland security a priority. Undoubtedly we will now need to make further adjustments to our Armed Forces, and, indeed, to the structure of policy formulation, in order to take account of these threats.
The reason we need to consider these issues is that more than 10 years after the collapse of the bipolar world, we find ourselves faced by a bewildering array of complex problems and diverse threats. Cut adrift from the perverse stability provided by the Cold War and the need to contain Soviet power, and faced by a tide of instability and conflict which seemed to sweep across a number of regions in the world over the past decade, we, together with our partners in the UN, in NATO and in the EU, have increasingly addressed the dilemma of humanitarian "wars of choice", the legitimate uses of military force other than in self-defence and the need to maintain peace in divided societies, in a world where inter-state atrocities progressively replaced the old paradigm of intra-state wars—Rwanda, East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and the Great Lakes region of Africa to name but a few.
At the same time, major contradictions in global society were also becoming apparent—contradictions between unprecedented peace and prosperity for some
314
and protracted conflict and desperate poverty for others; and between rapid economic globalisation on the one hand and increasing political fragmentation on the other. In a world where globalisation was ensuring that our economies were integrating faster and on more levels than ever before, paradoxically the politics of separatism and nationalism were fragmenting societies and tearing them apart.
Yet time and time again we have failed to devote the same necessary resources to the resolution of the underlying causes of conflict as we do to the diplomatic and perceived military might used to end the fighting. Beyond the CNN headline-making appeal of waging and winning wars, the making and keeping of a permanent peace through the long, slow process of the restoration of a country or region, the reconstruction of its towns and villages, its businesses and communities, the revival of its spirit and its people were too often neglected.
Perhaps this explains why we have spent much of the decade in the Balkans, winning the war we had eventually chosen to fight and yet coming too close to losing the peace that we sought to impose, and which, indeed, has still to be won. It is a lesson that I am still not convinced we have learnt, even in the wake of September 11th. It is one that I hope the new chapter of the SDR will address.
Upon this landscape, September 11th literally exploded and changed that perception overnight. As Ashton B. Carter put it in the journal, International Security:
"on 11 September, 2001, the post-Cold War security bubble Finally burst".
September 11th has thus opened a new chapter in our foreign policy and in our defence policy. We are now engaged in a new kind of war against a far different kind of enemy from any the country has previously known. Our definition of national security must include homeland security and must strike the right balance between the contribution that our Armed Forces should make to home defence on the one hand and to countering threats abroad on the other.
While the campaign in Afghanistan has been successful on many levels, we should not forget that it has potentially stopped only one powerful, dangerous and well-financed terrorist organisation. It is a victory indeed, but it is no more than the closing of the first chapter in the coalition against international terrorism. It will not be the end of the story. It does not decrease the threat of attack from arty one of the many proscribed terrorist groups which have been born out of hatred and religious fervour.
Nor does it touch on our wider objective to do everything to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism. This front of the war can be won only by pooling resources to establish a coordinated, unified, military response—indeed, an international response—against terror and the tactics of terror, built on the vital importance of the special relationship referred to by my noble friend Lord Black.

315
Military solutions can go only so far in defeating the enemy. The Afghan campaign was a success in that it toppled the sponsors of terrorism, the Taliban. The CIA estimates that only some 25 to 30 per cent of Al'Qaeda cells have been wrapped up. I agree with the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in that regard. Intelligence and broad international cooperation are critical to draining the swamp. One only has to think of the September 11th hijackers operating out of terrorist cells in Hamburg. This is a challenge which can be effectively tackled only by a long-term approach that incorporates the full range of civilian and military means at our disposal.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House has made clear that it is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, for initiating the debate and for the important contribution that he has made to it. He recognised, as does the rest of the House, that the commitment and endeavour of our servicemen have allowed the United Kingdom to play a responsible part in world councils.
None of our European partners can make such a claim. There was a Question in the House the other day about the invigilation of prospective new member states into NATO to establish whether they could make a contribution. One wonders what contribution the countries which questioned such capability make themselves.
The events of 11th September suggest that we not only have to revise the SDR policy in the United Kingdom but also see a more realistic contribution to security within Europe. Those who call for the second pillar in Europe cannot expect to be listened to with respect unless they also accept that Europe must make a greater contribution. They should not continue to rely on and then ignore the fact that it has long depended and still depends on the American umbrella.
September 11th may require the Government to reappraise the situation but Britain should look at the matter in a more bipartisan way. There is today a flimsiness and sometimes an infantilism in the British media. In the past few days one would have thought that because the Taliban and Al'Qaeda did not enter into a shooting match with the Royal Marines somehow or other the situation has turned into a 21st century version of the retreat from Kabul. The fact that the Al'Qaeda and Taliban kept out of the way of the Royal Marines, and that the Royal Marines obtained and secured a very substantial amount of ordnance which the Taliban and Al'Qaeda could easily have removed if they had wished, had they not been opposed, seems to have been ignored.
I am reminded of the fact that at one of the frostiest times of the Cold War, I visited a Royal Air Force operational station to find that flying hours had been cut dramatically. Indeed, the aircraft were being flown far less than the Auxiliary Air Force flew aircraft just before the Second World War. A journalist who worked for one of the more popular newspapers said, "The story is red hot". I said, "Yes, it is, but your newspaper won't publish it", and it did not.
316
One should give credit to Her Majesty's Government. After all, the Jaguar aircraft have been upgraded; so have the Tornadoes; the C-17 has been acquired and has been used perhaps a great deal more than the Government anticipated not long ago. The helicopter provision has been generous. The Navy is getting aircraft carriers. Enormous steps have been taken to try to deal with the problem of poaching which, as many noble Lords have said, is a serious problem. We have to take it even more seriously. For example, I would say to the directors of any company which engages in poaching and ignores the reasonable deals that the services have offered that it will not receive any recognition or honour while their company behaves in that way.
However, time passes and I want to follow an important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, about the red and green spear. Young men wanting to join the Army or Navy now wish to join the Paras, or the Special Air Service or the Marines. Those units attract attention. The enormous potential and the historic tradition of our line regiments—perhaps the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, will allow me to refer to regiments such as the Green Howards which recruit in my home area—are now regarded as second best. That is a very dangerous position. The line regiments are often of high quality. They may have inadequacies in manpower as a result of poaching or whatever, but we have to ensure that their standing and tradition are maintained and that they are not regarded as merely a sort of reserve should the Paras and the Marines not deliver the goods.
Recruitment is important. I believe that one way in which we could improve recruitment, apart from taking firm action to deter poaching, is to build up our cadet organisations. As I said in a debate in this House last week, I am involved in a modest way in the Air Training Corps Squadron. The youngsters whom we are sending into the services, not only the Royal Air Force, are of enormously high quality. They are already committed before they enter. They have relevant experience before they become part of the adult force. In my view we are not devoting very many resources to them. We spend vast sums of money on television advertising campaigns and yet we are then not likely to attract the same high quality young people.
I could tell the House—time does not allow me to do so—of the numbers of youngsters from my area who have joined the Royal Air Force in the past 12 months. The air force is getting a very good deal. It may not be the same in every part of the country but the potential is there. It is not only the services which benefit; the community benefits from seeing good young people made excellent because of the commitment, experience and opportunities that are offered.
We should see an enhanced effort by the United Kingdom to persuade our partners in the councils of Europe to make a more realistic contribution. They cannot expect Britain to bear burdens to which they should more equitably contribute. I hope that we shall

317
maintain that position. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord King, has given us an opportunity to make these comments today.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, few Members of your Lordships' House have fathers alive and, I believe, none has grandfathers or great-grandfathers. Therefore, we have to rely on our knowledge and experience and on what we may have been taught by others. But none of us should doubt the knowledge, competence and background of my noble friend Lord King. It is most appropriate that he introduced the Motion today.
My own grandfather won the Sword of Honour at the Britannia Royal Naval College, served in the Mediterranean fleet, was invalided out with "Malta Dog" and then, in the First World War, wishing to help, became a private ambulance driver and a stretcher bearer. Towards the end of the Second World War, when I came back from Canada and the States, he would suddenly wake up and say, "We must go on an expedition today. It is a suitable day for an expedition". I would say, "Grandpa, what's an expedition?" He said, "It's going forth with martial intentions. It's a warlike enterprise".
The purpose of expeditions and expeditionary forces is to go out in order to create peace. I found this difficult to understand when we were surrounded near Newbury in the country by German prisoners of war, Jewish immigrants and land girls. I have thought about this. Is what we are about today concerned with peace? I am one of the most lowly members, a vice patron, of the Atlantic Council which is made up of NATO members and members of other countries. Its purpose at present is to raise money to recruit teachers and others to advise on the value of peace to those who do not know the dangers of war. It involves lecturing in schools at a time when the Government have decided to cut our funding. It builds a very close relationship with the United States.
I was moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour. It made me think of the serious losses suffered by combined operations in the last war, for example, at Dieppe when 60 per cent of all the Canadian forces who crossed the Channel failed to come back. I recall too the Canadians who were lost recently to friendly fire in the mountains; and our own troops who were lost to friendly fire.
This is the International Year of the Mountains. With the Swiss ambassador, I have the honour to be co-chairman of the Committee of the Year of the Mountains. I thought back to the dangers of mountain warfare and to Sun Tzu who, in the Art of War 500 BC, said,
"Do not climb heights in order to fight".
Even Napoleon advised one that in mountain warfare the assailant was always at a disadvantage.
My experience relates to Cyprus, EOKA terrorism, and friends in Kenya. Overall we have enormous historic experience which has been passed down through generations in the Armed Forces. Whether
318
one talks about the relief of Mafeking, Thomas Cook, with whom I worked at Midland Bank—he had to arrange for the British Expeditionary Force to go up the Nile in order to try to look after General Gordon—or the troubles in Afghanistan, it matters not. That knowledge and experience remains within our Armed Forces. Our problem with expeditionary forces is that when we send them they are meant to do something expeditiously and then withdraw. The difficulty today is that when we get to the area we find it difficult to go backwards.
We have knowledge and experience which is not available to the United States. I have previously declared another family relationship. I have three nephews in the United States. My sister is there. One was in the SEALS, one was in the Rangers, .and the job of the third was to get his boss, Senator Glenn, back into space. They are not the important eyes and ears of the noble Lord, Lord Black, but they are a little closer to the ground. Although they have left those forces, they say that what was best about working with the British was gaining historic knowledge.
I turn to Afghanistan. I should explain that I chaired a previous government's Committee for Middle East Trade. I would never go to fight the Afghanis. They can copy any gun in the book. Indeed, we had a major disaster in Afghanistan. But perhaps I may tell noble Lords a simple story about the time when the British expeditionary forces were in that country. At night, the tepees would be set, the guns crossed in front of a fire, and the sentries stationed on guard to look after everyone. But the Afghanis learnt the lingo. They could surreptitiously encourage a sentry, in the English language, to leave the camp. They would then take the guns away and copy them.
My Russian friends have explained that it is a dangerous area to be in; indeed, Napoleon was warned about the dangers associated with the mountains. We probably have the only forces in the world with mountaineering capability, but we must be able to get our expeditionary forces to such places. If the politics are not right, the ability to land such troops by air will he most difficult. I served in the navy. After that wonderful presentation by the Royal Navy the other day, the role of the British Army should—as Jacky Fisher said—be that of a projectile to be fired by the British navy.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for initiating this debate. We are not talking about the European defence and security policy initiative this afternoon. However, when we discuss the matter on Monday, I hope that noble Lords will take note of the important remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour.
The United Kingdom appears to take great pride in its Armed Forces. They certainly score well in public opinion polls. But that pride is not reflected in the funding that they need and deserve. I found it very disappointing that there was no mention of defence in the Chancellor's Budget Statement. I agree with my

319
noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie that the defence Ministers give the defence forces strong support. However, that support is certainly not reflected in the attitude of the Chancellor or the Treasury.
The end of the Cold War greatly reduced the direct threat to this country. There is also a feeling that military operations in the future will be small-scale—like peace enforcement, peacekeeping, or crisis management—without people realising the complexity and danger of such operations. That has led to a complacency in government about the importance of properly funding our Armed Forces. In a way, our Armed Forces are paying the price for their own success on a wide range of operations. It would be very foolish to take that operational success for granted, because already very serious gaps are developing in our military capabilities. We might get a very nasty shock. We should never forget that, once allowed to run down, military capabilities take years to build back both in terms of people and in terms of equipment.
As many other noble Lords have said, the two immediate problems facing our Armed Forces are very significant under-funding and serious over-stretch, which are leading to the loss of some very important skilled people. The fundamental problem is that our Armed Forces are too small for the many operational tasks placed upon them. Severe cuts have been made in the defence budget since the end of the Cold War on the assumption that the world would become a safer place, and certainly before the threats to our security became a little clearer, although I believe that it would be foolish to predict with any certainty how those threats will develop.
I suggest that we should expect the unexpected and recognise that we need in place a wide range of military and other capabilities in order to give Her Majesty's Government the widest range of options for their use. I hope that the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review will give thought to the spectrum of operational tasks that they might face. Each campaign is different—I have in mind, for example, the Falkland Islands, the Gulf War, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and the fight against international terrorism. Each campaign writes its own individual script. Indeed, what is around the corner in Iraq, in Somalia, in the Yemen, or in the Sudan?
The Strategic Defence Review rightly emphasised the need to improve our ability to project military power. However, it is now very clear that that review was seriously tinder funded. That under funding has already led to major cuts being made in the equipment programme; and there are more to come. This major funding problem has been made much worse by the 3 per cent savings demanded year upon year.
I recognise that some important programmes remain, like the replacement for the CVR series of vehicles, and the new aircraft carriers, but others have suffered. As we have seen in newspaper reports for at least six years, the Fleet will not have an effective defensive air capability. Many of the other programmes that have been cut seem small in
320
themselves; but, taken as a whole, they add up to a very serious reduction in fighting capability, particularly for the Army. I find the public/private partnership for the Royal Air Force's air-to-air refuelling tankers a very doubtful arrangement for such an important operational capability.
Put another way, we are accepting that we are prepared to order our servicemen and women to go on operations and risk their lives without the best possible equipment. On top of that, training has been cut back, serious risks are being taken over operational logistic support, and the quality of both single and married accommodation is awful in too many locations.
I hope that the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review will have the courage to address the gaps that there are in equipment, in training, and in operational logistic support. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, rightly pointed out the dangers of a 1st and 2nd XI army. I should just tell the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, that I have never included my own regiment in the 2nd XI.
As my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie said, Ministers will have recognised the quality and worth of our special forces, and would like more—something, frankly, we have been trying to achieve for most of my military service. But like the noble and gallant Lord. I believe that it would be a fundamental mistake to reduce the high standard of probably the best special forces in the world in order to increase their numbers. Also, special forces are best employed at the strategic level, which is where the best operational results can be achieved. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will not make the mistake of using them at the tactical level.
There is much talk about new roles for the Territorial Army and the reserve forces. A key role remains the reinforcement of the regular Army, including the thousand or so men and women who they provide regularly—and very commendably—to bolster the regular Army. Following the events of 11th September, there could also be a very important role for them to play in what I would call "home/civil defence". I do not just mean a guarding role. I suggest that a very exciting role could be developed for them. "Exercise Brave Defender" in 1985 showed what the Territorial Army is capable of achieving.
In conclusion, I believe that we have much to learn from the results of 11th September, and from the other threats to our security. I am well aware that they are wider than just military. We need to consider very seriously the improvements that our Armed Forces need to meet the wider range of threats posed by international terrorism. But it will undoubtedly mean more money, and probably larger Armed Forces.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. I should like to begin by saying how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord King for giving us the chance to hear such excellent speeches—above all, the notable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Black. Like that organ of the press Private Eye, I thought that surely there was

321
some mistake: first, I find myself so high up the batting list; and, secondly, there is so much time available to us. When I looked at the list of speakers yesterday, I understood that we would have just three minutes each for our speeches. I hope that that is the time that my remarks will take. If there is any spare time available, I trust that other noble and gallant Lords will be able make use of it.
We have heard an enormous spread in virtually three dimensions around the world on the subject of defence. I should like to remind your Lordships, literally, of what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, mentioned about the 2nd XI. In February of this year, the House of Lords defence group went to visit the training centre of the Royal Logistics Corps at Blackdown. We enjoyed the most fascinating visit. We met the young men and women whom I call "the unsung heroes"; namely, those training for the fire force. Youngsters are taught to be in the first line of emergency—sorting out fires anywhere within a military base—before the professional firemen arrive. Although they might be amateurs at heart, they behave in a most professional way.
We also visited the Pioneers. When I was a young soldier, I seem to remember, the Pioneer sergeant was the only man in my battalion who was allowed to grow a beard. He had crossed axes on his sleeve. What he used them for I was able to see at Blackdown. Anyone who has seen television reports of what our Armed Forces put up with, what they do and what they are able to achieve, both in military terms and for the civilian population in the Balkans, will appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and I were able to see that day. We also saw the various other aspects of the Royal Logistics Corps.
The most interesting aspect of our visit was in the afternoon. We found that every single one of the young men and women in that corps at that depot are not there merely to get on with their training—they do their training all round the country. They come to Blackdown to become soldiers. That is the important first duty. We found young men and women doing all the things that I was trying to do 45 years ago as young platoon commander at Hythe, Warminster or at Pirbright Ranges, but they were superbly trained, keen and very articulate. As the Army advertisement on television expresses it: "Be the best". These were young men and women who were already good, and who were being turned into excellent members of the Armed Forces. Indeed, they were no 2nd XI or lower order batsman. We see what Mr Eriksson can do with his young men when team members go down with injuries. One finds that the supposed 2nd XI are the ones who save the bacon on a particular day, as we hope they will.
Last year, I was suddenly alerted to a tea party in your Lordships' Dining Room, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, invited me to join those present. I found a group of 20 young men from 800 and 801 Squadron, Royal Naval Air Service, based at Yeovilton. What they told me was particularly relevant to the comments of the noble and
322
gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about Sea Harriers. I shall not blow the trumpet of the House of Lords Defence Group, but if your Lordships care to look, you will find that there is a visit planned to the Royal Naval Air Station at Yeovilton, directly as a result of the keenness and vigour of those young men.
They are very much concerned about Sea Harriers. As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, there was a debate on these matters in another place a week ago. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm the following to me in writing, because we are pushed for time in this debate. Am I right in thinking that there are about 17 active FA2 Sea Harriers? How many GR7s and GR9s will be replacing them over a period of time, or perhaps eventually, possibly in 2004, when the Sea Harrier may be phased out.
I was interested to note the use of the splendid word "marinisation" in relation to the Joint Strike Force. I believe it was used by the Minister's colleague. I wondered whether this was something about which I should consult Mr Bibbiani in the Refreshment Department, but I believe it is something to do with making the Joint Strike Fighter adaptable to carrier-borne activities. Perhaps the Minister will be able to alert me to that at a later stage.
Can the Minister reassure me on a further point? Is it in the Government's plans to withdraw the Sea Harriers from active duty from 2004. Is everything to happen all at once? Perhaps the Minister can inform me—indeed, I may have missed some information given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place last week—as to what might replace them? if the Minister can help me over this matter at a later stage, I shall be grateful. Meanwhile, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord King for introducing the debate and I look forward to the Minister's response.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I contribute with some hesitation to a debate on the Armed Forces of which, apart from two years' National Service some 40 years ago, I have no direct experience. I exclude an interesting day out a couple of years ago when I was invited to join the saluting stand at an Army apprentices passing out parade at Arborfield, Berkshire, where apprentices receive training for the first 19 weeks before going on to the technical corps. I recall that 20 per cent of them were young, women. The commanding officer said to me over lunch: "They get here with their rear end hanging out of their trousers, but when they leave they go to ,join their technical corps with great pride in the future". I was able to confirm that in conversation with them. That is one of the great pluses that the Armed Forces contribute to society.
The first point I want to make from the perspective of a non-specialist may be self-evident. Everyone who takes an intelligent interest in the affairs of the country knows that there is a tremendous question of "stretch" in the Armed Forces at the present time. Members of this House need not think that the message has not got

323
through. It got through loud and clear some time ago—as has another point which specialists may think that non-specialists have not taken on board when indeed they have. I refer to the tremendous consciousness of the level of professionalism in our Armed Forces and the pride that the whole country takes in them.
However, a key question was left dangling in the air by the noble Lord, Lord King, in his interesting introductory remarks. In referring to overstretch, he said that there must be a limit. Must there? Is there? Can there be? What if there is not? The whole world cannot become a British protectorate. But somehow it must become a world protectorate, as my noble friend Lord Desai hinted. That is the challenging agenda we are inevitably asked to set ourselves these days.
Can we run the whole world? The Prime Minister was paid some back-handed compliments vis-à-vis his speech to the Labour conference. But it reflected a great deal of our history, going back to the British Empire. A large number of people in this country tuned in to what the Prime Minister was saying about many parts of the world and about our responsibility. We have only to think about all the charities to which we give money and all the people—from the Churches through to the trade unions—who have connections around the world. It is not surprising, given our cultural history, that that should be the case.
A further point has not been made so far but must enter into the debate. In the world system—and without a doubt in the United Nations system—there are now more and more global benchmarks for international and national behaviour. There are rules governing not merely economic questions of trade and investment but freedom of speech, good governance and so on.
A number of years ago, I worked briefly in Sierra Leone. At that time, many of the locals would say in private that the only time they had good governance was when the British were there. Is the implication that we have to be there again now for a long time? These questions do not go away. They will become more prevalent in the world that we must all run together.
Another contradiction in the debate relates to the problem of overstretch. I was rather provoked by the important maiden speech—I am being no more controversial than he was—of the noble Lord, Lord Black. He said that we have a great degree of commitment to the leadership of the United States. That is not in doubt. But in the context of a debate regarding the limit of stretch in our Armed Forces, would Iraq be an exception? We must have some consistency in our view as to the criteria for entering new areas.
On the politics of that, perhaps I may say—without wishing to enter into a debate about Iraq—that I was in Turkey last week as part of a delegation to Ankara. It was obvious that our friends in Turkey see the situation in Israel/Palestine as a priority. That is the view even in a very pro-Western part of the Middle East. I do not think that the American
324
characterisation, at least as described by the noble Lord, Lord Black, would be very fair, as seen by some of those countries.
There is a certain schizophrenia about Europe in the American mindset. Obviously, we take a certain disdain from America about anything that goes on over here as quite normal. After all, it happened in 1944. We have to build up the European capability and not take a grudging attitude. I welcome the much more positive attitude that we all seem to be taking—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to the European rapid reaction force. That point is mentioned in a Select Committee report to be debated next week. The Laeken declaration provides for a 180,000 Helsinki target capability to be sustained. That is 60,000 troops with a two-month timescale at any time.
We need to look at the GDP per head contributions of some countries. Our figure is 2.4, similar to that of France. Some countries are up with us, but the figure for the Netherlands is 1.9, for Italy 1.9, for Germany 1.6, for Denmark 1.5, for Belgium 1.4 and so on. That needs to be examined.
Finally, the report that we have just completed on the Balkans shows that the EU countries together spend £1 billion a year on aid to that region and £5 billion a year on security there. If we want to talk down security expenditure in the Balkans, we have to talk up all the other involvement. Does my noble friend agree that that message often arises in such trade-offs with regard to stretch of the Armed Forces?
5.12 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it is not the convention of your Lordships' House for speakers other than the succeeding speaker to congratulate a maiden speaker, but I cannot resist doing so on the grounds that the first action of the noble Lord, Lord Black, on taking control of the Daily Telegraph, at nine o'clock on a Monday morning, was to sack me. I think he was probably right. I have been sacked regularly ever since. In that context, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, for his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Black, cannot say this as the proprietor, but the armed services owe a great deal to the Daily Telegraph and to its reporters and commentators, headed by Sir John Keegan, for their work in supporting the forces and looking into their problems.
We have heard a wide range of views. I am sorry that we have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on heavy lift or from my noble friend Lord Freeman on the Territorial Army to complete the picture. The most startling comments that I have heard this afternoon were the frightening views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. Those views are particularly startling and frightening in the light of all that we have heard coming out of the Ministry of Defence over the past three years.
We know that the professionalism and devotion to duty of our Armed Forces is undoubted. The Marines and the Parachute Regiment have worked magnificently, but there is a limit to how much they

325
can do. I stress that the Government are in real danger of asking them to do too much. I entirely support the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and one or two others in saying that there is a serious danger of inculcating a "them and us" mentality, which is bad for morale in those units that may consider themselves left out.
The Ministry of Defence needs to look at its recruiting policy. Regiments that are successful in recruiting are not allowed to keep their recruits if the number exceeds a certain low establishment figure. The Coldstream Guards are suffering particularly from that. After more than 200 years, there still seems to be a failure to recognise that men do not join the Army—they join the Coldstream Guards, the Black Watch, the Border Regiment, REME or whatever. That is what they want to do. They do not want to be sent elsewhere.
The other failure is to realise that if a man joins the Army, the wants to join it now. The concentration of almost all the initial infantry training at Catterick has meant that the facilities there are incapable of handling the numbers wanting to come in. In consequence, there is often a waiting period during which men go off and do something else. That could largely be resolved by designating one battalion for, say, three years as a training battalion. That might not be popular in some quarters, but it would undoubtedly improve the long-term manning problems of that battalion. It would be extraordinary if the sergeants did not hive off a percentage of the recruits for their own regiment, particularly if they were footballers.
The recruiting problem is serious and retention is worse. Some simple actions could improve the recruiting problem. Efforts should also be made to get the right quality of recruit. There is a serious shortage of computer-literate, IT-trained, fit men coming in. Maybe it is the fault of the general education system, but the armed services are being forced to do work that should be unnecessary to bring men up to the basic standards that they require.
I have talked largely about quality. Quantity is another matter. We cannot go on sorting out the affairs of the world without the co-operation of the Treasury. It has been said, probably rightly, that the two chief enemies that our forces have to face are the Treasury and the Foreign Office. A number of noble Lords have commented on the problems. I am afraid that it is inevitably necessary to quote Kipling:
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute$'
But it's `Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot".
The Government do not seem to realise that the guns are shooting. Apart from all the normal suspects, Sierra Leone must be likely to blow up again at any moment. The UN troops there are better than they were, but many of them do not have the necessary expertise. For example, the Jordanian forces have little opportunity to practise jungle warfare at home. If Sierra Leone blows up when the results of the general election are seen, who is likely to be called in? The British, probably. The problems in the Middle East also show no sign of abating. We must suspect that if
326
it is necessary to bring in the United Nations, NATO or the European rapid reaction force, the British will have to oblige. We do not have the men, let alone the materials.
Closely allied to the question of men is that of materials. The Armed Forces must have the right toys to play with. They would prefer them to be home made, but the most important thing is that they should work. In the course of this debate, all the normal problems have been mentioned. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply. It is important that we know more about the Sea Harriers, the Type 45s, Bowman—although that is now largely a joke—heavy lift and the current situation with the Germans and the A400M, and Challenger 2. The list goes on.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I must first join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord King, for introducing this debate. There are few Members of this House better equipped to initiate such a debate than the noble Lord. He has done it with his customary incisiveness and forethought. He has also given us the opportunity to have a debate which has been to some extent very geo-strategic or geo-political. It has ranged widely over a number of international matters, none more geo-political than the remarkable and refreshing maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black. I am afraid that I shall narrow the focus a little and simply ask the Minister some direct questions about our Armed Forces.
The foundation of the Government's defence policy is the Strategic Defence Review of 1998, widely regarded—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said—as a positive and constructive contribution to thinking about the organisation and operational doctrine of our Armed Forces. It remained valid, with relatively minor adjustments, until the White Paper of 2001. Then came the notorious 11th September, and with it the need for another serious reassessment. The Government are undertaking this reassessment, and I understand that we can soon expect the results of that in a new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review, which will presumably set out the Government's view on whether we need to make further adjustments to our forces to meet the threats of terrorism and what are now known as asymmetric threats.
I should say in passing that I have some reservations about the need for a public discussion about this subject. Defence is a highly complex, technical and specialised matter which demands not public discussion, but the advice of trained people with professional expertise, followed by decision-making at the highest political level. However, the discussion document does have the merit of indicating how the Government's thinking is developing, and it seems likely that the new chapter will focus on expeditionary forces and the war against terrorism as important elements of future defence policy. If this is so, there are—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said—some serious financial implications, especially in the field of equipment procurement.

327
I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give the House some reassurance about this. Is the funding of the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier task force programme, which is at the heart of our expeditionary force concept, secure? It postulates some very high expenditure well into the future. I wonder whether, in the context of the current and foreseen defence budget, he can guarantee, or at least assure us, that that equipment programme is secure.
In the Royal Air Force, what is the position about the tanker aircraft? Can the Minister say whether it is true, as is widely said, that the tanker fleet will depend on a public/private partnership—which seems a strange way of funding and controlling an essential element in the organisation of our Armed Forces? In-flight refuelling was a vital part of the air war in Afghanistan, and it is likely to be a vital part of any future expeditionary force. I should like an assurance that its funding is secure.
In the Army, too, there is some anxiety about the future. Are the Government happy with the concept of the multiple-role armoured vehicle, the European concept of a tank, which does not seem to be designed for use in an expeditionary force role? Is not the MRAV as currently conceived too heavy to be air-transportable? If so, it does not seem to have much place in an expeditionary force role. Would it not be better to invest more heavily in the future rapid effects vehicle—the FRES—proposed by Vickers Defence Systems? Here perhaps I should declare an interest, although a long past one now, as a former chairman of Vickers, at the time when we built the four Trident submarines which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, defended so spiritedly today.
To all this must be added a requirement which is essential in modern warfare—ISR: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—as the noble Lord, Lord King, said in opening. As military doctrine moves away from the familiar concept of the armoured division towards that of the rapidly deployable brigade combat group, armies arc going to need technologically advanced and very expensive broadband communication networks. They are very, very expensive. Are the Government ready to invest in them?
A look at the 2002 defence budget does not inspire much confidence. The Budget does not pay a great deal of attention to defence, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, is one of the most important of our public services. It is true that £155 million has been allocated to urgent operational requirements, but that is pocket money in the context of long-term defence spending. I shall, if I may, mention just one of the important statistics. The Treasury's estimate of government spending for 2002–03—total managed expenditure, as it is called—is estimated at £418 billion. Of this, £195 billion—46 per cent—is allocated to health and social services, whereas £24 billion—just over 5 per cent—is for defence.
I ask the Minister whether, in the current and future international security climate, that seems to be a reasonable allocation of resources. If questions of
328
health, education and social security have priority, they may soon become very largely academic unless we devote more resources and more money to defence. The Government's initial election manifesto promised a strategic review to,
"consider how the roles, missions and capabilities of our armed forces should be adjusted to meet the new strategic realities".
So far, the Government have fulfilled that undertaking, and they clearly intend to continue to do so with their new chapter. However, the price of implementing the new chapter will be a very high one. Are the Government prepared to pay it?
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord King on giving us a chance to discuss this important topic. I shall take up the important general point which he raised about overstretch and seek the Minister's reassurance on two specific points, the first of which is the failure of the Government's recruiting policy. The persistent undermanning of our Armed Forces is adding to the overstretch which is causing such difficulty for those serving in our Armed Forces.
In March, I had the chance to visit Nepal, an unhappy country where, for some months—as more people in this country have recently begun to notice—there has been a state of near civil war. My visit included the town of Pokhara, where the British Army Gurkha recruiting base is located. I was able to visit the base itself and discuss matters with the British Army officers stationed there. They were extremely helpful, kind, courteous and answered all my undoubtedly amateurish questions, and they also told me some truly astonishing facts. The first was that, each October, as the annual recruiting season begins, the base receives the names of no fewer than 25,000 people who wish to serve in the British Army. Of those, 800 are selected to come to Pokhara for training. Of those, 200 to 250 are taken into the Army, and 550 to 600 sadly are sent away.
There are, as I understand it, currently about 3,500 Gurkha soldiers in a British Army of about 100,000. Surely there must be a case for bridging at least some of our recruitment gap by increasing the number of Gurkhas in the Army. They make soldiers of competence and ability and have been proven over many years. It is not as if there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to recruit overseas. Recruiting is going on vigorously, apparently, in the West Indies and in the South Pacific, notably in Fiji. I tabled a Question for Written Answer, which the noble Lord. Lord Bach, kindly answered on 29th April, concerning the number of Fijians who have been recruited into the British Army in the past few years. There were 472 in 2000 and 364 in 2001.
Cultural differences are much sharper for Fijians as they serve as individuals. Imagine leaving Fiji in the South Seas and becoming the only Fijian in a rifle company serving in Northern Ireland. No wonder there are anecdotal concerns about loneliness, discipline, etcetera, none of which need apply to the

329
Gurkhas because they are unit based. But why—perhaps the Minister can tell me this—are we recruiting more Fijians now than Gurkhas?
I turn to the vexed issue of Gurkha pensions. A case led by a certain eminent lady barrister now contends that Gurkha personnel should have the same pension as British Army personnel. At first sight that may seen only right and fair. But the reality appears rather different. A Gurkha rifleman serves for 15 or, at the most, 17 years, after which he receives a pension. As he begins his service at the age of 18, he is on pension by the time he is in his mid-thirties. The pension is about £80 per month—£1,000 per annum—which by UK standards does not seem a great deal. But these people live in Nepal not the United Kingdom. By comparison, the House might like to know that a school teacher in Nepal after a full career gets a pension of £40 per month—half that of an ex-Gurkha who in any case receives it some 25 years earlier.
The impact of the money from the British Army received in Nepal by both serving and retired personnel is critical to that poor country, wedged as it is between India and China, both struggling for regional advantage. I refer also to the impact of entrepreneurial activity. Many taxi companies, restaurants, guesthouses and trekking companies are run by people who have served in the Army and have used their training to begin a business after they retire. Those people are, of course, a valuable source of technical expertise. There is a large Gurkha engineering squadron in the British Army and the skills learnt there provide expertise in road building, construction, water supply and electricity connection—all vitally needed in Nepal.
My concern is that if the pension case is successfully prosecuted, there will no doubt be a dramatic increase in the costs of using Gurkhas in the British Army. The "money men" in the Treasury—the "termites", as my noble friend Lady Park called them—will then no doubt begin to question the value of recruiting Gurkhas. That could bring to an end a relationship which has been, and will continue to be, of enormous value to both sides at both a national and an individual level. What may have begun as a well meaning gesture may have a completely different conclusion—the law of unintended consequences working with a vengeance. I look forward to hearing the Minister giving us the up-to-date position on the pension issue, on the recruiting policy as it affects Gurkhas and Fijians and on the shortage of recruits in the Army generally.
The second point I wish to deal with relates to the impact of overstretch on individual servicemen. I refer to the frequency with which emergency unaccompanied overseas tours are now having to be taken as referred to by my noble friend Lord King. It is not just a question of the frequency of tours but also of worries about the quality of recreational facilities and opportunities to communicate with home via the phone or the Internet during those tours. Those facilities appear modest and menial by comparison with those of other nations in the UN forces and are of concern.
330
I too have heard the anecdotal evidence referred to by my noble friend Lord King about troops being rotated between units so that the 24-month gap commitment can be maintained. That must he a distinction without a difference. When I tried a year ago to discover exactly what the position was as regards individual servicemen. I received the astonishing reply from the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, that individual service records were not kept because the cost of so doing would be prohibitive. That is an astonishing admission and one that no company in the private sector would get away with. When I raised the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in a debate nine months later he said that,
"recording separated service for all service personnel is now a key objective of the Armed Forces' personnel strategy".— [Official Report, 16/01/02; col. 1111.]
I hope very much that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will tell us that it is no longer a key objective as it has been done or will give us a timetable to indicate when we shall know exactly who has had to serve overseas and how frequently. Without that information we shall not be able to set to rest the rumours and we shall not be able to ensure that the specialist troops we badly need stay within the Armed Forces.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, so much that has needed to be said on defence has been said this afternoon and most excellently. Indeed, it has been said over and over again in the past few years. Where credit has been due, I like to think that praise has been generously given. But when there have been shown to be manifest weaknesses and shortcomings to be criticised, not much, if any, notice seems to have been taken particularly over the fundamental problem which has invariably been, and remains today, that of money, as so many noble Lords have said.
In the past this Government have tended to play down, if not rule out, funding aspects as not being really relevant to the solution of this or that problem. But this fallacy has been exposed by the public arguments about the National Health Service in which Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards have made it clear that what you get out of a programme is largely—not wholly, of course, but largely—related to the financial resources you invest in it. That applies no less to defence than it does to the health service.
The root of the matter of course, as we all have to recognise, is that unless something exceptional is done by a Secretary of State—and I have known it done—and, more importantly, by a Prime Minister, it is the Treasury rather than the Cabinet, let alone the department, that has the last word on defence spending. It calls the shots on the size and potential of our Armed Forces and it has a very good shot at trying to influence their shape as well.
It has been doing that since the 1920s, with dire consequences in the interwar years. Apart from World War II and perhaps a single decade after it, approximately 1978 to 1987, when a Labour

331
government committed this country to meeting the NATO target of 3 per cent growth in real terms in defence spending and which included the Falklands War when the Prime Minister was wise enough not to include a Treasury representative in her war Cabinet, it has been doing it ever since. In so doing it has reduced the country's insurance policy for its national security and support for its foreign policy from 5.7 per cent of the gross national product to barely over 2 per cent in a period of 15 years. And all this at a time when the world is probably more uncertainly fragmented, and potentially dangerous, than at any time in the past 20 years and when our forces, as we have heard, are stretched to the limit by all the tasks that this Government, not unreasonably, have in mind for them.
Sadly, there is every indication that the Treasury is at it again and is determined to ensure that the very marginal increase in real terms promised by Ministers will never actually materialise because of the cash restraints which are even now forcing cuts in the only things that can easily be cut such as track mileage, fuel for aircraft, Territorial Army man training days, overseas and other exercises as well as early phasing out and delays in vital equipment capabilities in all three services, as my noble and gallant friends have said, all of which have a profound long-term effect on professional competence and capability and vital command experience.
Somehow the Ministry of Defence, with the essential backing of the Prime Minister, must take arms against this or find funding from somewhere else because if we want our Armed Forces to continue to be the most professional and respected in the world, capable of performing at the drop of a hat most complex and dangerous tasks, often with as high a political as strategic content, to which this Government in particular have shown themselves determined to commit them, gratitude as well as the national interest should demand that they be given the modern weapons, communications and fully manned organisations to do the job properly. They should be consistently trained at every level and have the leadership and motivation to face hardship and dangers and, if necessary, lay their lives on the line. All of that requires adequate funding, not constant cheese-paring and salami-slicing and being forced time and again into highly damaging programme decisions merely to keep within some severe budgetary restraint imposed by the Treasury.
I do not know what will come out of the new review. There is not time to go into that. What is needed now is not yet another unsettling reorganisation, which gives the impression of progress but which in fact saves yet more money, but adequate funding fully to implement the truly excellent Strategic Defence Review.
Finally, I turn to a different subject altogether, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I hope that the Government will now do all that they possibly can to help the Nepalese Government in this critical fight
332
against terrorism. Never has this country had a stauncher friend than the Kingdom of Nepal, which gallantly, unselfishly and dramatically came to our aid in two world wars, and which still, as we have heard, provides a steady stream of volunteers for our indispensable Brigade of Gurkhas. That country is in serious trouble from blatant terrorism. We must help it to overcome that because so much is at stake.
In any successful counter-terrorist campaign in a poor country, one needs three things: economic aid to build up infrastructure and to improve the lot of those whom the terrorists threaten and try to impress; local protection for loyal citizens and their villages, and the denial of food to terrorists; and offensive military operations and ambushes against terrorists, which are based on steadily improving intelligence so as progressively to clear areas and eliminate the terrorist threat.
In all of those respects, we should be able to help. We have so much experience of this sort of situation, particularly in South-East Asia. We could build on the effective welfare and aid programmes that are already in that country to help the quality of life of those in vulnerable areas. The British-trained ex-Gurkhas might form a nucleus of a home guard to protect their local villages and to release the Royal Nepalese Army for offensive operations. We should be able to provide advice and advisers to help the Royal Nepalese Army in the intelligence and operational fields; we could even supply some specialist forces.
Naturally, we do not want to force ourselves on a proudly non-aligned country. However, I hope that any request to us from the Nepalese themselves will be considered most urgently and that no reasonable request will be rejected. They are our true friends. We must not let them down. If we can go to other parts of the world to help other people at such times, we can certainly help them. I hope that we will have some information on that point.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity for this three-and-a-half-hour debate; it is nothing less than our Armed Forces personnel deserve. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for initiating this debate, particularly in view of his background and well-respected knowledge of the Armed Forces.
It would be wrong of me not to refer to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I, too, had a professional relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Black; the difference was that he did not have the power to sack me, although he did have that power over the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I used to negotiate with him and noble Lords will understand that I had to ensure that I was very well briefed. He would approach his negotiations with military precision. It was good to hear his maiden speech.
I have to declare an interest. I chair the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I am joined on that body by two respected Members of this House: the noble Lord,

333
Lord Patel—Naren Patel—and my noble friend Lord Gladwin. Our remit is to recommend to the government of the day pay awards and allowances and to give recommendations on matters such as accommodation and charges. In the process of doing so each year, we meet about 3,000 Armed Forces personnel from all three services. We see them in groups of 10 or 12 at a time when their officers are not present. Those meetings take us each year to Northern Ireland and also to the Balkans, the Falklands and, this year, to Kabul. We will meet personnel in Oman, Karachi and Kabul.
My contribution is based not on a background of Library or MoD briefing but on my personal experience of meeting, with my colleagues, personnel and their wives and families. I say "wives" not "spouses" because predominantly, still, today our Armed Forces are male, although increasing numbers of women are in the Armed Forces doing a first-class job.
The review body is unpaid and independent. I was first appointed in the early 1990s by the then Prime Minister, John Major. After a break, I was appointed chairman by the present Prime Minister. I have been in the lovely position of criticising governments of both sides. The issue before us today is not new. I have had the privilege of being in this House for nine years and I have listened to many debates on the Armed Forces. All of them took a similar line to that adopted today—pointing out that there are not enough resources, that there is over-stretch and that this or that is wrong. We should pick out the real issues in the Armed Forces, which come from the personnel concerned.
In the early 1990s, the government of the day staged a pay increase, which was very demoralising for the services and affected their pension. We criticised that. We also criticised the present Government when they continued that policy during their first two years in office. Those issues have a long history in the services and they affect recruitment and, more particularly, retention.
We can make things uncomfortable for the Government. For example, we severely criticised the previous government for what appeared to be the hasty sell-off of the defence housing stock, and we criticised this Government for not putting sufficient investment sufficiently quickly into regenerating the stock that they still have with the Defence Housing Agency. I am delighted to say that £1 billion is now committed, although I should like that to be done more quickly. That is in this year's report.
The noble Lord, Lord King, rightly referred to the problem of over-stretch. In many respects, that is exacerbated by the fact that the same groups of people are continually deployed. That is because of the nature of the work. The Strategic Defence Review provided for post-operational tour leave. That has worked and made a real difference. However, the surveys that we require to be conducted annually make it clear that service personnel are still not getting their total annual leave. They have that as an entitlement but not as a right. That does not help with retention.
334
Noble Lords have criticised recruitment. I say, with respect, that every single public sector in the United Kingdom currently has severe problems recruiting personnel, whether that involves teachers, doctors, dentists or nurses. The real problem for the Armed Forces is retention. We spend substantial sums of money training. I gather that we spend about £3 million on a fast-jet pilot. We need to keep personnel when we have trained them. Pay is a factor in that regard, although they tell us that it is not "the" factor. We have conducted surveys, through multi-service working, across a range of nations' armed forces. In overall terms, our personnel are at the top of the bandings in view of their remuneration packages. There are one or two exceptional areas of allowances but, by and large, their remuneration package matches any. The real issue is their rounded quality of life. There is no doubt that over-stretch impacts on that, and continues to do so.
The problem does not only affect personnel; their wives say, "I have had enough. It is good for you to go to the Balkans to do your work but when am I going to see you?". The personnel worry about their families back at home. The families' welfare package has made an enormous difference. They expect that because the Armed Forces are part of our society. Societies change and expectations change and in many respects the Armed Forces have not changed as quickly as they should have done. In terms of GDP, last year we spent 2.4 per cent and the Americans spent 2.9 per cent. In 1995 we spent 2.7 per cent, just half a per cent more. That comes from a NATO press release of December last year.
This is an important issue. In recent times, no government have got it right, but we must continue to strive to get it right. My personal view—not the view of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body—is that the elastic has been stretched so tightly that some give has to take place. I wish the Secretary of State well in the talks on the Comprehensive Spending Review. The MoD needs some easing of the situation and some extra resources. I rather suspect that whatever is given will still not be enough for some Members of this House. I wish the Government well and it will be interesting to hear how the Minister responds to this debate.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House for this unscheduled contribution on my part which has occurred due to a long-standing and unavoidable commitment that until this afternoon I thought would be prevent me attending the debate. I shall speak briefly.
I speak against the background of your Lordships' consideration of the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review on 8th December 1998. I expressed the view that the review had arrived at a strategically sound outcome—that is still my view—but with the proviso that it received adequate resources both for its effective implementation and to sustain its subsequent effectiveness.

335
I have no time to return to the various concerns expressed during the debate about overstretch and underfunding, but I share many of them. I want to mention one particular aspect that does not always have high visibility in terms of defence priorities, but which could have a serious effect on our future defence capabilities. It concerns our investment in long-term defence-related research and development, which lays the essential foundations for our future generations of weapons and equipment and how we should employ them operationally to best effect. Shortfalls in that important area do not immediately become apparent because the gestation period to produce new and more effective systems or even totally new ones—like radar in the late 1930s—can be as long as 10 years or more.
Today the United States is spending nearly 10 times more than we are on defence-related long-term research and development and, more remarkably, over three times more than the 17 European members of NATO combined. Coming from a single unified budget, the United States is usually able to spend that investment on defence research and development much more efficiently than we in Europe can in many different and separated areas. Surely, that reinforces the important point—certainly in that aspect of defence—made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about lack of European burden sharing.
The long-term effect of those trends if we do not reverse them will be that sooner or later our Armed Forces will lack the essential tools to do the job required of them. In an era when we rightly lay increasing emphasis on operational effectiveness and minimising casualties, the eventual outcome could be serious indeed unless we take action to put it right. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will take a serious and an objective look at the adequacy of the resources needed to meet the requirements of the Strategic Defence Review now and in the years ahead.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and I welcome the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black. I am sure that his contribution will help to focus media attention on this debate. Lamentably sometimes these debates do not achieve as much media attention as noble Lords wish.
I want to congratulate the Government. The issue of Sierra Leone has been raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Burnham, but I take a contrary view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I believe that Sierra Leone has shown what can be achieved with the judicious use of armed forces at the right time.
I was pleased to read about Sierra Leone. But, unfortunately, it was a story about violence. Due to the forthcoming elections, stone-throwing was taking place between the RUF and the government supporters. What is remarkable is that people are only throwing stones, considering the turbulent and bloody
336
history of Sierra Leone. I was asked to take part in the monitoring process of the previous elections, although, fortunately, at the last minute I was not required. The stories I heard from people who did go there were quite terrifying. The RUF, a body that probably no one can support, is on the point of facing electoral meltdown and defeat rather than military defeat. That must be a real indicator of how well peacekeeping and peace-making can be used.
A major issue that has been discussed this evening is overstretch. It has been pointed out that overstretch refers not only to resources. I was interested to see in the statistical analysis of public expenditure that in 1984–85, £31.9 billion was spent on the Armed Forces, whereas in 2001–02 it is estimated that £23.6 billion will be spent. That shows that there has been a peace dividend to the country in defence expenditure. I concur with many noble Lords that that is perhaps pushing the limits and that efficiency is being taken to extremes in certain areas. However, the increase in resources will be a political decision, and while I could ask the Minister to pass on to his Treasury colleagues our request that more is spent, I am sure that he is already doing that.
The other issue about overstretch is the ability of finding the troops to meet the commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Vincent, who had a role in the SDR and who was able to speak in the gap, said that he was satisfied that the SDR met the requirement that the commitment should meet resources. I believe that the SDR carried out a good job on that basis. However, two issues have been raised in the debate that put the commitment to resources equation in doubt.
The first is Afghanistan. We have two forces in Afghanistan: ISAF and troops from 45 Commando. I have a couple of questions about ISAF. We on these Benches support the role of ISAF. It has achieved its goals of promoting peace and of giving the interim government a period in which to build up its own ability. First, has a definite date been set for the Turkish contingent to take over the command of ISAF? Secondly, when the Turks relinquish command of ISAF, is it correct that the British are pencilled in to take up command of ISAF if no other force has been found for that position? I do not believe that we on these Benches would be against that if no other force can be found. I believe that we have a long-term commitment to Afghanistan.
The second element of interest in Afghanistan is the work being carried out in the mountains. It is a great success that so much ammunition has been denied to Al'Qaeda fighters. The very fact that they have had to leave Afghanistan and go into Pakistan must have degraded their ability.
Another issue that was raised, and which will put a great deal of strain on our forces if we undertake military action, is that of Iraq. The major question we on these Benches would like answered is whether at present any military action against Iraq would be legal without a UN mandate. It is important not to forget that, though the regime is particularly unpalatable—I am sure nobody in this Chamber has any great love of

337
the regime—any military action would have to take place under a UN mandate. We need a consensus on the matter.
The week before last I was in the Gulf and the questions being asked related to what happens after military action is undertaken. These questions need to be answered. Who will take over if there is a regime change? Will there be destabilisation of the region immediately inside and outside Iraq? What consequences would an aerial campaign have on the whole of the Middle East?
The first step must be UN inspectors going into Iraq. We all find it unacceptable that weapons of mass destruction could be in the hands of Saddam Hussein. The most effective way of making sure that those weapons are denied has to be weapons inspections.
A number of other issues were raised this evening, one of which was the Territorial Army. I served as a menial lieutenant in the Territorial Army in the REME. But one of the problems I faced, particularly as a REME officer, was that it was a specialist corps. It needed trained individuals who held the required certificates to undertake their duties. And one of the most unfortunate factors was turnover. A recent figure gave 30 per cent turnover for the Territorial Army, which is a massive turnover for any organisation and is especially damaging if we are relying on certain key individuals staying on for a number of years and acquiring skilled capabilities.
I particularly remember that one of the strange aspects of the way the Army was funded was that we received a consignment of new DAF trucks. However, even though we were a REME corps, we were not allowed to fix our own trucks. They were on a leaseback deal and would have to go back to the manufacturer for repair.
Another area brought out this evening, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, is the Army Cadet Force. I echo the view that this is an extremely cost-effective way of introducing young people to the Armed Forces. It is a fact of life that young people do not now look at the Armed Forces in the way they did 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The noble Lord raised the issue of poaching. I have personal experience that it does not just happen in the Regular Army. My nephew was deciding whether to join the Scouts or the ACF. The ACF was publicising around the Scout units the fact that it provides paint-balling in a deliberate effort to poach young people away from the Scouts.
I conclude on the case of the Gurkhas. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised this point and his comments were extremely valid. The basis under which the Gurkhas were paid was based on a historical situation that has now fundamentally changed. We now have a moral obligation to reconsider their position; to reconsider their pay structure and their pension rights. The Gurkhas are an extremely effective part of the British Army and we should look al pay scales that reflect that.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this has been a stimulating debate. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord King for moving this debate today. I agree and support the many remarks he made. Also I congratulate my noble friend Lord Black on his excellent contribution and hope that he will continue to speak on defence issues in your Lordships' House.
It is impossible not to have noted that this debate has focused on a critical issue; that is, the chronic under-funding of the recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review. Throughout this debate, time and again, your Lordships have drawn our attention to this serious under-funding and lack of resources. I ask the Minister to take note of that, Your Lordships stressed various issues which will mean that, if funding is not forthcoming, the capabilities of our Armed Forces will be so reduced that they will not be able to undertake their current strategic roles and tasks and the defence policy of the United Kingdom may well have to be changed.
In part some of the under-funding arises from the 3 per cent efficiency savings, which have become 3 per cent cuts in practical terms, and the £500 million savings being made are taking a heavy toll on the real capabilities of all three services. The impact of under-funding has resulted in shortages of personnel in all three services, amounting to a total of 9,397.
At the start of the year the Royal Navy was short of some 2,189, the Royal Air Force 1,149 and the Army 7,477. Warships put to sea without the ship's full complement, causing double workloads in some skills. On 4th March this year the frigate HMS "Sheffield" was decommissioned. The West Indies Guard Ship is no longer on all-year-round patrol, and the Armilla patrol in the Gulf has been reduced to just one ship.
On 28th February this year the Government announced the future disbandment of the Sea Harrier force, and I shall return to that subject. The SDR planned for up to three Astute class submarines, but only two have been ordered. In June 2001 the Fleet Risk Register stated that the Royal Navy cannot play its role in NATO's joint rapid reaction force because the ships were not always fully fit for task. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to confirm whether that is still the case and whether HMS "Invincible" is to be mothballed, leaving us with only two aircraft carriers.
On 1st February the Government announced that a further air defence squadron of 12 Tornadoes was to be cut, saving a mere £2 million. In April last year the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force were short of nearly 200 pilots. Again under-funding has created a crisis in pilot retention due to a lack of flying hours, too many months on operations and pay lagging behind the private sector.
Under-funding has contributed to over-commitment, reduced individual training, caused cancellation and reduction of field training exercises,

339
brought about a shortage of spare parts and retained the very poor standard of living accommodation which have all resulted in reduced retention.
Savings found in the Defence Logistics Organisation from reducing stocks to the extent of some £2.8 million has been at the expense of training front-line capability and reserves. The effects of that are clear. The National Audit Office found that the Royal Air Force came close to running out of bombs during the Kosovo conflict. The 2001 Fleet Risk Register states that significant Army shortfalls have meant that ships are going to sea without enough ammunition to defend themselves and they are at greater risk of being hit by air-to-sea missiles.
Some years ago MoD figures revealed that only 34 out of 90 Harrier jets, 28 out of 76 Jaguars and 59 out of 112 Tornado F3 air defence aircraft were fully serviceable. Recent MoD figures show serviceability for helicopters at around 50 per cent. SDR assumes operational availability at 80 per cent. The average rate of serviceability of helicopters for training and exercises is only about 11 per cent. Those are not savings, but cuts due to under-funding.
The training details are equally depressing. In the past 24 months, 84 exercises have been cancelled. Reduced training lowers the efficiency and high training standards in regiments' primary roles for war fighting.
Unless more funds are made available, the equipment programme will be affected even more than at present. There has been press speculation that the cost of the planned equipment programme will be reduced by £1.2 billion during 2001–05. Inevitably, that will have a highly damaging impact on the planned programme. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House whether there is any truth in that speculation—and, if there is, say which equipment programmes will be delayed or cancelled.
I now turn to the issues concerning the Sea Harrier. I noted the comments made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. We on these Benches are wholly opposed to the decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier from service—a move due to be completed in 2006. The aircraft is the only one fully operational with the advanced medium air-to-air missile, equipped with a highly advanced Blue Vixen radar and able to see some considerable distance over the horizon. The Sea Harrier is the UK's most capable interceptor fighter—the GR7 and GR9 are ground attack aircraft. The GR9 will not be fitted with the Storm Shadow standoff missile. Even in upgraded form, it will be slower and less versatile and consequently will not operate safely without Sea Harrier cover.
Without the Sea Harrier, the remaining obsolescent layered air defence will be limited by the radar horizon from ships and Sea King helicopters—a defence that will not prevail against sea-skimming anti-ship missiles such as Exocet. The Type 45 destroyer and its new principle air missile system could easily be saturated by a multiple threat from many directions. The engine and avionics upgrade of the Sea Harrier are
340
not essential to its continued effectiveness in war. It will still deter and provide early warning of attack. The Sea Harrier was upgraded to FA2 standard only in 1996. Whatever the Government say, there is no justification for its withdrawal until the Joint Strike Fighter comes into service. It is the UK's most capable fighter and plays a vital role in defending the fleet from attack. Without it the fleet is put at unquestionable risk.
Finally, I shall mention briefly two other major issues. The first is the pensions review. The MoD decision to make any new scheme neutral in cost is a grave mistake. The proposal to improve ill-health and dependants' benefits by reducing the pensions of other service personnel is unacceptable. The Armed Forces deserve a pension scheme that recognises the unique commitment that they make to the country.
Secondly, I trust that the Government will make time for a full debate on the New Chapter. I am convinced that there is a greater role for the Territorial Army, providing that it is returned to formed units, but not at the expense of reducing the regular Army.
As is customary, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces for their bravery, courage, determination and loyalty. I congratulate 45 Commando on its successful operations in Afghanistan and the British troops in the International Security Assistance Force, Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo for the excellent way in which they are carrying out their duties. The country owes them appropriate support and it is Parliament's duty to ensure that the Armed Forces have the necessary funding for them to have the essential capabilities to undertake successfully the tasks that have been assigned to them. Despite our support for the Strategic Defence Review, our frequent warnings over several years of the consequences of underfunding have not been heeded by the Government but disregarded.
In the 11 years during which I have been in your Lordships' House, I do not think that five noble and gallant Lords, all of whom have been Chiefs of the Defence Staff in their time, and a previous Secretary of State for Defence have spoken in the same defence debate. I draw that to the attention of the Minister and all sides of the House as it shows the depth of concern about under-funding of our services. I agree with all that they said.
Although the Ministry of Defence is attempting to ensure that the Armed Forces are given appropriate support, if under-funding continues, the Armed Forces will not have the capability to carry out their roles. There will come a time when we commit our forces to a war that may result in defeat and death to our servicemen and women. If that should ever happen while this Government are in office, the blame and the shame will lie entirely at the feet of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, despite warnings from many quarters, including the Ministry of Defence itself, have continuously under-funded the Armed Forces. The time has come to cease under-funding.
6.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I start by joining in the thanks given to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for opening this debate in such a reasoned and sensible way. I hope that he will forgive me if I also mention the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, whose idea this debate may be; I am also grateful to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, made an excellent maiden speech full of important insights into the relationship of the United States with the outside world, which, frankly, is one of the crucial questions of this year and the years to come. The noble Lord knows that all of us in this House look forward to opening our copy of the daily newspaper with which he has some involvement. He may also understand that sometimes, defence Ministers are not as keen as others to do so. But that newspaper does a great service in that it certainly keeps the Ministry of Defence awake to the problems that it is likely to face. In any event, I very much welcome his speech. I am delighted that he made it on this subject and I look forward to hearing his contributions on many future occasions.
I welcome this debate because it allows me to pay tribute to the vital work that Her Majesty's Armed Forces are doing across the world. I know that the House will join me in congratulating them on and thanking them for their outstanding professionalism and self-sacrifice, which they show whenever they are called on. Almost every noble Lord has made precisely that point.
I shall start with a few words about Afghanistan because, unsurprisingly, the media have paid much attention to that issue during the past few days. All noble Lords know how fully involved our Armed Forces have been since the campaign began. From the start of operations last October, we have maintained a powerful naval force in the Indian Ocean. Almost from day one, the RAF has been flying vital transport, reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling and airborne early warning and control missions. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, that contribution has been warmly welcomed by the United States.
We also have troops—mostly the Royal Marines of 45 Commando—engaged in anti-terrorist operations in that country. That force, about 1,700 strong with its own artillery and support helicopters, has undertaken combat operations in the high mountains and valleys of south-east Afghanistan under arduous conditions. The exercise has attracted considerable media attention. I am saddened that some who should know better have ridiculously questioned the need for British troops on the ground in Afghanistan or have claimed that we are achieving little because we have not killed enough terrorists.
Frankly, I am astonished by the suggestion that crude and simplistic statistics such as body count should be the measure of success. Surely, the only valid criterion should be whether our actions contribute to our strategic objectives. I can assure the House that the efforts of our troops have not been in vain in that
342
regard. First, they have denied territory to the Taliban and Al'Qaeda from which to plan, train and launch terrorist attacks. That is no mean achievement.
Secondly, they have destroyed huge quantities of ammunition and collected a vast amount of valuable intelligence. The Chief of the Defence Staff made it clear that he believed that the operations had been a success. By destroying the supporting infrastructure, we help to deny terrorists the use of Afghanistan as a safe haven. That permits humanitarian agencies to operate freely in the region and, importantly, enables forces loyal to the Afghan Interim Authority to extend control to all parts of the country.
Separate to that, but representing another strand to our overall strategy, is our contribution to the International Security Assistance Force at Kabul. Nineteen countries have contributed troops to the force which today is some 4,700 strong. The United Kingdom accepted the role of lead nation because that was the right thing for us to do. It is no coincidence that the United Kingdom was selected as the first country to lead ISAF. There is international recognition that our forces have the knowledge, experience and capability to sustain such a multinational deployment. We should be proud of the positive contribution we have made.
We must look to the future. We have reduced our ISAF commitment from a peak in-country of 1,800, with another 300 supporting, to its current level of around 1,500. The UN authorisation was originally for ISAF to deploy until June. It now seems certain that that will be extended, and we welcome the decision by the Turkish Government to take over as lead nation, with the United Kingdom remaining as a troop contributor, albeit at a reduced level.
In the context of Afghanistan, it is right that I should mention some breaking news that was, I believe, broadcast on the six o'clock news a few minutes ago. This is the earliest possible opportunity to inform the House. Thirteen military medical personnel, serving with 34 Field Hospital at Bagram in Afghanistan, have been taken ill with an unidentified feverish illness. Two are very seriously ill: one has been returned to the UK for treatment, the other is at a US hospital in Germany. The others are being cared for by the remaining medical staff at Bagram.
The exact nature of the illness is not yet known. Medical tests continue in an effort to isolate the cause. However, the illness appears to be contagious, and, as a precaution, 34 Field Hospital has been closed to all but similar cases. It will, of course, be re-opened for normal medical cover as soon as possible. In the interim, the German hospital based in Kabul will provide hospital cover for UK troops in Afghanistan. Next of kin are being informed. I thought it right that the House should know about that. We are discussing our Armed Forces, and I know that noble Lords would want to be informed. I am sorry that I cannot say more. No doubt, more information will emerge in due course.
No one can predict the future with complete confidence, but I emphasise the Government's resolve to see the campaign through to the end. The tempo of

343
operations will inevitably vary, as may the scale and nature of our deployments, but we remain absolutely committed to defeating international terrorism, as does the House.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to Nepal with some passion. He will know that our Prime Minister and the Nepalese Prime Minister met this week. I have no knowledge of what was discussed or of the matters that passed between them, but there is contact at the highest level between the two countries. The noble and gallant Lord's remarks will certainly be passed on.
Personnel issues have, in some ways, been at the heart of the debate. As noble Lords said, we cannot afford to take the excellence of our Armed Forces for granted. Our servicemen and servicewomen are a priceless asset, and their well-being and interests must always remain central to our policy. We fully recognise and accept our responsibility to support and sustain our servicemen and servicewomen.
A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review, praised by several noble Lords, was a widespread recognition of the need for a coherent strategy, known as the Armed Forces overarching personnel strategy. I shall briefly set out the underlying themes of the strategy, and I hope that, in doing so, I address many of the points raised in the debate. If I do not answer all the questions asked—those of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for example, to which I do not have the answer—I will, of course, write to noble Lords.
The first theme is the simple but essential requirement to create a culture of understanding, awareness and interest within the Armed Forces in order to draw good recruits, in the required numbers, into the forces. It is vital, as stated in the debate, to engage with our young people. We already have presentation teams that tour the country and visit schools to explain to youngsters the vast range of activities in which the Armed Forces are involved, both here and abroad. This September we will launch a new schools initiative designed to work closely with a select number of schools to get the message across even more effectively.
The Armed Forces are seldom far from the thoughts of all of us. We are well aware of the key role they played in dealing with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and in responding to local civil emergencies such as flooding and rescues by helicopter. We must bring such positive activities to the attention of the wider public.
Secondly, we must make clear to those wishing to join what the Armed Forces require. We are looking for young men and women who appreciate a challenge, who possess the determination to carry out demanding tasks and who can use their initiative under pressure. We accept that there is a shortfall of about 9,500 personnel against the in-year requirement for the Armed Forces. As has been pointed out, unemployment is at its lowest level for many years, and more and more young people attend higher education.
344
The Armed Forces must therefore compete in a tough market for scarce human resources. Inevitably, the best and the brightest are most in demand.
I do not have time to describe all the initiatives that we have adopted. I am pleased to say that the recruiting figures for this year are expected to at least match, if not exceed, those of last year. We are making particular progress in the Army. In 1999–2000, we had an inflow into trained strength for the first time in 15 years, and performance during the past 12 months has also been strong. We are particularly encouraged by our success in attracting more women and more recruits from the Asian, black and other communities into the Armed Forces. I pay tribute to Colonel Wayne Harber, who has just stepped down as head of the Army's ethnic minority recruiting programme after six years in the job.
I spoke about competition in the labour market. We must ensure that we recruit the best people from every sphere of British life and make our Armed Forces broadly representative of the population they serve. I am delighted to say that there has been a steady year-on-year increase in the number of recruits from ethnic minorities since recruiting goals were instituted three years ago. As of April 2001, the annual overall percentage of ethnic recruits has more than doubled. Final figures for 2001–02 are not yet available, but indications are that the Army, for example, has exceeded last year's outcome by recruiting over 5 per cent from ethnic minorities.
That achievement was favourably reflected in Business in the Community's 2001 report, which praised the Army as,
"one of a minority of organisations able to claim definitely that its programme on race equality has made a measurable impact across the organisation on a number of fronts".
That is a worthy tribute. The Army deserves great credit for an important achievement.
The third pillar is retention. That has been the subject of much discussion today. We accept that there is no quick or simple fix. We must understand what motivates individuals to leave the Armed Forces. We hope that our approach embraces a balanced and layered mix of measures, some addressing the broad issues such as pay, pensions, training, families, accommodation and diversity and others addressing issues of concern to particular high value groups such as aircrew, engineers and medical personnel.
The success is matched by what we are doing across the board in retention strategies, including improved pay arrangements, better housing and working accommodation, improved training and better education opportunities as part of the Government's wider education strategy. I remind the House that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Armed Forces pay review body.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised the issues of aircrew retention and training. We accept that aircrew retention is a serious problem caused by the strong competition, even now, from civil airlines. We have taken a number of steps to address the

345
situation, including the financial retention incentive package and improvements in flying activity rates among aircrews. The early signs are encouraging. As regards training, despite our current high operational tempo, the overall level for exercise and training of our Armed Forces remains, broadly speaking, at the level of previous years. We understand and take on board the concerns that have been expressed.
The fourth pillar or theme is to sustain, which includes balancing commitments with our aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is strictly necessary. I mentioned our reduced contribution to ISAF in Kabul. Of course, there is little point in just withdrawing people before they can be replaced or before their jobs are done—especially if it means having to return later.
We believe that we have achieved success in balancing the number of people committed to operations, although we acknowledge that there are pressure points in certain areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord King, feels strongly that we have not necessarily reached the truth about those figures and he said so again today. Average unit tour intervals in the Army have improved. Overall, we are meeting the target of 24 months set out in the SDR for Army tour internals and in some cases exceeding it. But let me make this concession: we are aware that some specialist units and individuals—notably in the infantry—may well have tours within that limit. We are committed to tackling the problem and I look forward to discussing the issue with the noble. Lord and with others in the weeks and months to come.
That is clearly interlinked with retaining personnel. We subscribe to the motto, "Recruit the man or woman; retain the family". That is particularly significant with the Armed Forces. Some 52 per cent of those in the Armed Forces are married with many more in long-term relationships. That is an important point.
The fifth and final component of the strategy is "remember". It is about helping and supporting former service personnel and their families and bereaved families. Caring for our veterans is part of repaying the debt to our people who served this country so well. We have and are working closely with veterans' organisations. We have appointed a Minister for Veterans, a task being carried out with great sensitivity by my colleague Dr Lewis Moonie. He has assumed responsibility for the War Pensions Agency, now known as the Veterans Agency. The House will know how that is succeeding. There are and always will be issues relating to veterans and it is important that government should be pressured about whether they are doing sufficient for them. We believe that we have improved the position already.
I was going to comment on equipment. In my view, some of the criticisms made today have been slightly unfair in relation to the state of the equipment budget in the MoD. There seems to be little acknowledgement of how outstanding our equipment is, particularly when compared with some of that used in other countries. I remind the House that our current planned
346
naval equipment project represents the largest programme of new shipbuilding in decades. Apart from orders for six new Type-45 destroyers, Astute-class submarines and a range of support and amphibious vessels, we are now well advanced with our new aircraft carrier project. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that that particular project is part of our programme. We expect to select a prime contractor for it early next year.
The Challenger 2 main battle tank is now fully in service and we are making real progress with the introduction of the Bowman combat radio. Some might say, "About time", but, with great respect, they might say that to both Front Benches. It is not a situation that has suddenly arisen since 1997. However, I can tell the House that we are determined as best we can that the in-service date for a proper communications system—the Bowman system—is 2004. We intend to keep to that if we possibly can. We believe that the strength and diversity of our forward equipment programme provides ample evidence of our continuing commitment to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the necessary resources to carry out their tasks effectively.
I want quickly to remind the House that under the current spending review the settlement for defence represents an increase in real terms of 1 per cent. That is not a large amount but it is a real-terms increase. I also remind the House, with the greatest respect to the Front Bench opposite, that that is the first sustained increase in planned defence expenditure for more than a decade.
Of course we listen with enormous interest and respect to the former chiefs of the defence staff and other experts in the field, but as regards how much or how little we should spend on defence I am not sure that the party opposite has much to tell us when one considers its record.
The results of the new spending review will not be complete until the summer and it is too early to speculate about what it might say. However, I want to welcome the Chancellor's announcement of the additional investment of £155 million to meet urgent equipment requirements for operations against terrorism and a further £204 million for defence in the spring supplementary estimates to meet operational costs in the financial year just ended.
Today we have heard remarks about the Treasury. It is easy to pick on the Treasury and I was grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, arrived in the Chamber. Apart from myself, under pressure as the Minister here today, he was the only former Treasury Minister to show his face in the Chamber during the course of the debate.
Noble Lords: And another there$
Lord Bach: My Lords, there are now many others but not many were here when some of the perhaps "un-Lords-like" remarks were made about the Treasury. Some of those remarks were unfair, although a number of references to decisions made this summer were welcome.

347
I would have liked the time to answer the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on what I fear has ridiculously become a party political issue; that is, the decision to retire increasingly obsolescent Royal Navy Sea-Harrier aircraft. Time does not allow for that now but the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be pleased to know that they are being phased out between 2004 and 2006. The fact is that that decision is sensible and capability-driven and will certainly not leave our Royal Navy in any danger. We on this side of the House greatly resent the fact that in another place that issue was used in such a politically partisan way.
Having concluded, I hope, not on a sour note, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, and apologise to him for having left him little time in which to respond to the debate.
6.40 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I wish very briefly to thank the Minister for his response. I am sorry that at the end he got into a little deep water on former Treasury Ministers—he found that they were rather thicker on the ground than he had realised.
I shall start by apologising to and thanking my noble friend Lord Burnham. He initiated this debate and I am most grateful for his appreciation in spite of the mix-up over the printing. That, at least, is better than what has happened to my noble friend Lord Fowler, who as "Baroness Fowler" has been given 15 minutes to open his debate. At least we were not given a change of gender in our arrangements.
At the start of the debate I had hoped that it would be one of real quality. I appreciate all those noble Lords who have taken part. Perhaps I may pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Black of Crossharbour. He made an outstanding maiden speech. If this House means something, then it is to bring to this place people of real experience and considerable knowledge who can contribute to our debates in the forceful and interesting way in which my noble friend has done today.
I wish simply to say this to the Minister. When I was Secretary of State, there were always complaints about lack of funds. Sometimes, however, those concerns grow larger and more real. I would ask the Minister to do one thing. Will he ask his private office to ensure that tomorrow's Boxes for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State contain copies of this Hansard? A number of people have spoken in this debate whose advice the Government used to be pleased to receive when they were operating as Chiefs of the Defence Staff and in other capacities. They have given serious warnings, along with the chair of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
Having served in the other place, I have to say that that House could not have matched the quality of the debate we have heard today. I hope that Ministers will not read only the Hansard from the House of Commons tomorrow, but that they will read the House of Lords Hansard as well.
348
Once more, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in what I think has been an excellent and most worthwhile debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Pension Policy
6.42 p.m.
Lord Fowler roseto call attention to pension policy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord King I, too, noticed the use of "Baroness". I have to say that at least in the other place they did get my sex right, if nothing else.
This is an important debate on pensions. My first serious introduction to the world of pensions took place back in 1975 when, suddenly and surprisingly, I was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. My first debate was the pensions Bill, introduced by Barbara Castle, who we particularly remember today. Although I did not always agree with her solutions, by any standards she was an outstanding fighter for better pensions. She will be very much missed.
A decade later, as Secretary of State for Social Services, I introduced my own pension changes. In the 1990s and to date I have served as a trustee on a number of pension funds. If there has been one constant feature of that time, basically it has been this: perhaps because of the complexity of the rules and regulations, and because for many retirement seems a distant prospect, pensions policy never receives the public attention that it deserves. In spite of the huge importance of pensions, too many people ignore the policy area altogether.
Perhaps it is because of that attitude that we have almost drifted, like sleepwalkers, into the biggest crisis for pensions this country has seen for half a century. Policy changes like the abolition of tax credits, that have had a profound effect on the position of future pensioners, but are difficult to summarise in a 30-second soundbite, have slipped through only partly noticed. Equally, changes that should be made, such as in my view changes to the terms of annuities, do not get the mass support that they deserve because people do not understand precisely how they can affect their lives.
All this has taken place in spite of the brave efforts of the financial and money pages press—to which I pay genuine tribute—to heighten public awareness in the area. So in this short debate I want to concentrate on occupational and personal pensions: the final salary scheme; the money purchase scheme. All too rarely have these matters been debated at Westminster. Obviously, state provision is vitally and vastly important. We had the opportunity to debate the State Pension Credit Bill a month or two ago. I supported that Bill. Indeed, I notice that my support has been called in aid by Ministers in the other place to such an extent that one veteran Labour Back-Bencher

349
protested that it was all very well knowing I was in favour of it, but he had spent his best years opposing my policies.
Nevertheless, I still believe that we should aim to reach maximum agreement on policies because, in terms of pensions, policies do not affect only the next three or four years, they affect the coming 30 to 40 years. The challenge we face today is, I believe, profound. The danger lights are all flashing very brightly indeed. Today we are in the position where people are not saving enough and where the personal savings rate has dipped alarmingly, back down to the levels of the 1930s. We are in a position where many final salary schemes are being closed to new members or closed altogether. These are not small companies. We are talking about Marks & Spencer, ICI, Safeway, Ernst & Young and many other like companies.
We are also in a position where contributions to money purchase schemes are insufficient to ensure a good future income, not least because the incentives to save are inadequate. In human terms, I believe that we have here the makings of a tragedy. As one commentator put it: in the future, people in retirement will live "lives of quiet desperation".
I think that there is another danger. My theory is that we are in danger of moving towards becoming two nations in terms of pensions. One nation will have inflation-proofed, final salary schemes, while the other nation will scrape along on inadequate pensions. That, again, would be a vast tragedy. My aim is not to set one nation against the other, but to see how we can move closer to a single nation where more and more people have the pensions and the savings to give themselves a good life in retirement.
The declared policy of both governments over the past 20 years has been to promote personal provision. That makes obvious sense so far as concerns the individual; it is sensible for him to make provision for his future and give himself some security in that future. But in fact it also makes sense for the Government, the Treasury and those in charge of the nation's finances. People are living longer. The ratio of the working population to the retired population is set to worsen, and the state retirement pension is a pay-as-you-go scheme. There is no invested fund on which to draw, just the ability and willingness of future taxpayers to pay for future pensions. From any government's point of view, therefore, it makes sense to encourage people to save.
That is one reason why the demise of so many final salary schemes is extremely serious for this country. In this respect we were once the envy, certainly of Europe and perhaps of the world, because we had such a wide range and prosperity in our final salary schemes. I do not claim that government policy alone has been responsible for so much decline. Obviously the financial reporting rule, FRS 17, has had an impact in this area, in particular the way in which it treats fluctuating investments as a market force. There is no question that it has had an impact. One needs only to talk to anyone who runs a pension scheme to know that that is the case. No one claims that FRS 17 has been helpful to occupational schemes.
350
Frankly, however, I rather doubt that, had it not been for the Government's action in abolishing tax credits paid to pension funds in the 1997 Budget, that the financial rule would have had quite the impact that it has had over the past 12 months to two years. Confidence has been affected and much more. The Chancellor had pledged himself to making no direct income tax increases, so instead he made a tax change which directly hit the future incomes of millions of pension savers. It sounded technical—doubtless that was an advantage in the Budget presentation—but its direct result was to reduce the income received by pension funds directly. It costs pension savers £5 billion a year. I emphasise that it is £5 billion a year and continuing; it is not a once-and-for-all saving.
Unlike pensions mis-selling—which we all deplored—there is no prospect of putting this matter right. It is a permanent change for the worse. The timing was such that it coincided not with a buoyant stock market, as the Chancellor apparently thought it would, but with a serious downturn in the market. It was a policy which affected not only final salary schemes but money purchase schemes such as the personal pension. Those funds were hit in exactly the same way.
To rub salt into the wounds of people with personal pensions, the Government also abolished the carry forward provision which enabled self-employed people who had not contributed to a pension to their full entitlement to carry forward six years' entitlement—to catch up, if you like, at the end of their working lives. I could never understand that particular change of policy. It seemed a petty and unnecessary act.
But worst of all, people with money purchase schemes were impacted not only by the reduction in income going into their fund but by a dramatic reduction in the pension that they could buy. Annuity rates have fallen dramatically. In the past 10 years, the income that a newly-retired person can receive for the same accumulated fund has halved. According to the Library note provided for me, in 1990 a £100,000 fund would buy for a 65-year old man, a 50 per cent widow's pension and a pension of £10,871. That figure is now in the region of £5,400.
Not surprisingly, people in this position argued that the rule that compelled them to take an annuity—a low annuity; the lowest annuity for decades—by the age of 75 was unjust. In précis, the argument they put is that, provided they can prevent themselves slipping hack on state support, they should not be so compelled. Regrettably, the Government have set their face against such change. They say that people can shop around for better annuities, but annuities they will have and nothing else.
The Minister for Pensions, Mr McCartney, rejected any move for reform on the ground that it was only a problem for the rich and the very wealthy. Let me say, in the strongest terms that I can, that this is not only an issue for the rich but for the hundreds of thousands of people who do not remotely consider themselves wealthy.

351
Government Ministers, who are also Members of Parliament, should be very careful about lecturing anyone on the subject of wealthy pensioners. The House of Commons and Ministerial Pension Scheme was already a generous scheme when I left the Commons last year. Since then, Members have voted for an accrual rate of one-fortieth in spite of the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Board. They have given themselves a full pension after 27 years as compared with the 40 years standard.
To give a comparison, an MP who retires on a full two-thirds pension will receive more than £30,000 a year. The pension will be index-linked and there will be a generous widow's pension—and a Minister will receive a pension additional to that. To match that kind of pension as an annuity if you have a money purchase scheme would need a fund of well over £500,000. I suggest that few of those pressing for change have that size of fund. I hope that Ministers will not use the argument that wealthy pensioners are the only ones who are impacted.
I hope that the Government will reconsider their policy. It is one of the few steps open to them to change the atmosphere surrounding saving for retirement. A move along the lines suggested in David Curry's Bill would be widely welcomed and enable us to move on to consider the many other important issues in regard to pensions—for instance, how to bring people who at present have no other pension but the state pension into having pensions of their own; how to improve the position of working women whose careers are interrupted by looking after their children. That is a point that I feel I should mention given my description on the list of speakers. I am sure that it is a point that Lady Fowler would wish to make.
Even raising the maximum retirement age to 70 could be considered. I gather that the idea of retiring at 70 is regarded as "political dynamite". It may perhaps be easier to say this in this House than down the Corridor, but many of us want to go on working until 70 and beyond. In my review of pensions in the 1980s I advocated a decade of flexible retirement between the ages of 60 and 70. We could go back to that.
There are big issues to face. In my view, the first priority is to re-establish a savings climate. Confidence has gone. Removing the rule on compulsory annuities would be a giant step towards changing that climate back again. It would act as an incentive, not a disincentive, to savers. We should recognise that we face a crisis in pensions. Government policy should be aimed at re-establishing confidence and providing incentives to save. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I welcome the debate but, to use the old phrase, it is all in the way you tell it. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, put a somewhat one-sided take on many of the problems which undoubtedly face us all. For instance, retiring at 70 would be all very well if everyone had a
352
job until 70 and a magnificent pension at the end of it, but I suspect that some of the people who say these things in a glib and facile way think that it is another way of cutting the pension provision.
To say that this is all to do with government policy is, again, a gross distortion of the reality. It implies that it has nothing to do with rapacious directors who, for example, double their own pension—and it is not now peanuts, as I shall explain in a moment—and then cut the provision for everyone else.
I shall refer to the tax regime and make some comments on the lack of balance in the reporting of the difficulties in regard to final salary pensions and so on.
We need to revisit the structure of tax expenditures but a problem that has not yet been mentioned is that tax expenditures cannot be isolated from the growing inequality of original income in society. It is very difficult to lay on the pension system the ability to regress the inequalities of the original income system.
Original income inequality has been growing. We have now gone back to the immediate pre-Second World War distribution so far as concerns the top decile/bottom decile ratio of original income. I say the Second World War, but I fear that if things carry on as they are some people may say that the free market, world-globalised economy requires us to go back to the pre-First World War distribution of income. That would have devastating consequences for the subject we are discussing and make it more difficult to address the problem of poverty traps.
In speaking about the problems of the current taxation system, I draw on the work of Dr Ros Altmann. At present tax relief is over 1 per cent of GDP—around £13 billion a year. About half of that sum goes to the top 10 per cent of taxpayers. That amount of £6 billion is greater than the expenditure on means-tested benefits for the elderly and around one-third of the cost of state pensions. Using the tax system as a means of encouraging savings, as at present, is regressive, inefficient and illogical. It lacks transparency to those contributing to pensions and to those trying to evaluate or change the effects of government expenditure.
Far more public money is being spent on incentivising the highest income groups—they would probably save anyway—than on lower income groups who need the most encouragement to save. We need to improve the incentives to saving and to move away from the present tax system to incentivising savings. We should use the £13 billion currently spent on tax relief for pensions to finance an equal benefit or cash payment into the system. It could be based on monetary amounts of saving, with annual, or even lifetime, limits. Those government payments and saving limits would not be determined by income level or age. Everyone would receive the same financial incentive to save.
I can give noble Lords an example of how that works and how tax relief exacerbates wealth inequality. Let us take a 20 per cent taxpayer who puts in £12 a month for 30 years and a 40 per cent taxpayer who puts in £12 net a month for 30 years. For the

353
20 per cent taxpayer, the Government put in £3 a month on top; for the 40 per cent taxpayer the Government put in £8 a month on top. Over 30 years the 20 per cent taxpayer receives £1,080 and the 40 per cent taxpayer receives £2,880. So at 5 per cent growth for the 20 per cent taxpayer, the pension pot is £12,280, an increase of 184 per cent; and for the 40 per cent taxpayer, it is £16,373, an increase of 279 per cent.
I put it another way. If one takes a pension fund of £10,000, with £2,500 taken as a lump sum, the 20 per cent relief gives a £500 subsidy; the 40 per cent relief ultimately gives £2,500 subsidy. In other words, some formerly high income groups receive five times more subsidy from tax relief on pensions than low income groups.
I turn to the problem of final salary schemes. For an employee on average wages, an employer typically pays over £2,000 less a year into a DC scheme than a final salary scheme. An employee would need to pay an extra £40 a week to match the level of the employer contribution, but the DC scheme does not guarantee the same level of benefits on retirement.
In 1991 there were 5.6 million private sector employee members of final salary schemes. Projecting the decline forward, the figure has probably fallen to about 3.8 million. In most cases employers are replacing final salary schemes with defined contribution schemes, group personal pension schemes or stakeholder schemes. In a few instances such as Tesco, Nationwide and Pensions Trust different benefit approaches have been adopted. However, if current trends continue, the UK is heading towards a system in which DC dominates where the employer pays much less into the pension.
A large number of companies have said that final salary schemes have become too expensive to run. It is true that with a background of poor investment returns, increased longevity and low inflation pension costs have risen. But it must be remembered that such schemes have in the recent past been very cheap. Most employers running final salary schemes have used the surplus generated in their fund by investment returns to reduce or stop altogether the contributions they pay in. According to Inland Revenue statistics, between 1987–88 and 2000–01 the employer took contribution holidays of £18 billion. That means that employers saved around £4,000 per employee scheme member. It is striking how contribution holidays typically favour employers over employees. Overall just over 94 per cent of surplus was used either to reduce employers' contributions or give them a contribution holiday.
The shift away from defined benefit schemes is often talked about in the same breath as longevity. Because people are living longer it is becoming more expensive, and so on. But the reality is that simply changing the type of pension provision does nothing to address the problem. An employee in a typical DC scheme will still work for the same number of years as a colleague in a DB plan and hence will have the same time to contribute. All that happens when the switch to DC is made is that the responsibility for dealing with longevity and associated costs is shifted from employer to employee.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, the House will agree that this is an important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on raising the issue. I pay tribute also to the innovation which was entirely his responsibility in the early and mid- 1980s — the introduction of what were then called portable pensions. We now know them as personal pensions. Despite the problems of mis-selling—those are nothing to do with the concept—they have proved of great value in an economy where there is much greater mobility of the labour market. I do not wish to repeat any of the points made by my noble friend Lord Fowler but to deal with some of the practical issues which the Government and society need to address in order to increase our savings for retirement. I declare an interest as chairman of the trustees of a number of pension funds in industry.
Perhaps I may make some points to strengthen the powerful argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Markets are changing. It may be that the cult of the equity that we knew for almost 30 years from the early 1970s may be drawing to a close and that the real rate of return available for those who were saving through a pension fund—their own or a company's will fall in real terms which have nothing to do with inflation. I am struck by the fact that if the real rate of return on equity investment falls from the 7 per cent annual compounded rate which existed for 30 years up to the year 2000 to, let us say, 4.5 per cent, a man aged 30 contributing 10 per cent of his salary would receive only a quarter of the final salary in real terms on retirement at 60. So if one contributes 20 per cent and is taking only a personal pension with perhaps a modest employer contribution, 20 per cent is a very sizeable chunk of disposable income. A 20 per cent contribution rate would get one to something like half one's final salary on retirement.
Those are worrying figures. My noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Lea, referred to the fact that defined benefit schemes may be on the wane and defined contribution schemes are being more widely used by industry. The gross contribution rate by the employer and employee on the defined contribution schemes is by no means as significant as it is for defined benefit schemes—final salary schemes—and there is, therefore, a reduction in the volume of saving. That is also worrying.
It is sometimes suggested by those who have studied the problem that the answer is greater compulsion for us all to save over and above national insurance contributions. I am not sure that that principle would command very much support on these Benches partly because it would be bound to be redistributive and it is better that that should be done through the tax system; and it is unclear how much the state would pick up in terms of obligation for those who cannot or would not pay a much higher compulsory level of saving. As my noble friend Lord Fowler said, the answer lies in encouragement: we should try to encourage private sector schemes.

355
I shall deal briefly with four aspects. The first is the confidence that savers have in our system; secondly, the need for simplification of pension provision, which is one of the most regulated aspects of our lives; thirdly, improved marketing; and, finally, some innovation. On the subject of confidence, I should mention the Myners report. Paul Myners wrote the Review of Institutional Investment, which is an excellent report. It was accepted by the Government last year in full. I believe that some aspects of that report have been submitted for consultation. In her response, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to indicate the sort of timetable that we could expect following the end of the consultation process on legislative change, the responsibility of trustees, the independence of the custodian, and the activism by investment managers—and, indeed, trustees—in dealing with their investments and their responsibilities for them. Can the Minster also say when we are likely to receive a conclusion, and how the Government intend to legislate?
Secondly, on the subject of simplicity, noble Lords will recall that Mr Alan Pickering was appointed to study the simplification of regulation. I believe that he is due to report back in the summer, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that target date still applies. Can the Minister also confirm that the Pickering review will march alongside—and, indeed, take note of—the conclusions of the second Inland Revenue review that is also under way?
The calculation of the guaranteed minimum pension, and the annual assessment of the minimum funding requirement, are, I believe, outdated. I believe that the Government have indicated that the minimum funding requirement administrative burden will shortly end. Both have done their job; and, in my judgment, should go. There are requirements for an independent financial adviser in most pension decisions, including some very simple stakeholder pension provision. For example, if a company wishes to make a contribution to a stakeholder pension for an employee without the latter having to make a contribution in, say, the building trade industry, that company cannot explain the significance and benefit of that contribution without an independent financial adviser being brought in. That is another example where we need to reconsider the need for an independent financial adviser in all circumstances.
Thirdly, I move on to marketing. I very much welcome the Secretary of State's interest in encouraging competition in the annuity market, and the provision of simpler pension products. We await the report of the Sandler committee with great interest. The reported interest of the Secretary of State in trying to emulate the former PEPS, and now the ISA concept, for pension provision, both of which are very simple mechanisms by which people can save a modest amount each week or month, is excellent. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's observation—if not today, then perhaps in writing—as to whether the Government would reconsider the proposal that all those who are in pension schemes should receive a
356
reminder when they reach the ages of 30 and 40 of the prospective pension provision that they have so far earned.
Finally, on the question of innovation, I believe that a little lateral thinking is required in terms of the tax regime. Most of us accept that changes must, or should be, made—at least on the basis of tax neutrality with no loss to the Exchequer. However, a little lateral thinking would be welcomed in terms of restricting the relief on ingoing contributions—perhaps from the marginal rate to the standard rate for the higher rate taxpayer—in return for greater flexibility of annuity payments. I am speaking personally here, and obviously not for my Front Bench. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I declare my professional interest, as noted in the register, as an investment manager for pension funds for the past 26 years. I start with a direct question to the Government about the financial crisis facing pension funds that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described so clearly in his opening remarks. In March, I tabled two simple Questions for Written Answer. The first asked Her Majesty's Government:
"How much income pension funds in the United Kingdom have lost through the abolition of dividend tax credits on their holdings of ordinary and preference shares in each of the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01?".
The second asked:
"What has been the outturn of the estimated year-by-year revenue effects of the July 1997 Budget tax measures to abolish payable tax credits for pension schemes and United Kingdom companies from Budget day and changes for everyone else from 6 April 1999, as set out in Table 2:2 on page 40 of HC 85 (1997–98)?".
The Written Answer that I received was a classic of its kind:
"The Government's package of corporation tax reforms included measures to boost corporate investment by removing tax distortions. The withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends was just one part of these measures. Pension funds and others will share in the long-term benefits from these changes to corporation tax. The overall effects of these changes on pension funds will depend on a variety of factors, including the type of scheme paying the pension; the take-up of private pensions; the level of future pension contributions; pension schemes' asset allocation and investment policies; and investment returns generally".—[Official Report, 19/3/02; cols. WA 131–2.]
So-called "Answers" like the latter are an insult to anyone's intelligence. If an idle undergraduate had served them up to the Minister during her distinguished academic career, I believe he would have got pretty short shrift. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given estimates for the amount of revenue likely to be raised year by year, rising from £2.3 billion to £5.4 billion, in the official statement accompanying a Budget, proper scrutiny and accountability demand that the Treasury now comes clean with the facts. In 1997, it forecast how much money a major increase in taxation would bring in; it is now 2002, and we are entitled to know whether the

357
forecast was right or wrong. I trust that the Minister will use her skills of persuasion to squeeze a proper Answer out of the Treasury in the near future.
Until the year 2000, the Chancellor got away with his raid on pension funds because the markets were riding high and funds were still enjoying the cushion of the surpluses build up in the prosperous 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, he put it very well himself in the 1997 Budget speech in defending the abolition of tax credits when he said:
"Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/97; col. 306.]
How the world has changed.
The period 1980–2000 was a golden age for UK equities, with returns averaging 12 per cent a year real, above inflation—the only 20-year period on record since reliable statistics began in 1870. But now we are in the lean years. It looks quite possible that 2002 will provide a third consecutive year of negative real returns on UK equities for the first time in 40 years, now that the surpluses from the fat years have all been used up. The change in accounting standards, to which other noble Lords referred, with the adoption of FRS17 (so that companies have to show the effect of changing pension fund surpluses or deficits on their balance sheet each year), is not in itself the problem: it merely highlights it.
How should society adjust generally to the dramatic increases in life expectancy that we are witnessing throughout the western world? Last week, some noble Lords may have noticed that the Guardian reported an amazing statistic; namely, that a baby girl born in France on that particular day had a 50:50 chance of living to the age of 100. The other key statistic in that paper by scientists at Cambridge and Rostock was that life expectancy in most developed countries has risen in a straight line by one year in every four—that is, three months of life expectancy for every year going by—over the past century and a half, ever since a study showed an average life expectancy of 45 for Swedish women in 1840. Governments, on received actuarial wisdom, keep believing that this trend is about to change. Well, it might. However, on this evidence that is not the way to bet.
It seems to me that no political party has begun to come to terms with this change in life expectancy. We on these Benches officially favour a flexible decade of retirement, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, rather than a fixed retirement age—that is a start. But if these trends in life expectancy continue, there is no way that people will be able to save enough for their old age, or, indeed, that society will be able to care for them if they are in poverty or need long-term residential care, if we expect to be able to spend 30 or 40 years on average in paid work and then live on a pension for almost the same time again. The numbers just do not add up.
Speaking for myself, I make three suggestions that I hope may help solve the pensions problem in the longer term. First, and most simply, 75 is now far too early an age for people to be forced to turn their pension money into a fixed annuity.
358
Secondly, to make some amends for the money grabbed from pension funds by the abolition of the dividend tax credit, standard rate taxpayers should be made eligible for higher rate tax relief on their contributions to approved pension schemes. We must encourage people on average and below average incomes to save much more. Why should not all employees receive the same tax break for their hard-earned pension contributions as higher rate taxpayers whose needs are less?
Thirdly, all compulsory retirement ages should be abolished. A person of 65 or 70 today may well he in far better health than a typical 55 year-old a generation ago. Fixed retirement ages are nonsense. Why are people not allowed to start drawing the pension that they have earned while continuing to work for the same company, perhaps in a less senior or demanding job, where they can still make a useful contribution?
Twenty-six years ago, when I was about to start my career in pension fund investment, I went for an interview with the chairman of Warburgs. I thought he had a lively mind and asked penetrating questions, and I got the job. He was then 68, so I was glad that he had not been compulsorily retired. Last year, I joined the Select Committee on Economic Affairs and saw a familiar face. The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden—who I am sorry to see is not in his place— is now 94, and is still at least one jump ahead of the rest of us. I hope that he will not mind my using him as the supreme but not the only example in this House, with an average age of 69, in terms of the invaluable contribution to our society of people above retirement age. How much poorer we are both financially and in every other way if we bind ourselves in the straitjacket of compulsory retirement at fixed age limits.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have no practical experience of anything. Therefore, I shall stick to the high ground of theory in relation to pensions—except in so far as I look forward to my pension in a couple of years' time; and I hope that my pension fund does not renege on the agreement.
As was pointed out in the excellent introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and in speeches thereafter, we face the impossible problem of guaranteeing the next generation of people who will retire the sort of pension income that we shall enjoy. There is no way to hide the fact that they will not have it as good as we do. We are the last lucky generation. We need leadership to be able to explain to people that the pension contract was conceived at a time when people worked for many years and lived for only a few years after retiring, so as a way of rearranging one's lifetime income across a consumption stream which lasted beyond one's working years it was a doddle. People lived about six years beyond retirement age when Beveridge introduced his scheme.
Now, we have the much bigger problem of financing a longer retirement from a shorter working span—because of higher education needs

359
and so on—but also in most cases from interrupted rather than continuous employment, especially at the lower end of the scale.
The numbers just do not add up, no matter whether the sums are done by government or by business. Therefore, we all have the task of explaining to people in words of one syllable, first, that they will have to save more and that the state will not bail them out—there is no way in which the state can bail them out; and, secondly, that they will have to work many more years, thus shortening their retirement age—they may be able to work half of the time or part-time. Thirdly, we must explain that almost any long-term promise that is made to them will not be fulfilled. What we have learnt over the past 30 years is that the kind of pension contracts that firms thought they could offer are not sustainable. That is the story of Equitable Life: the company offered a contract that was not sustainable. What seemed rational when the equity markets were very high and rates of return were either 7 or 12 per cent, depending on the number of decades, is no longer possible.
It is not that we are not going to recover easily; but even if we do recover, all we can say is that life in 10 or 20 years' time will not be as it is now. Therefore, when someone offers a 30-year or 35-year piece of paper, it will need to be examined with great care. The same is true of endowment mortgages.
One reason for this, apart from longevity, is low inflation. We worried so much about high inflation that we did not think of the bigger problem that would be brought about by low inflation. To some extent, while the real rates of return in the economy at large have not gone down that much, in terms of financial portfolios things have changed remarkably in equities and bonds.
To some extent, as has been said in debates on globalisation, we are in effect going back to how things were in the 19th century. In those days, people saved in consols, which yielded some 2.5 per cent. We have returned to that world, and we must revive Victorian savings habits—or, at the other end of the scale, Victorian habits of poverty. I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but I do not know how we are going to manage. I have the occasional sleepless night over the fact that no one has explained these matters.
We are far too caught up in institutional details—decisions about types of schemes or what the Government did or did not do. This is not only a British problem; it is a problem for the entire developed world. We have made promises. Our children will see that their parents had a good time and will want the same. We just have to tell them that it is too late; it will not happen.
There are two possible saving graces. First, it is to be hoped that our money can be invested in the third world, where there is a young and growing population and a skilled labour force. If we can match our capital with third world labour, we can achieve a slightly higher rate of return than we can achieve at home. It is not foolproof, but perhaps in the long run that is the
360
only strategy for the developed world. Secondly, the cheap manufactured goods that have arisen as a result of globalisation are giving us a higher real income than we should otherwise have had.
So it is not unreasonable to expect the younger generation to save more. We have been through a period of hyper-inflation. They will not go through such a period. That is one reasonable long-term guarantee that one can give—unless the globalisation process is massively disrupted. We must engage in a partnership with the third world and sustain a free trade regime. But we must also tell the next generation—and leadership is needed to say this—that the only solution to their problems is themselves. No one else will help them.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, this is a timely and important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing it. Perhaps I may add my tribute to Lady Castle. To the very end of her life, she was the most doughty campaigner—and in particular for the state pension. Her legacy must be that that remains the bedrock of pension provision, because so many people believe in it.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the acres of newspaper coverage of the crisis and the dire warnings that we have all read. They are there. We are dealing with the implications of increased longevity—eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I want to add two points.
In this country, by 2026, we there will be more people of 65 and over than there will be children under 16. With regard to people reaching their 100th birthday, at present there are 7,000; by then, there will probably be 36,000. If the Queen continues to send telegrams to congratulate anyone who reached his or her 100th birthday, she will have to send 100 every day. That illustrates what is happening. This is something to celebrate, not just something to be desperately upset about. Most of us would like to live for as long as we can be healthy and active. The big change is that most of our older population can do so. That is excellent news, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and with everyone else who has stressed that we have to plan how we are going to cope with this huge change.
That is our challenge. We have to plan for the longer term, which is usually difficult for governments because everyone is preoccupied with the next five years. There have been some recent examples of long-term planning, such as the DTI's Foresight Panel on Ageing which looked a long way ahead. That is an example of what needs to be done more.
The Government have a good record of looking at the needs of today's older people. They are beginning to do quite a lot. Many of today's older people are far better off through increased state pension, benefits and additional resources poured into the NHS, from which they will benefit without having to contribute if they do not pay national insurance. We have only just sent the State Pension Credit Bill to another place. There is a lot of concern about its cost and complexity, but it is

361
an attempt to meet the twin aims of rewarding thrift and providing a higher minimum income. Despite the complexity, the Minister and the Government have not been given the credit for the reform that it represents, getting rid of the assumed income calculation, capital limits and the feelings often eloquently expressed by older people to me and to many others wondering why they bothered to save because they would have done better had they spent all their money.
This Government, in line with all their recent predecessors, have tried to target help where it is needed most. I hope that the reforms that have been made will mean that we now move away from the language of means-testing to that of entitlement. That is very important. That is where the new Pension Service must work.
I note that targeting has been somewhat diluted by the amount of money now spent on the winter fuel payments and free TV licences. Wealthier pensioners benefit from those payments, too. Raising the tax allowances for pensioners benefits only those who are wealthier, because the vast majority of older people still do not pay tax.
It is wrong to think that the state pension was ever very generous. Even before the link with earnings was broken, the state pension was not adequate on its own. I am rather disappointed that the Government have not found some compromise way of meeting the legitimate concerns of British pensioners who live abroad where the state pension is not uprated. It would be a shame if the Government were forced to do that by the recent High Court case rather than because they felt that it was correct to do so and would be discriminatory not to. Can the Minister tell us any more about that?
It would be wise if the Government would make public what they consider to be a reasonable income for older people. Many organisations, including Age Concern, which I represent, believe that it would be helpful to give people an indication of what they can expect, what they need to save and how the future for them and their longevity can be better planned. Knowing what a reasonable income for older people should be does not mean that the Government have to provide all that income. It would be prohibitively expensive to do so and would act as an even greater disincentive to saving for retirement. People need to know well in advance what they need to do.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about pensions. We need a massive programme of education to explain what pensions are and what they are not and cannot be. We know that they are a form of saving and deferred pay to live on after paid work ceases, but pensions seem unnecessarily complicated and a lot of people are very confused by them—including, very often, the so-called experts.
I share the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Freeman, about annuity rates and their fears for the future of the private pensions sector. I am very worried about the lack of flexibility on when someone can draw part of
362
their pension. The Government have been promising for a long time to look at that and we are still waiting to hear about it. We need flexibility on how and when we retire and on taking part of our pension without being penalised for doing so.
People are understandably and justifiably anxious about the switch to defined contribution schemes. I share those feelings. The good thing about such schemes is that they will encourage greater flexibility in the labour market, as we increasingly move towards a situation in which more people leave one job, are out of work for a while and then go back into work. However, that is only one good thing and there are many other reasons for anxiety.
The Government have added to that complexity—inadvertently, I am sure. That is a shame. We need simplification. We have to rethink fundamental issues such as the age of retirement, which should be higher, and the age until which people can work. Age discrimination legislation will make it undeniably certain that we cannot continue to have a fixed age at which people stop work. We shall have to look at competence testing and not defining people by their age. We need to look at the age at which people can afford to retire or be allowed to take pension benefits in a really flexible way. We also need to encourage community interest and volunteering, not only paid additional work.
We all know that the answers are very difficult, but they are essential. We need a blueprint for longer-term action. It is essential that we get that in time for us to be able to celebrate increased longevity instead of thinking of it as a disaster.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, For introducing the debate. Everyone who has spoken so far is an expert in their field. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is a former Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, still has day-to-day experience in the pensions industry and the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has vast experience of occupational pension schemes as a fund manager and investment manager.
I am not sure that I subscribe to the use of the word "crisis" by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I do not think that the situation is necessarily yet irrevocable. Things can be put right, but there is certainly cause for concern at the present situation. Hardly a day goes by without some comment in the newspapers about pension policy. The controversy in the main is about the occupational pension scheme policy. There is speculation about whether more companies will abandon their final salary schemes for an inferior alternative and about whether whatever replaces final salary schemes will provide adequate pensions and whether the pensions in payment will hold their value in the years ahead.
There is a great deal of solid evidence, already referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Oakeshott, that people are not saving enough to ensure adequate resources when they reach retirement

363
age. The savings ratio—the proportion of household income that we save as a nation—has gone down to a paltry 3.75 per cent and is now at the lowest level on record. People are spending practically up to their limit. If the debt on credit cards is anything to go by, they are going over their limits. People are not attaching due seriousness to the need to make provision.
If the current strain on final salary occupational pension schemes is not relieved, if more schemes are withdrawn, and if action is not taken now, the problem of inadequate income in old age, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred, could place an intolerable burden on the state. However, it is wholly unfair to place the blame on the Government for the fact that companies are abandoning final salary schemes and opting for inferior schemes. The most significant factor putting final salary schemes under strain is the collapse in the value of pension fund investments. That is by far the largest factor.
Two and a half years ago, the Financial Times index of 100 leading companies stood at almost 7,000 points. Today, the FTSE is just over 5,200. So, in a relatively short time, 35 per cent—more than one third—of the value of equities in pension funds has been wiped out. As the House knows, pension funds invest heavily in equities. Between 1992 and 2000, there was an unprecedented growth in stock market valuations. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, produced an even better figure to demonstrate how successful equities had been in an earlier period. Only five years ago, many occupational pension schemes were not only well funded, but taking a contribution holiday—an employer's contribution holiday or an employee's contribution holiday, and in some cases both. If the stock market improves as the global recession is overcome—and there are some signs, I hope, that that is happening—the value of occupational pension fund investments will improve also.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Fowler, Lord Freeman and Lord Oakeshott, have harked back to the changes that the Chancellor made in his first Budget to advance corporation tax, or tax credits, as they are called, which took £5 billion annually out of pension funds. At the time, however, I did not hear great howls of anguish coming from pension fund managers or pension fund trustees—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Varley: I did not, my Lords. There was a hit of a row, but nothing like there is now. There was nothing like we see now in the press, where someone called Wheatcroft regularly writes about these issues. She was not writing at the time about these issues in the pages of The Times. However, I am ready to concede that there has been a significant deterioration of the stock market, and that the tax concessions which the pension funds used to receive but no longer receive have added to the problem. The latter, however, has had a less significant effect than has the reduction in equity values. But I had better move on so that I can make my main point.
364
There is one aspect of pension policy that is bizarre and unfathomable to me—the application of Inland Revenue limits to pension increases paid under some annuity policies. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the trustees of many medium-size occupational pension schemes purchased annuities on behalf of their members when they retired. Some of the contracts with the annuity providers—mainly the large insurance companies such as Norwich Union, Prudential, Legal and General, Clerical Medical and all the others—stipulated that there would be a 5 per cent annual up-rating of the annuity paid directly to the pensioner annuitant.
As the House will recall, in the 1980s and 1990s, the year-on-year inflation rate often greatly exceeded 5 per cent. Under this Government's financial management, aided by the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, inflation is now well under control. However, the Inland Revenue limits mean that current annuities are capped at 3 per cent. A great deal of the income generated by the original lump-sum purchase of the annuity which the insurance company would have invested in gilt-edged securities is locked up and retained by the insurance companies and may never be released for the benefit of the annuitant or the Treasury.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether that will be looked at seriously. We have a situation in which, because of that cap, the Treasury voluntarily forgoes revenue—which I estimate amounts to millions of pounds—that it could have. If the cap were lifted, depending on the marginal tax rates, up to 40 per cent of the money would go to the Treasury. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has acknowledged that this is a problem. I wrote to him some time ago and he pointed out that there would be a review. I hope that the review will consider the matter seriously, and I hope that my noble friend, in her reply, will give us some hope about it.
The debate on pension policy will run and run. As people live longer, the demands on pension funds, both private funds and public funds, will become much more burdensome. I wish my noble friend the Minister and all her colleagues in government the very best in putting this issue right as quickly as possible.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing this timely debate on pensions policy. It gives me the opportunity to pay a personal tribute to my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn. Had she still been with us, I am sure that she would have made her usual robust contribution.
It is very rare that even talented politicians—and my noble friend was certainly that—can be said to have materially changed the lives of fellow citizens, and to have done so for the better. Yet she did so in many ways, not least because of the pensions plan which she was responsible for introducing in the mid-1970s. The two-tier system—with SERPS, which was a major innovation—truly did change lives for many people. It

365
really was a partnership between good private and good public provision. Had it been honoured and fully implemented, the commitment to increasing the basic state pension in line with the earnings index, instead of simply the retail prices index, taken together with the original modified SERPS, would have ensured that there would today be very few poor retired wage earners. I supported Lady Castle in the pleas that she repeatedly made for a return to the philosophy that underpinned that innovatory plan of hers.
The last time Lady Castle spoke in this House it was on the State Pension Credit Bill. She was rightly critical of it, since she saw that it would ultimately mean that about 50 per cent of future pensioners would attain some kind of basic income only via means-testing. She was opposed to that, believing that as well as being expensive to administer, means-testing inevitably entailed low take-up. To her, means-testing was an affront to the dignity of older people.
However, another aspect to the Castle plan had a very considerable impact. It was possible to contract out of SERPS only if a better occupational alternative was available. That of course meant a scheme offering defined benefits—a final salary scheme. I well recall, as I was a union official at the time, that that led to a growth in final salary schemes, often taking the place of existing money-purchase plans.
The occupational pensions movement has been responsible for one of the great successes of the past century. As a result, many people have been able to retire in comparative comfort. That does not mean, as the Government sometimes assert, that there are masses of rich pensioners—only 5 per cent of the pensioner community pays income tax at the higher rate—but at least a modest level of comfort has been secured. Incidentally, what level do the Government regard as wealth for a pensioner? The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made that point. I ask the question because, although the tax system provides for modest age allowances, the taper at which entitlement to age allowances is lost begins at £17,900 a year, which is not exactly wealth. If one earns a little bit more, entitlement is lost entirely. There is sometimes an assumption that life is cheaper for a pensioner than for the working population. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench—they may find this out for themselves eventually, as I have already—that that is a mistaken assumption.
We now have another pensions crisis. As we have heard, large companies are increasingly turning away from providing adequate occupational pensions for employees. It is clear that state provision will not be an acceptable or viable alternative. It is also government policy to reduce the state commitment to funding pensions and to move as many as possible onto the private sector. Hence stakeholder pensions where individuals take responsibility for themselves and rely on the market. Take-up so far has been disappointing. It is clear also that many people have no idea just how much they are going to have to put away to be sure of a reasonable, indeed, a liveable, income in retirement. It is estimated that a pension pot of over £200,000—an
366
enormous figure to most people—would be needed in order to produce a modest income of around £10,000 per annum.
There is no compulsion for people to pay into such schemes and an employer does not have to pay either, simply to allow a stakeholder provider access to his workforce. In the meantime, as we have heard this evening, many large firms such as BT, Sainsbury's, Whitbread, ICI and Lloyds TSB are shutting down their defined benefit schemes and offering a much poorer alternative in the shape of a money purchase scheme. Shortfalls in pension funds have followed "contribution holidays" employers gave themselves during the stock market boom. There is the falling stock market. There is the withdrawal of relief from advance corporation tax, which no doubt added substantially to the Treasury's coffers but further undermined middle level pension schemes.
The new accounting mechanism known as the Financial Reporting Standard 17, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is claimed by many companies to be a factor in their decision to move away from final salary schemes. There is no doubt at all that the moves away from defined benefit schemes have set alarm bells ringing among employees and their unions. My own union, MSF, now Amicus, has called for government intervention to prevent what many employees regard as a kind of theft.
Certainly there is a need for a further review of pension policy. I believe it to be unrealistic to expect people to take on much more added responsibility for pension provision individually, particularly at a young age when it is most advantageous for them to do so. They are certainly unlikely in my view to do so voluntarily. The stakeholder experience would appear to demonstrate that. Young people endeavouring to get a footing on the housing ladder in large towns are unlikely to be willing to set aside money for a retirement in 40 years' time.
Now financial advisers are advising their clients to get into SERPS. Perhaps the time may come when we shall look again with favour on the scheme introduced more than 25 years ago by the remarkable lady to whom I have sought to pay tribute this afternoon.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I declare an interest as I work for Age Concern England. I, too, pay tribute to Lady Castle. In the short time that I have been a Member of this House I have witnessed her in the Chamber looking physically frail but standing up and laying into all before her, specifically those directly before her, with passion and vigour on the subject of pensions. Some in the House may have dismissed her views as being out of time. However, it is worth noting that during the previous Parliament pensioners were the only group to prise open the coffers of the Treasury. It was due to the leadership of Lady Castle that they were able to do that. Many of us did not agree with her politically but I think that all of us admired the fire and the passion with which she pursued the subject of pensions, seeing them as a key to overcoming poverty.

367
When pensions make headline news day after day and are as likely to feature on the "Today" programme as "Moneybox", something is badly wrong. It is therefore timely that we should have this debate so forcefully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. It is a welcome opportunity to talk about pension policy outwith specific government proposals. As noble Lords have mentioned, across all industrialised nations the dependency ratio of pensioners to people of working age is increasingly fuelling a trend towards private and pre-funded pensions. But here and in the USA the private sector seems to be increasingly problematic. In the climate of today's headlines it is tempting to focus solely on the subject of occupational pensions but I believe that that would be wrong. In order to avoid the position where government provision is always seen as the thing to which people run in times of crisis, we need to look at the way in which public provision sits alongside private provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned the key word "confidence" and referred to the lack of confidence in the pensions industry. I believe that it is right to say that since 1979 some of the lack of confidence has resulted from the ways in which the state provision has been administered. I do not wish in the presence of so many eminent people to go over the details of the changes that were made to SERPS or the mis-selling of the 1980s or, indeed, the changes introduced in the Social Security Act 1986, but it is clear that the changes which those policies brought about—a total of £32 billion was taken off the value of public pensions—have been, and will continue to be, a significant factor as regards confidence in the whole of the pensions industry. I do not wish to dwell in detail on computer systems and the administration of benefit but it is a key factor that we cannot ignore.
In 1997 pensioners believed that things could only get better. Yet despite that, the average value of GDP spent on pensioners fell from 6.22 per cent in 1996–97 to 6.0 per cent in 2001–02. Since 1997 the number of pensioners missing out on benefits has increased. The latest take-up figures show that up to 700,000 pensioners are not receiving MIG to which they are entitled. Some £750 million worth of benefit is unclaimed by pensioners. Despite that the Government continue to favour an approach which is increasingly dependent on means testing. When the pension credit is fully implemented, between 50 and 70 per cent of all pensioners will be subject to means testing. The Select Committee questioned whether in that circumstance the state second pension will have a viable future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, noted, stakeholder pensions—the Government's fall-back position—have been taken up only slowly. The reasons for the slow take-up are not yet clear but concerns that such policies may, by the time they mature, have little value to the individual coupled with reluctance of advisers still reeling from accusations of misselling to recommend them must be contributory factors. But what is more worrying is the failure of the
368
individual pension accounts scheme. That was enthusiastically promoted as a means to transform pension provision and boost private pension savings, but only one company offered the product. Since they were launched alongside stakeholder pensions, hardly any have been sold. Overall, current government policy on state provision is starting to look a little piecemeal, short term and administratively over complex.
I do not wish to spend a great deal of time talking about the change from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. Many noble Lords have done that already in the debate. However, I simply wish to say to those companies which are rushing to follow suit that they would do well to look to the USA where similar moves have damaged employee relationships and companies which are suffering skill shortages have experienced the transfer of those skills away from their companies to those in which salaries are paid at a higher level to offset the lack of pension income. I also wonder to what extent we shall begin in future in this country to see increased redundancy levels among older employees with a knock-on effect to the public purse in unemployment benefits. Companies with skill shortages should think again about that matter.
One solution to the problem of increasing dependency ratios which many speakers have mentioned is an increase in the state retirement age. I remind noble Lords who may have seen the relevant article that Professor Alan Walker made the forceful point in Monday's edition of the Guardian that increasing the state retirement age in itself is not an answer; it has to be accompanied by anti-age discrimination legislation in employment or unemployment benefits currently paid to people aged 50 to 60 get shifted up a generation. Do the Government realise that there is a case for implementing the EU directive on age discrimination in employment before the deadline of 2006?
If the overall outlook on pensions is alarming, and according to the National Association of Pension Funds it is, there is one group of people who should be doubly alarmed; that is, women and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Evidence from the SAGE Unit at the LSE shows that inequalities in the pension system built in at the time of Beveridge remain and are compounded. The Beveridge report was founded on the assumption that a woman would qualify for her pension via her husband's contributions. Research published last week by my honourable friend in another place, Mr Steve Webb, shows graphically the damaging effect of that assumption on women today.
Before 1977, women could opt to pay a reduced rate of NI. Many did so without being aware that they would be foregoing their future pension rights, and are only now learning that they have a pension entitlement of just a few pence. Some were advised that they would receive 60 per cent of their husband's pension, but until their husband reaches 65, some receive nothing. In 1989, changes in the law reduced the NI bill for low earners. It was then advisable for some to opt back into the full rate scheme. Many appear not to have been advised and have ended up paying more national

369
insurance contributions on the reduced rate than their colleagues who pay the full rate for a full state pension. All now face retirement on a very low income—some to a dramatic extent.
Women are the most prevalent among the lower paid. In a lifetime, they can expect to earn more than £250,000 less than their male counterparts. They are likely to have an occupational pension. The state second pension assumes a working contribution of 49 years, which very few women have. Stakeholder pensions are supposed to bring flexibility but stakeholder pensions depend on fund performance.
One of the key areas, as many noble Lords have said, is the urgent need to reform annuities. Dr Oonagh McDonald of the Retirement Income Reform Campaign makes the important point that while defined benefit schemes do not discriminate on the basis of gender, defined contribution schemes do. Defined contribution schemes compel members to purchase annuities, which discriminate on the grounds of gender more than any other factor. Despite the fact that life expectancy of men and women is growing closer—the gap is now less than four years—most schemes still make payments to women that are 20 per cent lower than those to men.
Life patterns are changing and there is now a growing case for a thorough overhaul of pensions policy on the ground of gender. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, women will face a great deal of poverty in future.
In the short time remaining, I wish to commend to the Government two courses of action. First, in order to bring stability and transparency to state provision, the Government should cease their current policy of increased and complex targeting. Everybody needs to be able to calculate what their basic state benefit will he, even though that will be inadequate and they will have to make their own private provision on top of that. Secondly, in partnership with the private sector, a concerted effort to increase education about pensions and retirement income should be initiated as soon as possible. As a spokesperson for the Co-op Insurance Society said in March 2002:
"Consumers need to be clear about what to expect from government, and with the right incentives to save they can then successfully make their own private provision for retirement. Only when a state solution is achieved and understood will individuals appreciate the risk of not having saved is greater than that of having saved".
8.3 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Fowler on initiating this debate. He made a distinguished, powerful and alarming speech, which I hope will receive widespread attention. He also paid tribute, as have many noble Lords, to Lady Castle. I share the sadness at her absence and the fact that she is not able to advance her views. Those views were, I stress, supported by the Select Committee in another place. We found ourselves agreeing more and more. I was not particularly worried about agreeing with her but I
370
believe that she may have been somewhat worried about agreeing with me. Her loss is a sadness: we respect her memory.
I declare an interest as the chairman of trustees of an occupational pension scheme. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Varley. I believe that there is a crisis in pensions provision and that that crisis is now. The danger is that the effect will be felt for a very long time. My noble friend rightly drew attention to that crisis.
At the risk of some repetition, it is worth stressing the cumulative effects of the various factors now affecting pensions provision. It is of course affected by the fact that people are living longer—the age of the population is increasing. We warned about the long-term effect of the Chancellor's action on ACT from the very beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, stressed why that is becoming apparent.
Pensions provision has also been affected by the fall in the stock market, the fall in the savings ratio—it is barely half what it was in 1997—low annuity rates (which reflect the Government's policy on gilts) and the Government's persistence on the 75-year rule, despite the fact that the House has twice voted against it. It is also affected by the Government's policy on uprating the national insurance pension, as against the minimum income guarantee, the contracting-out rebate, which is tending to push people out of private schemes and back into the state scheme, the change—this point has not been mentioned—of many pension schemes to a market-related basis and, of course, the effect of FRS 17.
All of those factors are having a cumulative effect. Some of them are short term and perhaps temporary, but others are long term. Some can be affected by government but others are beyond government control. It is essential for the Government to do all they can to improve the situation.
My noble friend Lord Fowler discussed company schemes and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, rightly stressed their importance in the system. The major shift from final salary to defined contribution schemes is a matter of grave concern. There seems to have been something approaching panic among some companies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, they should take account of the reasons why they are producing pension schemes in the first place. There is also the danger of a knee-jerk reaction and the fact that it is becoming fashionable to change from one scheme to the other. A major transfer of risk is involved. The extent to which that is from the company to the individual and the extent to which that is important depends on the size of the pension fund compared with the size of the company. In some cases, the pension fund may be a great deal bigger. As a result, the fluctuations in the company's financial position—that is a result of FRS 17—may be sufficiently large to prevent it paying dividends and so on, which is of great importance. The number of company schemes closing down has nearly doubled in the past year.
I want to say a word on FRS 17. In a short time we shall move towards a European standard. It is absurd to go for FRS 17 at this stage if one is going to have a

371
system under the European standard that allows a degree of smoothing. Accountancy bodies are right to argue for a degree of transparency but I hope that the move to the European scheme may alleviate the tendency for companies to change from final salary to defined contribution schemes.
The Government have a responsibility, which the accountancy standards body does not, of taking account of the wider issues. Concerns have been clearly expressed. Fluctuations in a company's balance sheet as a result of market pressures are important.
On the funding issue, it is important that as many schemes as possible should be funded. There are increasing doubts in both political parties about the "pay as you go" scheme. That was implicit in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said that there is no guarantee that future generations will pay up in relation to such a scheme. Indeed, as the number of people who rely on the minimum income guarantee increases—perhaps the noble Baroness can give us an idea of how many people she believes will be receiving the minimum income guarantee by, let us say, 2020 or even 2050—then of course the question arises of who will pay. That is not at all clear. A large percentage of the population will be on the minimum income guarantee and I suspect that relatively few will receive higher pensions for which they have made provision themselves.
Alas, I do not have time to go into detail about the state pension arrangements, except to say that there is now considerable confusion so far as concerns the national insurance contribution system. We are about to deal with the National Insurance Contributions Bill. I believe that the fact that the money from national insurance contributions provides both for the NHS and for pensions through the National Insurance Fund leads to a great deal of confusion. It is high time that we segregated out those two so that we know exactly how much money is going in one direction—that is, to the NHS—and how much to the National Insurance Fund.
So far as concerns the stakeholder pension, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, I suspect that to a large extent it has missed its target. The take-up has not been as great as any of us would have hoped. So far as concerns the state second pension, there have been several criticisms of it, most notably by Mr Timmins in the Financial Times. We still do not know when it will change from a graded basis to a flat-rate basis. Fundamentally, all that suggests that the Government's objective of reversing the ratio of 40 per cent of pensions being provided by the private sector and 60 per cent by the Government is increasingly in doubt.
I want to make one or two more brief points. I believe that the Government are proposing to tell people what their pensions are likely to be. My noble friend Lord Freeman and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Varley, suggested that that was a good thing. I do not believe that a satisfactory forecast of that kind is
372
likely to be accurate. Certainly, if the attempt had been made 10 years ago, it would by now have been proved to be very inaccurate.
It would be more helpful if the Government were to tell us what size of pension fund will be necessary to give people an income above the minimum income guarantee level. Whether it be at the lower levels of company schemes on defined contributions, on stakeholder schemes or whatever, there is a real danger that people will contribute a considerable amount of money throughout their lifetime but find, when they come to retire, that that will all be taken away because those contributions will be taken into account in calculating the minimum income guarantee. I believe that we need to know what size of pension fund is necessary in order to provide people with a sum above that level. That would be more helpful than a very speculative estimate as to what individuals' pensions might be.
I want to make one final point. The Government continue to avoid saying what the pensions liabilities of the national insurance scheme are so far as concerns their balance sheet. We had a Bill which was supposed to produce a government balance sheet. The liabilities of the pension commitments of the Government have not been reflected in that. It is an important point.
As I said, this has been alarming debate, but I believe that it has provided a warning signal that needs to be heeded. Action needs to be taken in many areas in order to prevent this crisis developing further and adversely affecting the standard of living of generations to come.
8.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for initiating an extraordinarily well informed and very interesting debate. Like others, I deeply miss Lady Castle. But I know that my noble friend Lady Turner will continue to fly the standard for her.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss pensions today. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, started by saying in, I believe, almost Disraelian language that he was worried about the development of two nations. I agree. And my noble friend Lord Desai said that we were perhaps the last of the lucky generation. That is true, but I want to correct him. Some of us have had access to good occupational schemes—indeed, we have been members of a lucky generation—but, for decades, women, unskilled men, those living in areas of chronic unemployment and those suffering chronic ill-health have never been lucky.
Hence our strategy to tackle the growing inequality between rich and poorer pensioners. On average, older people who have already retired are much better off than was the case 20 years ago. However, when we came to government the picture was mixed and we have taken action to help those in need. We have introduced the minimum income guarantee, and we have provided support through the Pension Service, as

373
well as making increases in the basic state pension. We have given extra support to pensioners with a real-terms rise of approximately £6 billion since 1997, of which £2.5 billion has been spent on the poorest third.
The result can be seen in the latest April HBAI statistics. Those show that using 1996–97 as our baseline, 27 per cent of pensioners were below 60 per cent median AHC figures when we came into government. That is now 15 per cent. The figure has reduced from 27 to 15 per cent using those 1996–97 baseline figures—that is, it has virtually halved. Therefore, we are beginning to narrow the gap in absolute terms between rich and poor. As I said, we can see that the incomes of our poorest pensioners have grown twice as fast as average earnings in real terms. Therefore, relatively their position is improving dramatically.
The noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Oakeshott, and others called tonight for a rise in the retirement age to 70. There is not a retirement age of 70: there is an age at which the state pension is paid, and that is 65. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the problem is not that the retirement age is 65 and that it should be 70; the problem is that the state retirement pension is paid at 65 and too many people drop out of the labour market at 55, 58 or 60. They live off their savings and therefore port poverty into their old age. Anyone of the age of 65 can defer taking the state retirement pension and receive an increment worth about 7.5 per cent a year. Thus, effectively they can have a flexible decade of retirement. However, as your Lordships know, we shall be considering such issues over the next few years.
The first part of our strategy was to try to narrow the gap between poorer and richer pensioners. The second stage is to address the disincentive for people to save. I am delighted that the noble Baroness. Lady Greengross, was able to pay tribute to the work of pension credit. To talk about pension credit, as some press reports have done, as penalising thrift is simply absurd. At present, for example, anyone who has a private pension income at a level between the retirement pension and MIG receives a deduction pound for pound—that is, it is a 100 per cent deduction. In future, under pension credit there will instead be a taper of 40 per cent. That is, indeed, a help to those on modest savings and modest occupational pensions.
Pension credit will signal the end of the weekly means test. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was right to say that we should be talking the language of entitlement and not means-testing. Instead of a weekly means test, there will be something like a quinquennial review of income. Supported by the new Pension Service, I hope that take-up figures, which everyone wants to see achieving the level that is appropriate, will include the pensioners who need the money most. We are making significant moves in that direction. I believe that what we are doing through the Pension Service and pension credit will see us get there.
I now want to talk a little about our strategy to ensure that future pensioners have a decent income in retirement. That brings us to the point that most
374
people dwelt on tonight—that is, the need for a good second pension. The key point to emphasise—it has not been mentioned tonight—is that a decent occupational pension reflects not what one does when one is in one's 50s, let alone what one does in one's 60s; it reflects the fact that one has gone into work and obtained an adequate job with an adequate pension scheme in one's 20s. It is compound interest that pays.
Our responsibility is also to ensure that we do not penalise individuals so that those who 'were poor before they retire continue in poverty once they reach retirement age, particularly women and carers. For those two reasons we want to ensure long-term pension commitment for those in the labour market and financial support through a pension for those who are able to enter the labour market only intermittently because of care responsibilities or disability. For that reason we introduced the state second pension, which will make it worth while for people on low and moderate earnings to save for their retirement.
We also want to ensure that people have a decently funded scheme, which is where employers have a vital role to play. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, wanted to know what kind of information would be made available. He asked about reviews. He is absolutely right that unless people know the sums and the prospects they will not save.
The Pickering and the Sanders reports will be published this summer. The response to the Myners report has already been published, but we are consulting on some of the specific recommendations on trustees and the like. We expect—probably in the autumn—to have an across-the-board government response, but with health warnings attached.
What Myners said relates back to what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said. He showed in his review that what really matters in terms of pension funds is their record of asset management. It followed from that that ACT, whose loss has been much regretted and deplored by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is probably less than one-tenth of the difference between the best and the worst performing providers of pensions.
As people are concerned that they should have a decently funded second pension, we have introduced not just the state second pension, which is not funded, but the stakeholder pension as well. The latest figures show that something like 815,000 pensions have been sold up to the end of March. That is not the disappointing result suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lady Turner. Something like three-quarters of a million more people are now saving for retirement than a year ago. We have to achieve the correct balance, as we believe we are, which is why there is a review.
There has been much talk of a pensions crisis. My noble friend Lord Varley batted those words around. Defined benefits pension schemes are still the most widespread form of provision. In 2000 in the private sector, 53 per cent of employees in companies with 20 or more staff had access to a defined benefit scheme. A quarter of all employees in companies with 20 or more staff were active members, and 45 per cent had some kind of employer-sponsored provision.

375
There is a significant problem, but I do not believe that it is a crisis. In my view the problem is not so much the switch from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. There are differences, such as the rate of portability with defined contribution schemes, and there is less security with defined contribution schemes. We know that those may or may not be regarded as offsetting each other. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right to say that the real problem is that this opportunity has been taken by finance directors to cut employers' contributions. That is the basic problem.
All the statistical forecasting that I have seen shows that if one can ensure that the employer-employee contributions together remain at the same figure as under a defined benefit scheme, over time the outcome between a defined benefit and a defined contribution scheme should be little different. Precisely because that does not happen, and as the NACF has shown the average employers' contribution has halved from about 12 or 15 per cent to 6 per cent, the crisis to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred, may occur. That is because employers are seeking to use this as an opportunity to cut their contributions.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not at least accept that there is a transfer of risk from the employer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I said that on the one hand there is a transfer of risk and on the other hand there is also a transfer of cash, which is made possible more easily by the portability of DC schemes. I tried to suggest that the one offset the other, but that is a matter of judgment.
The trend away from DB schemes has been in evidence for 40 years—not for four years. It is due to a combination of long-term increases in longevity. Over the next 20 years the numbers of people over the age of 85 will double, although some of the more alarming statistics about our average life expectancy should be taken with health warnings. The big difference that has taken place over the past 200 years is not that people are living longer—once people reach the age of 20 they live much the same length of time—but there has been a reduction in infant mortality, and averaging conceals that fact.
There has been a combination of long-term increases in longevity and medium-term losses on the stock market, which, as my noble friend Lord Varley emphasised, may have wiped something like £450 billion off pension assets on some calculations, as well as short term issues with FRS17. I agree with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on FRS17. I share his views and my right honourable friend in the other place shares his views, that an equalising of accountancy standards over, say, three years on the European standard, rather than that imposed by the accounting standards board, will be a more appropriate way forward.
376
The level of contribution is important. One of the reasons that employers under DC schemes are reducing contributions is because they are matching the contributions made by employees. The trouble is that many schemes are being set up for new employees who tend to be younger and, therefore, contribute less. We shall need to encourage employers to have foresight in relation to this matter, which not all young people entering the labour market can be expected to have.
I want to take issue with the fact that there is a savings crisis as opposed to a pensions crisis. I have looked at the chart lines on that, comparing the level of savings with the level of inflation over the past 15 or 20 years. It is clear that the level of savings tends to reflect the level of inflation. It is insecurity that begets saving. Instead, with low inflation and low cash returns, considerable savings have been transferred and diverted into house purchase. However, low inflation itself is vital. It is true that annuity rates have fallen, which in turn reflect low inflation. Much as pensioners would like, they cannot have high annuity returns and low inflation rates.
In this context, noble Lords have advanced the case of the David Curry Bill that the world will be a much better place, and there will be positive incentives to save if only people could ensure that they could pass on their annuity pot to their children in the future. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who said that my right honourable friend Mr McCartney in another place said that this was a rich man's privilege. I believe he should respect that information. As far as I can ascertain, to ensure that people have a pension pot that floats them off state benefits, which is the minimum that every one would require, would require an annuity pot of at least £200,000 or even £250,000.
If on top of that one strips out the tax privileges that ensured that there was protection against poverty in old age—there is no point in having a double provision of tax privileges for inheritance purposes—one takes a further 30 per cent out of the pot. When one adds those two things together, one is saying that if those two points were built into the David Curry Bill they would benefit only the tiniest minority of pensioners and certainly not those pensioners facing any possible risk to comfort in their old age.
What really matters is the combination of return and inflation. I asked for work to be undertaken to find out what would happen if one had an annuity of £20,000 a year and how long it would take to be halved. At 2.5 per cent inflation it would take 29 years for that annuity return to be halved; at 5 per cent inflation it would take 14 years to be halved; and at 10 per cent inflation it would take eight years to be halved. Low inflation matters at least as much as high returns because that will protect people, particularly women, against poverty in their old age.
As many noble Lords have said, we have to be honest about the situation. It is not realistic to expect people to join the labour market in their early 20s, work for 30 or 40 years and out of that find themselves with a pension for a further 40 years unless employees

377
and employers make adequate provision. However, one encouraging factor is often overlooked The difference for pensioners between a minimum income and a comfortable retirement is often whether they have a second pension. What may increasingly transform their pension finances is whether the spouse has an occupational pension as well.
I return to a point I made earlier. The more we encourage married women into work—over 70 per cent of them now do—the more they benefit from the Government's combination of our minimum wage policy, our change to the lower earnings limit, our favourable treatment of second earners under the new tax credit scheme, our development of the state second pension and our stakeholder proposals. When we put all of that together it is more likely that women, as spouses, as partners, will bring into the retirement family income a second occupational pension which may admittedly be modest, but which may make all the difference between getting by and having comfort in old age. I accept that his 40 years and in this case her 20 do not add up to 60; we do not get the effect of compounding. Nonetheless, it will be a significant contribution.
I conclude. The Government believe that they are doing their bit. We have provided stable economic conditions in which people can find, attain and hold down jobs. Youth unemployment has virtually disappeared in this country. We have reduced inflation, which is now lower in this country than anywhere in the OEC'D, so pensions hold their value. We are producing pension products for those who have not had access, through modest incomes, to unfunded and funded schemes alike, including stakeholders. We are making information available. We are ensuring that the right products are in place to offer choice and flexibility. And we are ensuring that t he most appropriate regulatory regime exists. We are drawing on the expertise of Mr Pickering, Mr Sanders, Mr Myners and others, to ensure that that regime is the correct one.
But now it is up to individuals, with the support of employers, to ensure that they safeguard the future. The key to a secure retirement is to start saving enough early enough and to continue to do so throughout one's working life.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I am grateful to all who have taken part. We are all agreed that savings for retirement need to improve. As my noble friend Lord Freeman and others said, we need to improve the climate for saving and we need to encourage pensions for, as both my noble friend Lord Higgins and my neighbour from the Isle of Wight, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, we are facing a pensions crisis.
But I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Lord Varley; it is a crisis that we can tackle. That is clear. Indeed, valuable suggestions have been put forward in the debate on the measures that can be taken at this stage. I regard annuities as being one of the most important.
378
The Minister played a straight bat on virtually every proposal that was put forward. But I hope that the Government will not only take note of the warnings that have been given in the debate—I sincerely believe that they are serious warnings—but will also take note of and take time to consider quietly the proposals that have been made during it from all sides of the House. I do not believe that we can allow the position simply to drift on in the present way.
This has been a valuable debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TSE (England) Regulations 2002
8.34 p.m.
The Countess of Marrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 27th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/843).
The noble Countess said: My Lords, it is with a sense of sorrow that I table this prayer to annul the TSE (England) Regulations 2002. They were laid on 27th March 2002 and came into force on 19th April. Before we go any further, I should like to reassure noble Lords who are under the impression that it is unconstitutional for Members of this House to vote on a prayer to annul a statutory instrument that, while it is not done very often, there is no constitutional bar.
My concerns are serious concerns. We, in this House, as well as in another place, must ensure that the laws we make are compatible with the laws already on the statute hook; that they are reasonable and proportional. I am not satisfied that these regulations meet those responsibilities. I am also certain that they are seriously over-prescriptive.
I declare my interests. My husband and I have a small herd of pedigree Blonde d'Aquitaine cattle, a flock of pedigree Black Welsh Mountain sheep and a herd of dairy goats. I have had an interest in animal health for many years and the Minister knows that the sheep were blood tested only yesterday under the voluntary scrapie scheme.
I have absolutely no political axe to grind, nor am I seeking vengeance for any act of this Government against the farming community. It is all very well for the Government, the Minister, or officials from DEFRA to say that most of these regulations have already been on the statute book. They may well have been. They may well have slipped past the parliamentary defences as these regulations very nearly did. That does not mean that they make good law. We are now looking at this particular piece of legislation, not what has been. Having almost accidentally discovered what I believe are serious flaws, I believe that we should now get it right.

379
I wrote to the Minister last week to outline my concerns. He replied with what I believe is a genuine attempt to reduce those concerns. Instead, unfortunately, he has increased them. He informs me that,
"The TSE controls have been developed largely to protect the public".
Despite the millions of pounds that have been poured into research to prove that human variant CJD is caused by eating beef, there is still no conclusive evidence that that is so. There is no shred of evidence that sheep have ever had BSE. Indeed, there is no conclusive evidence that BSE is caused by cattle ingesting meat and bone meal or even that BSE is infectious. But that is not the point of my argument tonight.
I accept that meat must be put upon the bones of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 and its subsequent amendments. As the Minister said in his reply to me,
"Whilst Community legislation is directly applicable, it does not say how key objectives in relation to public and animal health should be achieved".
Is it a "key objective" to hold the sword of Damocles over the heads of millions of animal keepers? I am sure it was not the Minister's objective. But he must understand that that is what those regulations do.
I have scoured Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 for mention of animals other than bovines, ovines or caprines—cattle, sheep and goats for the uninitiated. The only reference that I can find is in an amending regulation, (EC) 270/2002, Annex 1 Chapter B, headed: "Information to be presented by Member States in their report-. Paragraph 9 states:
"Positive TSE cases confirmed in animals other than bovine, ovine or caprine animals".
Article 6 of the EC parent regulation orders an annual programme for monitoring BSE and scrapie, the details of which are laid down in the amending Regulation (EC) 270/2002. Each member state is also required to inform the Commission and other member states of the emergence of a TSE other than BSE. Part II of those regulations details the authority and powers of an inspector, ostensibly to carry out the monitoring functions under Article 6.
Article 6 and the amended Annex 3 make no mention of an inspector,
"entering any premises (excluding premises only as a dwelling)",
to carry out the functions listed in paragraph 4(2)(a) to (n) of our regulations.
First, most farmhouses contain a farm office. So the inspector could, by law, have access to any farmhouse where there is an office because it is not used only as a dwelling. Secondly, there is no definition of a "TSE susceptible animal", despite the Minister's assurance to the Joint Committee that the definition was in the EC regulation. The EC regulation gives a definition of
"an animal suspected of being infected by a TSE".
That is not a TSE-susceptible animal and it specifically excludes humans.
380
For some inexplicable reason, dogs are excluded from the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, when all other animals, birds and fish are not. Why the distinction, and where is the authority? Are all those creatures, except dogs, TSE-susceptible? I understand that scientists have tried in vain to produce a TSE in pigs. Why are not pigs excluded? How is the alpaca keeper to know whether the inspector is right when he is ordered to lock up his animals? I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that there is a difference between a TSE-susceptible animal and an animal suspected of being infected by a TSE.
To put it plainly, paragraph 4(2)(k) gives the inspector power to kill any number of healthy animals that he thinks are susceptible to a TSE and, if the owner argues the toss with him or he thinks that the owner may do so, under paragraph 4(4), the inspector can take himself off to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant to force the owner to comply. There is no provision for appeal. I have put that simply, but that is the essence of this part of the regulation. That is what we all objected to so much in the Animal Health Bill.
We then come to paragraphs 4(2)(1) and (m). They give an inspector the right to examine and take copies of,
"any record, in whatever form the record may be held".
and to,
"have access to, and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been used in connection with any record".
The inspector can require,
"any person who has charge of or who is otherwise concerned with the operation of the computer, apparatus or material to afford him such assistance as he may reasonably require and, where a record is kept by means of a computer, may require the records to be reproduced in a form in which they may be taken away".
That is an extraordinarily draconian measure to enforce Chapter 6 of the EC regulation. I remind noble Lords that that chapter refers to monitoring of slaughtered or already dead animals for BSE or scrapie if they are cattle, sheep or goats or of any other dead animal that has died from a suspected TSE.
Many farmers now keep their personal business records, such as bank account details and addresses on their computers. Whether or not those powers are ever used, I suspect that they infringe the right to a personal and family life under the Human Rights Act 1998 and that the Data Protection Act 1998 will also be infringed. If we are to pass legislation, do we not have a duty to ensure that it will not immediately lead to legal proceedings under superior legislation?
I have covered only three pages of a 221 page document. I have read all the other pages and have repeatedly felt that the legislation should be in the form of a Bill that can be thoroughly debated. Your Lordships may think that this is just another whinge by a farmer. I wonder whether they realise that, while the regulations' principal targets are farmed animals, there is nothing to stop an inspector from entering a garden where one may keep a carp in a pond, ferrets in a shed, pigeons in a loft or grandchildren may have a rabbit in a hutch. Cats are not safe either, if they are outside a dwelling.

381
I note the amendment to my Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Tolgarth. I assume that he knows that nothing can be achieved by tabling a Motion to amend a statutory instrument, which is what his amendment will do if it is agreed to. A statutory instrument can only be annulled. If noble Lords agree to his amendment, sadly, I must assume that they are happy for our parliamentary system to be brought into disrepute and for our freedom to be drastically eroded.
The Minister, in his manuscript amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is clearly trying to meet one of my concerns, but his amendment will have the same effect as that of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The Minister seems not to have grasped my concern about the constitutional and procedural aspects of the statutory instrument.
Various spurious arguments are being circulated about the effect of a vote in favour of my Motion. Scientists say that it will destroy all that they have built up over the years since BSE erupted in our cattle. The National Farmers Union protests that consumer confidence in British meat would immediately collapse and that our export market would be destroyed. When did we hear that before? Today, the Minister published a statement to the effect that the Government will be left without any powers over BSE and scrapie monitoring, prevention and eradication. He said:
"People who knock this SI are totally misguided. They run the risk of dismantling long-standing, evidence-based BSE controls of paramount importance for public and animal health".
In my opinion, that statement is, to say the very least, disingenuous.
Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 provides for the annulment of statutory instruments by resolution of either House of Parliament. If this House resolves that,
"an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that these Regulations be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution".
I understand that that means that the regulations continue in existence but cannot be enforced and that any earlier, revoked regulations are not revived. I accept that the effect of that would be that no controls would be in force. However, I also understand that the courts could be expected to interpret the 1946 Act in such a way as to lead to a satisfactory state of affairs. They may well hold that the revocation of the earlier instruments was, in effect, suspended. My Lords, from my point of view, the most satisfactory solution would be for the noble Lord the Minister to make new regulations that take into account our reservations as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 27th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/843).—(The Countess of Mar.)
8.47 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthrose to move, as an amendment to the Countess of Mar's Motion, to leave out from "That" to the end and insert—
"this House calls upon Her Majesty' Government, in relation to the regulations laid on 27th March (S.I. 2002/843):

(a) to give an undertaking that the period of time in which a veterinary inspector issuing a notice of intended slaughter shall permit represental ions to the Secretary of State shah be no less than seven days;

(b) to consider bringing in further regulations setting up an independent appeals adjudicator nominated by the British Veterinary Association; and

(c) to keep the regulations under review in the light of scientific and technological developments relating to TSE."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on the well-informed concern that she displays—she has a record of that in animal health over a long period. I agree with her that governance by statutory instrument is unsatisfactory and governments of all persuasions increasingly use that device where primary legislation should be used. This statutory instrument is of great importance and the fact that it is 221 pages long is evidence of the detail that it contains.
The debate is balanced between the right of the public to be protected and the right of producers and their animals to receive just treatment. That is a finely balanced argument that must be weighed up in the legislation. There is no doubt that many people—myself included—feel that the provisions in the statutory instrument for livestock breeders and producers tend to be over the top and gold-plated, with stringent provisions for the immediate slaughter of TSE-susceptible animals, entry to holdings and the forced removal of records from premises. In many respects, they replicate the powers of the Animal Health Bill, which was recently defeated in your Lordships' House.
In particular, there appears to be no provision for farmers and livestock breeders incidentally to appeal against an order by an inspector to slaughter animals. In my view, that infringes the rights of livestock producers and, as this is secondary legislation, there is no statement to proclaim that the instrument complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in UK legislation.
Therefore, in my amendment I call for three measures to protect the rights of livestock keepers affected by the statutory instrument. The most important is contained in paragraph (b) of my amendment, which would allow for the nomination by the British Veterinary Association of an independent appeals adjudicator who can fairly assess and judge the issues without prejudice or influence from the Secretary of State. I have discussed the matter with the British Veterinary Association, which believes that such a mechanism could be put in place. Farmers and

383
stock-owners would at least have more confidence that they were being fairly treated in the situation with which they may be confronted.
Paragraph (a) of my amendment refers to seven working days, to allow sufficient time for proper informed representations to be made. The Minister's manuscript amendment would take away that timescale. Why? Do the Government require more flexibility with regard to time? How will they ensure that representations can be made against a notice of slaughter? The fact that TSE is not infectious, animal to animal, must be relevant. The situation with foot and mouth disease is entirely different, as it is highly infectious animal to animal and requires immediate action. There are clear differences between the two situations.
If more flexibility is required, have I unearthed a loophole by which the provisions for TSE can be applied to foot and mouth disease? That would bring us back to square one and the slaughter provisions of the Animal Health Bill that were opposed by most Members of the House. The time allowed for representations is a crucial acid test of the Government's integrity and their intentions for the statutory instrument. I require a definitive time limit, unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise. The reasons had better be good.
Paragraph (c) of my amendment refers to the never-ending march of technology. The scientific study of the diagnosis of BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep is moving fast. This part of the amendment would allow the Minister to review the regulations in the light of developments.
A distinction must he drawn between the objectives of Statutory Instrument 2002/843 in controlling the effects of TSE on animal and human health and the means deployed to control the disease through the slaughter of TSE-susceptible animals. Such animals may or may not be carriers of TSE. In the case of scrapie, "susceptible" may mean only that the sheep carries a certain gene. There is an argument about destroying animals with a suspect gene. The concern of many sheep breeders is such that they believe that other desirable characteristics of the gene that may be worth preserving may be lost for ever.
The only real proof of TSE comes from tests carried out on the brains and specified risk materials of dead animals, hence the slaughter policy in the statutory instrument. The TSE monitoring provision in Part II, paragraph (7) of the statutory instrument which refers to animals on farms gives cause for concern about the powers that the Government require. Those fears were best expressed in a briefing note prepared by the British Veterinary Association. The association said:
"While the British Veterinary Association is supportive of any measures designed to protect animal and human health, we do seek Government reassurance as to the way in which these Regulations are to be implemented, not least since the SI contains wording seemingly identical to that contained in the Animal Health Bill introduced (and lost) earlier this Session.
384
The BVA has noted that in the definition of livestock, equines now appear. These are not subject currently known TSE and this could be seen as setting a precedent insofar as future legislation is concerned.
The BVA is also concerned to note that the new Statutory Instrument includes powers to slaughter 'any TSE-susceptible animal', while, to our knowledge, the EU regulations mention only suspected and infected cases.
The BVA can but ask whether the SI as drafted is in the spirit of the EU legislation or has it been added to—the wording concerning powers, penalties, etc. is all too reminiscent of the wording contained in the Animal Health Bill—and whether other member states will be introducing similar legislation".
That is a reasonable question to put to the Minister.
The most important points include the fact that there is no independent appeal allowed by the statutory instrument. My amendment would redress that inequality. Secondly, the seizure of livestock or the property of livestock breeders and keepers would have an impact on the farmers' human rights. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and there should be adequate redress in the form of an independent appeal. Thirdly, possibly forcing the owner and his staff to participate in the slaughter of their own animals is a highly undesirable state of affairs. Anyone who has kept animals will know that most stockmen could not indulge in such a thing.
There is no clear statement in the statutory instrument that it cannot be extended to cover foot and mouth disease. The Minister must give us a clear statement to that effect. After all, the Animal Health Bill, which allowed for some rather over-zealous methods of disposing of livestock, was defeated. There is no clear specification of the genotype of TSE that might help identify susceptible animals, although that might be found in future legislation relating to scrapie. We cannot see what is meant by "a susceptible animal". That must be spelt out.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar. mentioned her fears about Part II, paragraph (7), sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the statutory instrument. Those provisions are of concern to me, too. Provided that the Government accept the kind of redress suggested in my amendment, we can overcome some, if not all, of the fears that have been expressed tonight. At least, it would create a better balance between the rights of the public to receive clean, safe food and the rights of the producers to protect their living, their animals and their way of life. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)rose to move, as a manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment, to leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) to give an undertaking that they will consider ways of ensuring that representations can be made against a notice of intended slaughter issued by a veterinary inspector:".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need to explain the use of the slightly unusual procedure in tabling a manuscript amendment in what is already an unusual procedure for this House. The substantive reason for

385
tabling the amendment is that I recognise that in the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsev, there are some real concerns about the regulations. Some of them were echoed in the contribution of the noble Countess, although in what she said and in what has been stated outside the Chamber there have been bizarre and wild allegations as to what the regulations are trying to do.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, seeks to address the concerns in a constructive way which the Government can understand. However, paragraph (a) of his amendment could be both damaging to the disease control and to the industry, and it does not recognise the process as it exists. I therefore believe that our formulation is better. I shall deal with that in detail in 21 moment.
Before doing so, it is probably appropriate in moving the amendment to indicate the Government's general approach to the prayer to annul. I therefore need to address some of the allegations and assertions made by the noble Countess and the noble Lord and explain what the regulations would do and what would be the effect of not passing them.
First, the regulations are about TSEs and not about anything else. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it is not about foot and mouth. Nor is it about any other disease. It is about TSEs and everything in it relates to the EU directive relating to TSEs. The regulations are about consolidation of previous UK controls and consistency with the new EU measures. Those measure substantially mirror our own and were adopted because, for obvious and tragic reasons, the U K was well ahead of the rest of Europe in establishing a regime of BSE and TSE controls. We are therefore proposing consolidation and consistency, not in any sense radical change.
In virtually every area, the regulations simply continue the robust package of enforcement powers which already exist. The powers are needed to back up key controls already in place to protect human and animal health from vCJD and BSE.
While the regulations reflect the increased testing programme for TSEs that is required by the EU regulation, there are no new slaughtering requirements in the regulations. Therefore, the references by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to the TSE requirements to implement the national scrapie plan are not relevant here. There are no further slaughter powers in the regulations.
Our surveillance, to which most of the regulations relate, is to use and test animals which are already dead or on the point of being slaughtered, or if they are casualties or fallen stock. That very much follows the line of surveillance and monitoring we were already pursuing and the line required by the EU. In terms of consistency, Part IV, of which the noble Countess read out significant sections, in no way materially differs from what is in the existing regulations. Let us therefore be clear that the regulations are about consolidating an existing position.
386
However, for reasons put by the noble Countess, it is important that the choice before the House today is either to support the regulations or to have no regulations in place. That would destroy a framework which we have established here and which has been very effective in reducing the incidence of BSE and which has been adopted by the EU for its approach to BSE controls across the Union as a whole. If these regulations fall, we will be in a very serious situation indeed. Previous legislation will no longer be in place; there will be no controls; people will be exposed to health risks from meat potentially contaminated with SRM; animals will not be protected from infected feed; and BSE could escalate.
I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Countess or of those who support her, but it would at least for a period be the situation. That is why those bodies which are concerned about the regulations have expressed their alarm at the possible implications if your Lordships were to agree to the prayer and annul the regulations. The Food Standards Agency, for example, this morning stressed that the controls against BSE are vital and if the prayer were successful not only would the new controls cease to be applicable but it would be impossible to reinstate many of the measures previously in place.
Such a scenario would leave a serious gap in our control framework. It would, for example, immediately throw into jeopardy the right of the Meat Hygiene Service to prosecute for failure to remove specified risk material from animals at slaughter houses. That would represent a significant risk to public health. SRM controls are estimated as removing 95 per cent of infectivity.
Likewise, the National Farmers Union has made its position clear. Its advice and that of the Government is that voting down the regulations would have the effect of suspending existing BSE, controls. If that occurred, even for a short period, says the NFU, it would be very damaging to British agriculture and to the public interest. Therefore, both those who are regulating and the industry are concerned about the effectiveness of the controls.
The regulations have two clear objectives. First, they bring together the key controls which exist and, secondly, they reflect the need to transpose EU directives. The other implication of voting down the regulations today would be that we would be in danger of infraction proceedings from the EU at a time when we are trying desperately to re-establish confidence in British livestock and British meat. That would be a bizarre outcome as the EU has adopted effectively the British approach to the controls. The Community provision, Regulation 999/2001, which was adopted last summer, provides a secure legal basis for such controls.
It is also the case that there was consultation on the regulations. Admittedly, it was shorter than is normally the case but it was a wide consultation with feedback both formal and informal from a wide range of organisations and individuals. No objections in principle were made to these regulations The only

387
significant objection came from some representatives of the abattoirs who were concerned about the costs to them of implementing certain provisions, the direct cost of which is covered by the Government. Therefore there was no opposition.
I should also point out for those who are still following the assertion made in the Daily Telegraph that this is a way of pushing through the Animal Health Bill by the back door, that of course that consultation took place and those regulations existed well before we reached our decision or, indeed, the Animal Health Bill came before this House. So I think that that particular conspiracy theory can be put on one side.
We need a comprehensive framework: the Community framework, the consolidation of our own framework and a full range of surveillance, of specified risk material removal from cattle, sheep and goats, so that consumers are not put at risk.
To some extent the noble Countess let the cat out of the bag in her opening remarks, although she did not then pursue them. From what she said, I do not think that she is convinced that this is in fact a public health risk. There is always an element of doubt in any scientific judgment, but the vast majority of scientists, medical experts and vets have reached the conclusion that BSE is transferable to humans and is the cause of variant CJD. In those circumstances, it would be utterly irresponsible of the Government and utterly irresponsible of this House to force the Government to drop the measures they have put in place to protect public health. Essentially, this is a public health regulation. It is not primarily an animal health or agricultural regulation; it stems from anxieties surrounding public health. The House needs to recognise that.
I turn now to the allegations of gold-plating and of going further than we need to in this area, or at least going further than the pre-existing position. None of that stands up. Let me put it into perspective. In the regulations there are very limited provisions which go beyond the controls previously in place in the UK, but only three such changes have been made. Two of the issues reflect new EU requirements in Regulation 999/ 2001 and one flows from a recommendation from SEAC, the advisory committee.
The first issue relates to additional EU surveillance requirements, to which I have already referred, for the presence of TSE in sheep and goats and casualty cattle aged from 24 to 30 months. As I have already said, I am sensitive to the concerns of abattoir owners about the costs of this. That is why DEFRA is meeting all the costs. However, we are obliged to put in this additional requirement.
The second provision relates to the vertebral column of Beef Assurance Scheme cattle aged over 30 months, which can be sold for consumption up to 42 months. That material must now be removed and treated as SRM. Bearing in mind the very low BSE risk, the British Government were not particularly happy with this provision in the EU recommendations, but the
388
Commission insisted that the provision was necessary. It is in the regulations and we need to transpose it. All other member states are required to remove vertebral column material of cattle aged over 12 months. We have a little longer because of the over-30-months scheme and other provisions pertaining in this country.
The third provision relates to incinerators used to burn SRM. In future the ash must be disposed of by burial at a licensed landfill site. That is the only possible area where allegations of gold-plating could be made in that it is not an EU requirement, but it does meet a specific recommendation made by SEAC. By and large, it reflects existing industry practice.
Those are the only ways in which these regulations make any kind of meaningful difference to the preexisting regulations already in force. Therefore the exaggerated reaction to these regulations is in no way understandable. Some of the concerns which have been expressed relating to data protection and human rights are covered in the general provisions. We have to be proportionate. The implementation of the order has to be consistent with the Data Protection Act and it has to comply with the Human Rights Act, as does all legislation passed by this Government. It is not necessary to specify that explicitly in orders of this kind. Indeed, it would be a strange precedent were we so to do.
I turn now to the point of my amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and specifically to why I do not consider the specification of seven days to be appropriate. This relates to the one area where there are slaughter provisions on animals which are suspected of being infected with TSE. In the case of BSE, for example, a seven-day delay—which the noble Lord's original amendment would imply—would be unacceptable in most circumstances. It would mean that we would have to wait for seven days to see whether anyone was going to appeal against the order from the veterinary inspector. That would be particularly difficult were the farmer or livestock owner to be intent on moving the animal. Although some of that could be accounted for by the restriction elements contained in the order, if an appeal were still outstanding then it is possible that the animal might be removed to premises which would not be appropriate. Indeed, so far as concerns the farming industry as a whole, it would rather see such an animal slaughtered as rapidly and as humanely as possible. Therefore the notion of a built-in seven day delay while we wait to discover whether anyone will appeal is inappropriate.
Of course there may be mistakes. After testing, the animal may turn out not to be suffering from BSE or from another TSE disease, in which case the normal 100 per cent compensation is raised to 125 per cent. So there is some protection for the farmer in those circumstances. But the seven-day delay does not seem necessary in order to allow for the kind of representations which the noble Lord and the noble Countess argue should be available under the provisions.

389
The current procedure is that if there is an objection to the order to slaughter, the vet will go to the magistrate, the JP, to seek an order. An appeal to the Secretary of State in those circumstances is probably not the appropriate process. We accept that there is an argument for assuring people that there should be some means of making representations. That is why my amendment indicates that we should consider the options of how that process of making representations should be established.
It probably should not be a national appeal system as implied in paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment. Indeed, paragraph (b), upon which he laid considerable stress, suggests that there should be an independent BVA-appointed adjudicator, which would be much more appropriate at the regional or county level. In the interests of speed and efficiency, we may consider that kind of representation to be appropriate in these circumstances.
We have no problem with paragraphs (b) and (c) of the noble Lord's amendment, but I would be grateful if the House were to accept my view that the specification in paragraph (a) is not appropriate. If the House were prepared to agree to that, it would be a useful indication to the Government of how we should implement these measures in practice.
But I repeat, the reaction to these measures is misguided in the sense that it is based on a misapprehension of the amount of change the regulations will achieve. It is also based on a misapprehension in that the human rights dimension, the data protection dimension and the proportionality requirement are already there in every statutory instrument that the House now passes. The prayer to annul should be resisted.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House exactly how this will work in practice? If the House rejects the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to the Motion of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, how will the Minister's manuscript amendment come into effect? How will he implement the good will that he has shown in giving this undertaking that is not in the statutory instrument? How will the prayer be enacted in legal terms should the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, be carried, which would then prevent us from voting on the Motion of the noble Countess?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the procedure is as normal. We vote on the amendments first. If the amendments are carried, we then have to vote on the consolidated Motion, which would be the original Motion of the noble Countess, as amended by either the noble Lord's amendment or by my amendment. The sequence is as per normal. We would then be in a situation where, rather than annulling the regulations, we would have a call on the Government to implement the regulations in line with what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I beg to move.
9.19 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for laying out his case in so much detail. I declare an interest, which is slightly complicated by the fact that, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, we do not yet know exactly what is meant by "susceptible". I have a herd of cattle which I believe is susceptible to BSE. I have a herd of sheep, the breed of which I believe is not susceptible to I3SE. I declare them to make the House aware of my position.
The way the matter is being approached seems to be a rather complicated and bad business. We are left in an awkward position. Certainly I and a number of others have been bombarded with different opinions of what accepting or rejecting the prayer may achieve.
This statutory instrument appears to contain enormous Henry VIII powers. I suppose one can have the odd Henry VIII power—I am not well up on the procedures of the House—but the many elements contained in this instrument should have been in a Bill.
I put that to one side. One is left with numerous questions and anomalies. The Government may not be able to answer precisely my first question. How did so many people lose track of the consultation? The Minister said that they received few responses to the consultation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I indicated that the consultation was a somewhat shorter period than the norm. Nevertheless, we had a substantial number of formal and informal responses from the key organisations.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. I inquired of the Sheep Veterinary Society, which had its council meeting earlier this week. Apparently only one member had read the measure. That may be the fault of members, but it seems that many of those concerned were not aware of what was going on.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify this point. Thirteen statutory instruments are being annulled by the order. At least four pre-date the Scottish devolution Act. If those are annulled, is there anything left for Scottish agriculture, which does not have the benefit, or otherwise, of the statutory instrument which is being introduced?
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke about susceptibility. As many noble Lords will be aware, there are five recognised variants in the genetic composition of sheep which produce five ascending levels of susceptibility. On 10th April the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee considered the issue that—repeat, if—BSE were found in sheep only the most resistant animals would be preserved. Everything else would be excluded from the human feeding chain. That recognises that there is a very resistant genetic variant.
I draw to noble Lords' attention that this resistant genetic variant has never been found in goats. But to my knowledge BSE has never been found in goats. If the extreme position were taken, all goats would be

391
regarded as susceptible, as are all cattle. We shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can give us a yardstick of susceptibility.
The Minister spoke about paragraph 4 and the fact that the powers he introduces do not extend the law in any way. Item (k) of paragraph 4(2) states that an inspector has the right to slaughter any TSE susceptible animal. Which of our current regulations contains that power? I understand that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and possibly that tabled by the Minister, were founded on the fact that at present the statutory instrument contains powers in paragraph 82 on the slaughter of TSE susceptible animals and goes into the question of representations of the owners to the Secretary of State. I emphasise that the clause relates to TSE susceptible animals rather than suspect animals, about which the Minister spoke in his recent reply to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey.
I raise those questions with the Minister on how the instrument stands in relation to our current legislation.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, we are faced with a 221-page statutory instrument and a prayer to annul it altogether, an amendment to the Motion which would set a minimum time limit for representations against intended slaughter, and an amendment to the amendment which would delete the minimum time limit and substitute a less specific undertaking about representations against intended slaughter.
My noble friend Lady Mar did well in drawing attention to the difference between an animal which is actually infected and a TSE susceptible animal. However, in the circumstances, I should like to make one comment and then put a specific question to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about his manuscript amendment. I know that he spoke to the latter at some length, but I still have a point to make in that respect. I do not enter into any argument about whether these regulations are intended to substitute for animal health legislation which did not go forward in this House or whether the Government have acted rightly in proceeding in this way. I did not vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the previous occasion. I have, therefore, examined the regulations as they stand.
My general comment is that we still need to be extremely vigilant about BSE, which, of course, is also a fatal disease for human beings, with all the suffering that it caused for about 100 men and women who died, and, indeed, for their families. It also caused very serious losses to the livestock industry. We must continue to ensure that no mammalian meat and bone meal is used in feedings stuffs, as well as continuing to control the specified offals, and to control—and in due course to eradicate—other TSEs, which are dealt with under Part V of these regulations.
392
I keep in mind the quotation from the excellent report from the Phillips committee—words that we should always keep in mind—which states that,
"some members of the feed trade, being given an inch, felt free to take a yard and continued to clear stocks after the … ban came into force".
For all those reasons we need to recognise that these are important issues of human and animal health which are covered by the regulations. I consider this a very serious business.
I turn now to my specific question to the Minister. The manuscript amendment tabled in the name of the Minister deals with a real point of importance; namely, the extent to which a person can have time, and the opportunity, to make representations against an intended animal slaughter notice. My question is directed towards discovering the rather narrow point of how useful the Minister's amendment may be on this issue.
I raise that point because where the inspector has a right under the current regulations to slaughter any TSE susceptible animal (Regulations 4 and 79), there is already provision under Regulations 7 and 82 for a notice—at least outside a slaughter house—to specify a period within which an owner or person in charge of an animal can make representations to the Secretary of State. Leaving aside the big issues that arise, the question is: what is the value of the additional undertaking now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? How far does it go, if at all, beyond what is in the regulations as they stand?
9.28 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate. None the less. I hope that the Minister—and, indeed, the House—will forgive me for taking this opportunity to put on the record two matters that I had occasion to discuss with the noble Lord yesterday, albeit all too briefly.
First, like the noble Countess, Lady Mar. and notwithstanding the soothing rhetoric of the Minister, I am particularly concerned about the powers granted to inspectors to gain access to computers. Of course, there is legitimacy in granting access in order that relevant records can be inspected; indeed, I do not argue with that. But that is as far as it should go. As I read sub-paragraph (m) of Regulation 4, it implies that inspectors will be empowered to access all records from the computer concerned, possibly to include financial data, perhaps even private correspondence.
In addition, what useful purpose can be served by inspectors inquiring into TSE susceptibility being empowered to,
"check the operation of, any computer"?
I just fail to understand what benefit will accrue from permitting the inspection regime to have access to the way in which the computer under investigation works. How will that facilitate access to relevant records? Bluntly, the powers granted under Regulation 4(2)(m) are disproportionate. I agree with the noble Countess,

393
Lady Mar, that, as such, they are almost certainly against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Data Protection Act.
I should be grateful if the Minister could further allay my fears on the following points. He may—indeed, up to a point he has already done so—seek to suggest that the power is constrained by reference to Regulation 4(1). But I am bound to say that I am far from certain that such an argument carries sufficient weight. The drafting states that,
"an inspector may make such enquiries and carry out such investigations—
these are the key words—
"as he considers necessary for any purpose connected with",
etc. It seems to me that this could give an inspector an entirely free hand, notwithstanding the intended qualification in the text.
My second point—which I suspect the Minister might be tempted to categorise as one of "the wild allegations"—relates to Technical Standards and Regulations Directive 98/34, as amended by 98/48. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, touched on the European dimension in proposing his amendment. The Minister will be aware that this procedure has already caused the Government some difficulties in this Session in the context of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. Be that as it may, my interpretation is that the regulations before the House should be subject to the notification procedure. The reason is quite simple. The interpretation regulation, Regulation 3, defines "livestock" as,
"any creature, including a fish, kept, fattened or bred for the production of food, wool, skin or fur".
In other words, the regulations are concerned with, for want of a better phrase, "agricultural product". This, together with "industrial product", is the litmus test of whether a particular piece of legislation requires notification under the directive. Indeed, I can confirm that my consultation with the Commission this morning endorses this analysis.
The importance of this should not be underestimated. If the regulations are enacted in breach of the directive, it then becomes possible for them to be struck down in their entirety on simple application to the European Court of Justice. In terms, therefore, the Government have to ask themselves whether they want to enact regulations which are potentially procedurally defective and which, on that basis, could be rendered null and void.
I therefore ask the Minister whether his department has had consultations with the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead department for the Technical Standards and Regulations Directive, as to the status of the regulations in respect of notification. If not, will he undertake to conduct such consultations as a matter of urgency? I look forward to receiving the noble Lord's responses in due course.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, first, I think that the House will want to express its gratitude to my noble friend Lady Mar for drawing attention to this very important
394
statutory instrument. Initially, I had some fears that the Government might be introducing by the back door the measures which the House decided on 26th March it did not want to see under the Animal Health Bill. But the Minister has made it clear that the statutory instrument does not affect foot and mouth. I am glad that he has confirmed that.
I am reluctant to be critical of the Government. This morning my wife, who, as I have said on previous occasions, has a small herd of Welsh Black cattle, received a letter from the National Assembly for Wales about the extensification payment scheme and what is called the definitive agri-monetary compensation second tranche (DAC2) which contained the good news that she would shortly be receiving a payment from the ministry of £4.96.
As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—these regulations are made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Therefore, the powers given to the Secretary of State are limited to those necessary to transpose EU legislation, for which he is properly designated, and not to do other things for national policy reasons.
I was therefore interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and others have said about gold-plating of the regulations, particularly with regard to the use of the word "susceptible", which is not in the EU regulations. I wonder whether that is in order. I do not know whether the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the regulations, but if so, I wonder whether the committee is satisfied that they are fully within the implementing powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
As others have said, regulations of such size and scope should be more fully debated and explained, perhaps by the use of the affirmative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee might have a view on that.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the powers to be given to inspectors are over the top. They appear to be given the power to enter premises to enforce these measures and, where necessary, to impose movement notices or to ensure the slaughter of animals. Some of the powers, such as Regulation 97, are expressed so as to exclude premises used only as a dwelling. Others, such as Regulations 4, 28 and 71, do not appear to be so limited, which implies that inspectors could demand entry even to private homes, accompanied by whomever else they deem necessary, and in some cases by a representative of' the EU. We ought to have a better opportunity to debate such questions fully in this House.
There is a case for more stringent regulations for TSEs than for foot and mouth because BSE, for example, is transmissible to humans and foot and mouth is not.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is still no scientific evidence to prove that BSE is transmissible to humans.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, but the possibility clearly exists.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, pigs might fly.
Lord Moran: My Lords, that said, I should be grateful if the Minister would let me know whether I am right in thinking that the powers conferred on him enable him only to transpose EU legislation strictly into our domestic legislation and that they cannot be extended to cover things that we may think it desirable to cover in our national policy.
9.39 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I do not have a prepared speech because I came down from Leeds after a series of visits to abattoirs with the Meat Hygiene Advisory Committee to find this Prayer before the House. I declare my interest as a member of the Food Standards Agency.
I have no other interest except the protection of consumers, but I have been exposed for two years to the science of BSE. In another capacity I am the vice-chair of a large disability charity, so I know about variant CJD at first hand.
The facts show that this country is at last driving down BSE. That is because of the measures that we have in place. Despite that, we should remind ourselves that we still have more BSE than anywhere else in Europe. If we flinch for a moment in our measures, we shall undo all our good work to protect consumers and our superb farming industry, which needs the disease out of its herds.
There is a great danger that, as time goes by, we shall forget some of the lessons of what happened in the last BSE crisis and the lesson of the Phillips inquiry—that we have to be constantly vigilant. I have also been involved in the discussions on whether TSEs in sheep can develop into dangerous BSE prions. I have no doubt at all that the evidence shows that the BSE prion in cattle is easily transposed into humans, which is new variant BSE. I think that research from the various CJD people will shortly take forward that point. It is very complicated research.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I shall not quote any paragraphs as I have not had time to do detailed research. However, when deciding this Motion, we should remember that there is really just one point. If we agree to the prayer, we shall lose all the other schedules. I have no view on the amendment, but some of it addresses other technical issues. I am simply pleading with the House that, in the interests of the community, our farmers and the health of our future herds, we should not agree to this prayer.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems to me that democracy demands that Parliament ensures that it understands what it is doing when it legislates. It is not the Government who legislate; it is Parliament. The fact that Parliament is implementing a piece of European legislation does not let us off the hook at all.
396
What Parliament has to do is ensure that the Government are proposing satisfactory legislation in response to European legislation.
I listened very carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I think he was saying that this very long statutory instrument makes just three changes. I do not know why the changes have had to be made in this way, but I expect that there is a reason. However, it is very difficult for Parliament to know what it is doing when such lengthy regulations are necessary to make just three changes. I take it that the regulations were passed in another place under the negative procedure. If so, they were not discussed and were passed as long as no one objected. It seems to me that the Government simply must not do this.
If a change required by European legislation necessitates such a long, complicated document—it took me a long time to read it today and I suspect that I still do not understand it all—the change simply must be made by means of a Bill. It probably would not take Parliament long to pass such a Bill because it would be properly explained by the Government. The issues which have been raised would be addressed. Parliament would understand that it had to make the change because of European legislation and everyone would be satisfied. It is also incumbent on Parliament to ensure that it does not legislate without the understanding of those who will be affected by the legislation. It seems that there are people in the farming industry who have still not seen these regulations.
It is truly important that Parliament should not allow the Government to do this. It is not democratic, and that point should be taken very seriously. I shall not enter into the issues because I have not been involved in them before and would probably get them wrong. However, I hope that noble Lords on the other side of the House will not simply troop through the Lobby agreeing that the Government whom they support should pass legislation of this length, without any discussion, by means of the negative procedure. I do not think that that is good enough. If they agree to let the regulations stand, they would be saying that it is good enough. I hope that they are listening very carefully.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I declare an interest in so far as I have been involved in agriculture all my life. I am bound to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and, indeed with the Government in so far as the Animal Health Bill foundered on the rocks. However, that is one of the hazards of parliamentary life. Indeed, that is what Parliament is for.
As I understand it, the statutory instrument we are discussing contains much that was included in the Animal Health Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this as an unusual procedure. I should think that it is. If I may say so, the Government are in a mess with regard to this matter. I refer again to the Animal Health Bill. They now have a statutory instrument of

397
huge length, 221 pages, as has been said. There is now a Prayer to annul the statutory instrument, an amendment to the Prayer and an amendment to the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that is a most unusual procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred twice to the measure as a Bill. I know that that was a slip of the tongue but it was probably in the back of his mind and, indeed, in the minds of most of us that legislation of this length ought to be included in a Bill and not in a statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, produced some persuasive arguments to demonstrate that the Government need this measure to protect public health. I understand that. However, what is the hurry? This matter has not suddenly come upon the Government. They have had plenty of time to produce the necessary provisions with which to draw up a Bill. The measure ought to have been presented in the form of a Bill. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, one cannot present a measure comprising 221 pages to Parliament and say, "You must take it or leave it". The matter ought to be considered properly.
If the measure is to be presented in the form of a statutory instrument, why is it in the form of a negative instrument and not the affirmative resolution procedure? The affirmative resolution procedure would have given us time to consider the matter and discuss it. Yet, in order to do that, we have to have this curious procedure. Proposals of this nature ought to be presented in a proper manner and properly scrutinised. As I say, the measure should have been presented in the form of a Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there is a connection between BSE and CJD. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in this regard. The scientists to whom I have spoken assure me that although the organisms which cause CID may be similar to that which causes BSE, there is no known proven method of transfer between animals and humans. It is important to remember that as otherwise people become alarmed, possibly unnecessarily.
One comes back to the statutory instrument. One wonders why it was introduced in such a hurry. It was laid before the House on 27th March, the day before Maundy Thursday. It came into effect one week after Parliament returned after the Easter Recess. One wonders why this has been done so hastily. I do not think that that is the right way to do it. The measure should have been presented in the form of a Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is a terrible thing to be presented with regulations entitled TSE (England) Regulations. I do not know whether your Lordships know what the letters "TSE" stand for but the majority of people do not. I did not know what TSE was; I knew what BSE was. I asked a knowledgeable Member of your Lordships' House whether he knew what TSE was. He replied that he did not. Someone in the Printed Paper Office put us out of our misery in that regard. I remember, when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, reading a brief that referred to the BSC. I thought that it referred to the British Sugar Corporation but in fact it referred to the
398
British Steel Corporation. Having read the brief, I had to re-read it because the change in meaning gave it a completely different sense and referred to a different part of life.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—if I can have his attention for a moment—to do what I used to do: that is, to circle acronyms such as "TSE". Doing so meant that the people would write it out in full and everyone would understand what one was talking about. One does not understand what one is talking about when one talks about "TSE" because it is easy to muddle that up with TSB, which is, of course, a bank.
I do not like the regulations, for various reasons. I shall not go into great detail, other than to say that they give huge powers to inspectors. Inspectors can enter premises when they like and they have the right to destroy any animal, including, as the noble Countess said, horses, fish and cats. There is a difference between whether an animal is suspected of having a TSE and whether it is susceptible to it. As the noble Countess also said, inspectors can take records and everything else from a computer, including one's bank balance and even a list of one's lady friends, if one keeps such things on one's computer. Those are huge powers but there is no right of appeal, which is wrong.
I shall not detain the House further by listing my other objections. However, the proposal should have been in a Bill. The Government should not try to railroad ideas through Parliament without giving it the opportunity for discussion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Earl voted for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to delay the Bill. Under the Bill, there would have been an opportunity for discussion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I cannot see what that has got to do with it. The regulations that have been advanced contain a whole lot of information that was in the Bill, but we cannot even theoretically amend or discuss the issues because they are raised through a negative resolution.
9.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that everything in the regulations relates to the EU directive. However, there are serious questions about susceptible animals that do not appear to be in the directive. He did not list them as one of the bits of gold-plating for which NIAFF was once notorious; DEFRA is emulating that bad habit.
The Minister did not answer the point that I raised when I intervened near the end of his speech. I asked about what would happen if the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was not agreed to. How would the Minister implement his expectation of good will?
I hope that the Minister will introduce a supplementary statutory instrument. He has already had to do so with Statutory Instrument No. 1253,

399
which amends the TSE regulations. I hope that after today's discussion he will bring forward another amending statutory instrument, taking account of the serious concerns that many noble Lords have raised. When he does so, I hope that he will look carefully at the consolidations and at the sense of the consolidations. Approving a proposal and enacting it through a statutory instrument is not necessarily the right way to continue.
I draw the Minister's attention in particular to the question of compensation, which is dealt with in Schedule 1. There are six main parts to that schedule and they set out four different ways of getting at the value of the animal, the carcass, the semen, the embryos or the ova. Of those four, only one is correct, and that is the established way. It is done by agreement between the Secretary of State and the producer of the livestock in default of an agreement by a valuer appointed jointly between them and, in default of that, a valuer appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
The other three relate to the different ways in which the valuer can be appointed. Sometimes it is done by the Secretary of State without consultation or agreement with the producer of the livestock; sometimes costs are allowed; sometimes costs are not allowed; and sometimes it is done by arbitration. However, there is no definition of "arbitration" or how the arbitration is constituted. There is no reference to who will take part, what the rights of the parties are, and who can be represented. Therefore, that is a grey area which requires attention.
Also in relation to the question of compensation, I wonder why the noble Lord sees fit to re-enact the draconian measures with regard to sheep? If the noble Lord looks at Part III relating to compensation, on page 159 of the statutory instrument, he will find that the maximum value paid for any sheep is £400. But a pedigree animal can be worth many thousands of pounds. Why is the producer of sheep or goats being penalised to that extent when the owner of cattle is not? If the noble Lord turns the page, he will come to the section which deals with compensation for bovine animals—that is, at paragraph 6 on page 161. There, reference is made to the market value of the animal. There is no question of a limit. Why is there a difference between sheep and goats on the one hand and cattle on the other?
I know that we cannot amend this statutory instrument, but I hope that the noble Lord will introduce a supplementary one in the near future, taking account of those points.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I have two principal objections to the statutory instrument. Like my noble friend Lord Northesk, I am not terribly soothed by the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he says that there is no need to worry too much because the legislation is straightforward and there is no gold-plating. First, this SI does far more
400
than it needs to do. Frankly, it is gold-plating on a royal scale. I do not believe that the noble Lord managed to address that point in his opening remarks.
Secondly, some of the powers in the Animal Health Bill which your Lordships' House rejected are put straight into this piece of legislation. The gold-plating is principally the matter that concerns me and I believe that that is the crucial point in this legislation. EC Regulation 999/2001 refers throughout to animals which are "suspect" or "suspected" of having TSE. But these 220-page regulations refer throughout to animals being "susceptible". We have not yet received an answer as to why we have suddenly changed from referring to animals as "suspect" to referring to them as "susceptible". Those two words are very different. I believe that we must have an answer to that point before we vote tonight.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of the Animal Health Bill powers, which, I repeat, were found unacceptable by your Lordships' House just over a month ago. We find, again, that magistrates have a power to grant a warrant of entry without the farmer having a power or even being aware that such an application has been made. I do not know whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, addresses that point satisfactorily or whether the matter could be dealt with in this legislation.
In some respects, the statutory instrument goes even further than the proposals in the Animal Health Bill. For example, it requires individual farmers to pay for the costs of slaughter and disinfection of their premises. That appears to be entirely unreasonable. After all, their animals are to be slaughtered at the behest of DEFRA. Yet farmers are expected to pay for the cost of slaughter and cleaning and disinfection. The only parallel I can find that is remotely close to that occurs in China. There, when someone is executed, the family is sent the bill for the bullet with which the person is killed. It is not only this statutory instrument that is grossly excessive, but also the timing, as noble Lords have mentioned. It appears to have been introduced hastily and incorrectly. It became law on 19th April, but it was not available for inspection on DEFRA's website until very recently, and it was not on the parliamentary website until a few days ago. According to DEFRA that was because some items had not been finalised and it needed to make some adjustments.
If this instrument was recently still in draft, was it still in draft when it was incorporated into law on 19th April? I do not understand how a measure can be made law when it is still in draft form. My understanding is that it was still being corrected at the end of April and at the beginning of May. It is rather odd, to put it mildly, for a half-baked draft to be considered as law.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the accuracy of the regulations and whether they had been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that that committee has had an opportunity to consider these regulations. The committee said that

401
it had found a number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and typographical errors. The committee's paper says:
"The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the ground that they are defectively drafted in a number of respects".
It lists errors of interpretation, errors of omission and typographical errors. That part of the report concludes by saying:
"The Committee accordingly reports the Regulations for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department".
I believe that the committee considered the regulations on 29th April, so they were defective quite recently. I am not sure that they have been corrected properly. I shall be interested to hear about that when the Minister replies.
The committee had a further concern about the regulations, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned. It stated:
"They refer in many places, including the title of the instrument itself, to 'TSE' without any express explanation of the meaning of those initials. The Committee considered that it was unhelpful that the instrument nowhere contains an express indication of what TSE means".
In its response to those comments and criticisms, the department produced a series of apologies, as it was right and proper it should. On the definition of TSE, the department said that it,
"decided not to set out in full the expression 'TSE' in the title to the Regulations nor define it as the expression is already defined in the Community legislation for which the Regulations make administration and enforcement provision. (This is Article 3.1(a) of the Community TSE Regulations, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, OJ No. L 147, 31.5.2001. p.1, as amended by the other Community legislation defined in regulation 3(1) and explained in the explanatory note to the Regulations)".
That is perfectly clear! The department's response continued:
"The Department notes that persons likely to be affected by the Regulations were provided with the necessary references to the definition of TSE as part of the Department's consultation about the proposals for the Regulations. The Department also notes that regulation 3(2) provides that expressions not defined in the Regulations and which appear in the Community legislation for which the Regulations provide administration and enforcement have the same meaning in the Regulations as they have for the purposes of that Community legislation".
That seems to be perfectly clear and straightforward to everybody. So 10 out of 10 for artistic interpretation but nought out of 10 for technical content.
That brings me to my final point. As other noble Lords have said, this sort of law making, this gold plating, this casualness in introducing such enormous powers for the Ministry is unjust and unjustifiable. It one of the reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may not recognise this—that the rural community lost its trust in DEFRA.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Everything that has been referred to is quite normal procedure for the Joint
402
Committee. On a typical meeting half a dozen matters are referred to for defective drafting of a minor character and they are typically dealt with at the next meeting by the fact that corrections are made.
On the question of the use of abbreviations, it is a wider matter and it is generally understood now that, in the first instance, abbreviations will be used only in conjunction with some explanation of the full wording. Unless the noble Lord is filibustering, this lengthy procedure is not necessary.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I totally reject the insinuation by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that I am filibustering; I am simply quoting from the report of his committee. I shall filibuster a second longer by repeating that it is said it was defectively drafted. I cannot see that drawing attention to that can remotely be called filibustering. But if he thinks it is filibustering he is entitled to his opinion. I cannot think that his intervention added anything at all to the debate.
For the reasons I stated before I took the intervention, I believe that regulations of this kind are losing the trust of the rural community in DEFRA. I received a number of letters and e-mails—I shall not quote them because I shall be accused again of filibustering—to the effect that people no longer trust DEFRA or the regulations it is producing. These regulations are clearly an example of why. So if later this evening the noble Countess, Lady Mar, decides to divide the House, I shall join her in the Lobby.
Baroness Masham of llton: My Lords, in declaring an interest I ask the Minister two very short questions. How efficient are the tests for TSE? What is the prospect of a vaccine for spongiform encephalopathy? It is a serious matter when there is no right of appeal and mistakes may be made.
10.8 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support many of the comments made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. If this matter were not so serious, I would not pass this remark: that it is pleasing to see so many Members on the Labour Benches tonight, who never normally attend the agricultural discussions we have in this House. I am afraid they will have to hear with us a little longer. We are not filibustering. In fact I think that comment was most unfortunate. In the real world, outside Parliament, the farming community has been through some desperate times. If people on the opposite Benches think that in some way we are filibustering, they are wrong.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If we are to play this game, I can say that I have sat in this House with the Benches opposite completely empty while we discuss child poverty and urban deprivation. So I ask the noble Baroness not to patronise us in that way.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Baroness may say that if she wishes. But one of her colleagues in a recent housing debate, the noble Lord, Lord

403
Graham—I do not know if he is in his place—apologised to the House that he was the only spokesman from the Labour Benches. He said, "I never thought I would see a Labour debate on social housing and we have only one speaker". So I am not casting aspersions. But it is true that tonight the Benches opposite are fuller than they normally are for agriculture debates, and we should record that fact.
As I say, I rise to support the noble Countess, Lady Mar. As the noble Countess stated, regulations do not need separate legislation. G Dymond, who as many noble Lords will know is the House Research and Legal Information Librarian, stated in a letter to me on 15th April:
"Regulations do not require national implementing legislation".
Perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation because there seems to be some confusion.
So why are we sitting here? I am sure that noble Lords on the Labour Benches would say, "Why indeed?". We are surely considering any gold-plating. I cannot believe that in the statutory instrument we are gold-plating after the Prime Minister promised the electorate only last year that there would be no more of it. Even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has acknowledged that there are three extra bits—
Lord Whitty: One, my Lords.
Baroness Byford: All right, my Lords, one bit extra, but there is a little gold-plating. I must ask why.
Other noble Lords have referred to the science and I shall also take up that issue. There is no real scientific proof of the link between BSE and CJD or BSE and scrapie.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am a social scientist, not a general scientist, but empirical evidence that shows that BSE is declining with the measures that we have in hand is surely a good piece of evidence.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am delighted that the numbers are declining, but that does not necessarily—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. BSE is also declining because we no longer pour organophosphates on cattle.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, that just shows how difficult is the science. I do not wish to pit one against another, but there is still a question. The noble Countess herself said that she hoped that science would soon move on and be able to prove that.
I ask the Government what proof there is. Could it be that all sheep are susceptible? If so, would they all have to be slaughtered? Do we face the possibility of becoming a sheep-free zone, having two years ago been the developed world's largest sheep producer? That scenario is decidedly scary, but I am sure that the Minister will have the correct version. Apparently, Mr
404
Meacher, in evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stated that the Government have always known and appreciated the full extent of all implications of European Union legislation. But we do not have to legislate to incorporate the EU regulations. Presumably the Minister can enlighten us on all the implications of what we are about tonight.
I should be particularly interested to know about cost. Many noble Lords will be aware that the Government intend to force farmers to insure against future outbreaks of infectious diseases. I wonder how many insurance companies will be willing to insure against the possibility that animals may be slaughtered not because they have the disease but because they are susceptible, not because they are next-door to a farm that has the disease but because they have been declared susceptible to the disease. The Minister must surely clarify the distinction between "susceptible" and "suspect" before we come to a vote —or not— later, because there are important differences between them.
I have heard that, if the Government cannot agree insurance with farmers, they are considering imposing a levy on all sheep producers. Presumably they would use the proceeds of that to pay the costs of five things, to name but a few. Those are, first, the cost of science; secondly, the cost of a monitoring system; thirdly, the cost of a slaughtering system; fourthly, the cost of a disposal system; and, fifthly, the cost of a compensation system. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that. I also ask him whether, should levy money come into being but prove to be inadequate to cover those various costs, the Government envisage paying for them themselves. If so, how much have they already reserved for that purpose?
I am intrigued to know how the monitoring system will operate. As the law stands, farmers have a duty to report any notifiable disease that strikes their livestock. How will they know that an animal in their herd is susceptible? Will they be safe so long as no inspector comes to call?
Much work has been done and is being done on genotyping in humans and the likelihood that some members of a family may inherit some ailments, understand that it is rare to find that every member of a family has inherited the same suspect trait. In the past couple of weeks the EU voted a large amount of money for 15 research projects to find out more about inherited characteristics in animals. We welcome that and the Minister may wish to comment on it. It suggests to me that more powerful brains than mine will consider the possibility that not all animals in a flock will have the same susceptibility. Given the Government's lack of success in studying sheep's brains—they were examining cows' brains—I recommend that we persuade them to postpone this piece of legislation.
That is not all. Noble Lords have heard me use the word "susceptible" several times. I know what I mean, but I wonder if it is exactly the same as what the Government mean. The regulations contain several

405
words whose meaning can vary according to circumstance. Do the Government really mean "livestock" to include any creature, apart from a dog, that has a function in farming, including all types of horse? In Europe horses are considered as livestock animals; in this country they are not. That is on page 7. The continentals include horses in livestock because they eat them; in this country, on the whole, we do not. Horses have never been part of the British definition, and I want to know whether the Government will use the EU or the UK version.
My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke eloquently about the contradictions in the definitions of compensation in the regulations, which apparently will apply to all animals except dogs. He particularly mentioned valuable breeding stock. Will the Minister say what science has excepted dogs from such draconian measures? Why include cats and not dogs? There must be some reason; there must he some science. I do not have the Minister's attention; perhaps I have someone else's.
What methods will be employed to slaughter the cat, the goldfish in the pond or the children's pony? Where will it take place? Under which rules will the carcasses be treated? How will compensation be calculated? The mind boggles at how we will calculate the value of a goldfish. Will it be legal to employ a sheep levy to compensate someone for the compulsory death of a pet, albeit one living on the farm? What will the exceptions be? Will there be a Prime Ministerial override? Will there be another Phoenix rising from the ashes? Will there be the right of appeal that we have discussed tonight?
Paragraph (7) of the regulations specifies that representations may be made to the Secretary of State where slaughter of a TSE-susceptible animal at premises other than a slaughterhouse is intended. Does that imply that there is a right of appeal only against the site of slaughter? Do the Government accept the theoretical possibility that a susceptibility to a family of diseases justifies the inclusion of our rare breeds under the regulations? Such an inclusion would cover the possibility of a disease that has not so far been shown to have any relationship to BSE, which is itself not a proven cause of new variant CJD. Many rare breeds would fall under the edict in the statutory instrument, and we have had many representations about that.
There is a saying about throwing the baby out with the bath water. As noble Lords have said, rare breeds have other genes. Some are known to be important, and many of their characteristics—good or bad—have not yet been identified. I should hate these TSE regulations to be applied so stringently that we lost material whose value outweighed the risks which we removed.
The Leader of another place said when challenged last week that the regulations apply only to carcasses. I would refer your Lordships to page 4 of the statutory instrument, where paragraph 4(2)(e) states,
"any TSE susceptible animal, or the carcases of such an animal".
406
I presume from that that the regulations cover living creatures, not just dead creatures.
Finally, I cannot resume my seat without referring to the powers of the inspectors. They can corral, examine, test, mark and restrict movement. They can seize meat, processed animal protein or TSE-susceptible animals. They can slaughter, examine records, check computers and decide whether the regulations are contravened. Will the TSE rules which we are debating today apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I understand that they will not. If they do not, what rules are governing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? If for any reason today the prayer to annul tabled by the noble Countess. Lady Mar, were carried, would that make a difference? Presumably, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland must have regulations in place. I do not understand where we are. Furthermore, what would happen to the people who keep stock on the borders between England and Wales and Scotland?
I find tonight a very unsatisfactory affair—that we should be placed by the Government in a situation in which we either annul a large number of existing controls or we agree to extend them considerably. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who spoke most compellingly—and I welcome her contribution—spelt out the difficulty of annulling existing controls. Although it would be for only a brief period, we would all assist the Government to remedy the deficiency, but the difficulty we are faced with tonight is not of our doing; it is of the Government's doing.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, how many cases of CJD does the noble Baroness consider to be the price worth paying not to follow the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am totally inadequate to answer the question and I say that most humbly. At present some scientists follow the thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, while other scientists clearly say that there is no proven link. There is still a big question mark out there. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, can shake her head but she asked me for my view. I can only give my view.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt the winding-up speeches. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has decided not to proceed with the Second Reading of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill this evening but we will find another date for it.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Livsey of TaIgarth: My Lords, I wish to exercise my right to comment on the amendment which I tabled today, referring in particular to subparagraph (a). Before doing so, I would like to enlighten the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It is my understanding that in devolution the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly proposed to bring forward secondary

407
legislation. I believe that the legislation they bring forward will resemble what we are discussing today. That is my understanding as a Welsh Member of this House.
In subparagraph (a) of my amendment, I seek merely to protect the rights of producers and animals and balance that between the vital human consequences of BSE and the impact of TSE. There is a balance to be struck and my amendment seeks to achieve that. The whole point of having a seven-day period is that if there is an appeal by a livestock keeper against the decision to slaughter, all the facts can be taken into consideration and assembled in order to make a good case to persuade the powers that be that perhaps they are wrong in deciding to slaughter. That is particularly the case in relation to the phrase, "TSE susceptible animals", a point which has been debated at great length this evening in the House. However, it would be helpful if we could have a more succinct definition than that presently contained in the statutory instrument.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting paragraphs (b) and (c) of my amendment, which will introduce a degree of independence into the appeal mechanism. If his amendment falls in a vote, I appeal to Members of the House to accept the whole of mine, including paragraph (a). It is worthy of support in order to achieve a balance of protection for those who actually produce the animals and whose welfare is extremely important.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. I am very concerned that noble Lords should understand exactly what is happening tonight. Either a regulation is annulled by a prayer to Her Majesty or the regulation stays as it is. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke most eloquently and almost entirely supported my case. But his amendment will do no good at all. Similarly, the Minister's amendment will do no good because there is no obligation on the Government to take any notice of an amendment to a statutory instrument agreed by the negative procedure.
We have one option only. Either we pray against the statutory instrument or we leave it as it is. A great deal has been said tonight and I do not wish to detain noble Lords any longer. I have made my points. I am extremely concerned about the constitutional position of this instrument and others that are being laid. We are told that they all follow the same pattern and that it has all been done before. That is not right. It is not democratic and it is not a parliamentary practice that should be allowed to continue. I leave it at that.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate in which, frankly, several of the points which have been made are not directly relevant to the issue before the House. I shall try to touch on a number of those which I think are germane.
408
I, too, wish to clarify what is before the House. The key issue is whether, quite extraordinarily, this House is about to take a decision which will have severe implications both for public health and confidence in our livestock industry. If we reject these regulations, it may well be that, after many generations of having adopted this procedure, noble Lords do not like it. However, it is a fact that if we reject the regulations, there will be no BSE controls in place in England. That will be a significant blow to consumer confidence and it will have huge implications for people working in the farming industry and in the meat industry. Furthermore, it could well have widespread implications for public health.
I wish to say a little about the issue of public health. Somewhat to my surprise, there is an agenda which has been quite explicitly expressed tonight by the noble Countess and—again to my amazement—largely supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, querying whether it is necessary for us to have in place a BSE-control regime because there is some doubt about the science.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord at this point. I accept completely that. given our present state of knowledge, we must have a BSE regime in place. I have no argument with that whatever. What I object to is the way it is being done; that is, the draconian measures that are being put in place. They may never be used, but those measures will be put in place. That is what is wrong.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to respond I, too, wish to register my strong objection. I shall check Hansard tomorrow because I am sure that at no stage did I say that we should not have a regime. I know full well that we should. It is a question of the way it is being brought in under the procedure before us tonight. We have had no chance to discuss it.
I know that several noble Lords are muttering on the Benches behind the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I think that he will himself acknowledge that the issue of scrapie is relevant. The wrong brains were tested for at least six years. The science on scrapie is unknown. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip wishes to disagree with me, but everyone acknowledges that there has been a mix up. For that and several other reasons we are questioning the way in which the regulations are being introduced.
We support some restrictions in relation to BSE, but the density of the regulations and the way in which they are being introduced causes us great difficulty. We are being asked to do something without knowing the implications.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—I apologise to the House for doing this, but it is a matter of grave concern—I hope that she will make clearer her position on this and on the link between variant CJD and BSE and the scientific debate now, before she checks Hansard. Anyone listening to her earlier comments would have

409
felt that there was an equivalence in her view of the scientific debate between whether there was or was not a link between variant CJD and BSE.
I understand the noble Countess's view on this point—it is very clear and understood—but even she would agree that she is a minority against a swathe of scientific opinion in this country, in Europe and in the world. The noble Baroness would be misunderstood if, from what she said earlier, she allows her former remarks to continue on the record.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am reminded of Dr Lind, who discovered that vitamin C saved sailors from having scurvy. He was in a minority for 40 years, but he was right. Some scientists who have been looking at this issue may well be right that there has never yet been an infectious pathway proven for BSE or CJD.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was grateful for the noble Countess's earlier intervention when she made it clear that she was in favour of having a BSE regime, irrespective of the fact that she doubts some of the overwhelming scientific opinion. The noble Baroness also agreed with that. Nevertheless, the effect of a vote tonight to support the noble Countess's prayer would leave us without a BSE regime.
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the difficulty of the noble Baroness's position. I think the whole House understood that she was querying whether we should he acting on the "overwhelming" evidence, as it is referred to in the Phillips inquiry report, that variant CJD is caused by the transmission of BSE to humans. If that is the overwhelming opinion, I am particularly surprised, without making a cheap point, that the party that formed the previous government is not prepared to take the precautionary measures which we and the vast majority of scientific, veterinary and public health opinion suggest we should in maintaining a BSE regime and would jeopardise it in this kind of vote today.
The noble Baroness said that these are draconian measures. But time and again I have pointed out that what we are doing with these regulations is consolidating existing statutory instruments which have already been operated and form part of the regime. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred to the number of statutory instruments which are covered. We are engaging in an act of consolidation of the existing regime and in the transposition of the European regime which has direct applicability.
The noble Baroness asked why, if it has direct applicability, we need to spell out some of the provisions in the regulations. It is because the substance has direct applicability. The implementation of it is a matter for the nation state—as is always the case in this kind of legislation at European level—which means that we have to spell out how we are to fulfil our European commitments. The only part of these 220 or so pages that can
410
conceivably relate to gold plating is the one example I quoted in relation to incineration. We are doing so because we have had heavy advice from the advisory committee in that area and we thought it sensible to take the opportunity to include that.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry again to interrupt the Minister. There is another point of gold-plating. The noble Lord has been asked over and again about the difference between TSE suspected and TSE susceptible. The noble Duke made the point that his cattle are susceptible to BSE but they may not be suspected of having BSE. That makes a huge difference to the number of animals under consideration.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a huge misunderstanding has been wound up both inside and outside the House to suggest that there is a change in approach. In order to carry out the European surveillance and monitoring requirements, the statutory instrument refers to TSE susceptible animals for a straightforward reason. Under EU legislation which we are here transposing we are required to carry out the testing of animals fit for human consumption which have already been sent to the slaughterhouse, are fallen stock or are otherwise slaughtered. Those animals are not TSE suspect. They are not exhibiting any sign of a disease. But they are required to be tested for the purposes of the EU monitoring.
There are no new slaughter powers in this legislation. The slaughter powers referred to in paragraph 4 and beyond are a repetition in almost the same terms of the existing provisions. They relate to a situation where an animal is suspect, where a vet decides on balance that it is likely to be suffering from a TSE, in particular from BSE. That is the difference. The susceptible reference is in order to carry out the monitoring which we are required to carry out under the EU legislation.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I have already asked this question. Under which current legislation is an inspector allowed to slaughter any TSE susceptible animal? I refer to paragraph 4(2)(k).
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been much reference to paragraph 4 and in particular to paragraph 4(2)(k). The powers relating to slaughter relate exactly to the circumstances to which I have already referred. They apply only to the specified EU monitoring programme and would come into play only if an abattoir refused to slaughter an animal which had been selected for testing under the various provisions. All those animals would already have been sent to slaughter by their owners in the normal course of events.
In terms of which existing statutory instruments that relates to, it primarily relates to the BSE Order No. 2 1996 and the Sheep and Goats Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations 1998. It is a reenactment of those provisions and no more. Therefore, all this agitation about an extension of slaughter powers is misplaced. The noble Countess

411
honestly and frankly said that it may have been there before but I do not agree with what was there before. That may be her position. But the House today is being asked to re-enact in consolidated form, and in a form which is consistent and in conformity with our EU obligations, what is already in the UK regime.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, Statutory Instrument No. 3183 deals with animals which have been exposed to infection rather than being susceptible.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely my point. Where one talks about a suspect animal that is the only situation where the slaughter powers arise. It is a suspect animal which is susceptible to BSE; otherwise the decision to slaughter on the grounds of BSE could not apply. That is why we need to distinguish between "suspect" and "susceptible". The reason that the term "susceptible" is there is because there will be animals which are subject to the testing, monitoring and surveillance provisions which are not showing any suspect symptoms. Obviously that is how we establish the prevalence or otherwise of the disease.
The other misapprehension is in relation to animals. It was some time before goldfish were mentioned but the noble Baroness eventually got round to it. These provisions are required in order to enact the EU monitoring programme that we are required to enact; the remainder are already in UK law. The EU regulation, I think that it is paragraph 4, specifies the monitoring and surveillance programme for bovine animals, then for ovine and caprine animals—no others. We are not talking, therefore, about a surveillance programme which involves dogs, cats, goldfish, deer or any other animal apart from those which are specified in those provisions; and "any animal" refers to animals covered by those provisions. Part of that regulation relates to feed. The regulations in that respect refer to "farm animals". Dogs could be construed as farm animals and, therefore, are excluded. I assume that the same applies to humans, but that may be slightly stretching the point. That is why dogs are particularly spelt out, while goldfish are not.
I turn to other points raised. The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred at length to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is regrettable that a number of typographical errors were found in the regulations. There was also the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as to whether we should spell out the full meaning of TSE. That was all that was queried by the JCSI. The committee did not see any objection to using the negative procedure and statutory instruments drafted in this way to consolidate and transpose the regulations.
I return to my amendment and that tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked whether my amendment meant anything more than what was already contained in the regulations. The references to appeal apply very specifically to particular areas within the regulations. My response to the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord
412
Livsey, was that we need to ensure that there is some ability to make representations in all such cases. It is, therefore, wider than what is already in the regulations. My objection to the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was primarily on the seven days, which could seriously limit the ability to act quickly in an area where there are some BSE suspect beasts. That is why I have couched it in these more general terms, removing the seven-day requirement, which, literally interpreted, would mean that we had to wait for seven days in every case before we could take action in case there was an objection, or what the noble Lord refers to as "an appeal".
As far as concerns using the negative procedure—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Can the Minister inform the House of the time-scale envisaged in his amendment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no time-scale implied because we are looking at how it would apply to different parts of the regulations. The seven-day period would inhibit the most urgent cases, though it would not necessarily inhibit some of the other provisions in terms of tracing and testing. It may vary in different parts of the regulations. If we accept this recommendation, the instruction of the House would be for us to consider options to achieve what the noble Lord wishes to achieve in his amendment. Therefore, I wish to show the way in which we are—I hope, with good will—considering the reservations that some Members of the House, and beyond, have about how we would carry out these regulations. I absolutely accept that if we agree either the amended amendment or the original amendment we would still have the regulations in place. As noble Lords will have gathered by now, that is my objective in this debate in any case.
I shall comment briefly on the question of using the negative procedure in this respect. We use that procedure here, and, indeed, have done so for nearly 30 years in order to transpose measures with varying degrees of success—and, yes, with gold-plating on occasion by all governments. We have transposed under the 1972 Act by the negative procedure. This falls well within the normal way in which such regulations are transposed.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was referring to the length of such regulations. However, they do consolidate a great many provisions; indeed, there are other consolidated regulations that are similarly lengthy and which have been dealt with by the negative procedure. If the House wishes to change that process, we have to change the primary legislation in order to provide for it.
I do not think that at this stage of the evening I need go into all the additional points. Perhaps I may merely reply—
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was about to anticipate the noble Earl. He may or may not believe me, but I was about to do precisely that and repeat what I said at the beginning.

413
In relation to data protection, as in relation to human rights, as in relation to an obligation on the Government to act proportionately and reasonably in carrying out these provisions, that applies and qualifies anything that is in the statutory instruments.
In relation to the noble Earl's specific point about notification under the technical standards and regulations directive, I did take up the point that he was kind enough to raise with me last night and sought advice on the matter. The advice is that this does not apply to the TSE regulations because the regulations provide administration and enforcement of a particular EU obligation. The technical standards directive applies only to national legislation which gives effect to national policy. In so far as they are national regulations, they do not change those that have already been deemed to have been retrospectively notified.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the Minister will recall that I inquired about a specific point; namely, whether or not the DTI had been consulted about the notification status of the regulations. That is the fundamental point I am trying to get at.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I indicated that I sought advice. I have no doubt that the guidance from the DTI has taken account of that advice. As to whether anyone has talked to the DTI in the past 24 hours, I cannot say. I do not believe that it would be normal for us to reveal to the House the exact intensity of interdepartmental discussions on these matters. The advice clearly indicates that it would be not necessary in the transposition part of this to register it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister going to answer the question put by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose about the position in Scotland? I believe that there are also plans relating to Wales. On page 205 and 206 of the regulations, 14 orders are revoked. Only the last two specifically refer to England. Are these all being revoked now for Scotland and Wales, in which case the people in Scotland and Wales will be totally unprotected because the measure applies only to England? Or are they being revoked only in relation to England? I do not see a reference to that. Please will the Minister reply to that point?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the orders have been revoked in relation to England. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, had already answered that point on my behalf. To repeat the point, they are revoked in relation to England. The measure before the House therefore relates to England. I understand that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, equivalent legislation will be introduced later this month, as the noble Lord indicated. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
This has been a wide-ranging, and at times difficult debate. I do not think it appropriate to speak for much longer, except to underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth; namely, that the regulations are primarily about public health. Noble Lords may have doubts about the science, and they may have concerns
414
about the way in which the regulations may be implemented. But I hope that the whole House will recognise the necessity of having in place a proper regime to deal with TSEs, and to deal with the potential damage to public health as well as to animal health from BSE, and that it would be deeply irresponsible of this House to reject the existence of such a regime.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered the important point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others as to why the maximum compensation for slaughtered sheep is limited to £400, whereas there is no such limit in the case of cattle.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I answered the point in general terms.
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can answer the point in general terms, begging the noble Baroness's pardon. This is the enactment of existing legislation. There is a real problem for the House. On the one hand, noble Lords are saying: do not gold-plate and do not alter the EU regulations. On the other hand, they are asking us to do precisely that. The present regulations have that limit and have done for some time. We may need to look at that at some point, but they do not introduce any new cap on the value of sheep. I wish to put my amendment to the House.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that I am in order. I checked with the Clerks before. I do not think that I am out of order—I hope not.
The Minister has not addressed my question about what is happening in Scotland and Wales.
Lord Whitty: Yes, I have.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he has done so. I should like to take the point a step further. If we support the annulment proposed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will the existing legislation re-enact itself? What will happen? I should like the Minister to clarify that, because it makes a difference. It has been suggested that I do not care about what happens to human health or what happens on the BSE side. As a responsible person who has in the past bred stock, I am acutely aware of our responsibilities. We need to be very clear about the consequences if we go down a certain line. That is why I am asking the Minister to be kind enough to clarify the situation for all of us.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I had made this clear at the beginning and in correspondence. The position is that, because the instruments have been laid with effect from 19th April, the previous regime is

415
revoked. If we annul the provision tonight, there will be no regime in place from that point. The noble Baroness is correct to say that we could get together and find some other regime, but that takes time. For a period there would be no regime in place. That is why I say that we would risk not only public health but also confidence in our livestock industry if we went down the road suggested by the noble Countess this evening.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords—
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): The Question is—
The Countess of Mar: Order!
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, will the Minister and the House forgive me? I have never intervened in debates on agriculture, so I feel very hesitant. but this is not a question to do with agriculture. Having listened as an outsider, I feel that the amendments have moved us forward. However, I do not think that the Minister's comments about the constitutional issues have answered one point that still bothers me. My noble friend Lady Mar said that we can amend the instrument, but the Government do not have to pay any attention to such amendments. I do not think that the Minister has answered that. Will he make the position clear for an idiot non-agricultural lay person?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Countess pointed out, the passage of the amendments would leave the regulations in place, allowing them to proceed. The amendments would not alter the regulations, but they call on the Government to take action to fulfil the objectives enunciated at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. We have said that we have sympathy with that view and will act on it. The issue is whether we have the regulations—and therefore a regime—in place or not.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must get this point over. The Minister is under no statutory obligation to accept any of the amendments. If he were to leave office tomorrow, the next Minister would come along and say, "It wasn't me".
10.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether Lord Whitty's manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 16.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Bach, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Billingham, B.

416

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brennan, L.

Kirkhill,L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos,V.

McIntosh of Haringey. L.

Clark of Windermere, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colville of Culross,V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mitchell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai,L.

Northfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeatley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Filkin.L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grefell,L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boardman, L.

Montrose, D.

Craigavon, V.

Moran, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Geddes, L.

Park of Monmouth. B.

Greenway, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller]

Mar,C. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Capital Punishment: Forums for Discussion
  Capital Punishment: Forums for Discussion
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Burma
  Burma
  Police Powers and Procedures
  Police Powers and Procedures
  Organic and Non-fossil Fuels: Duty
  Organic and Non-fossil Fuels: Duty
  Tax System
  Tax System
  WHOIS Database
  WHOIS Database
  Consumer Safety
  Consumer Safety
  Ricability Report
  Ricability Report
  School Attendance
  School Attendance
  Defence Capabilities Initiative
  Defence Capabilities Initiative
  Army Training: Track Mileage
  Army Training: Track Mileage
  Armed Forces Pensions: Payment Methods
  Armed Forces Pensions: Payment Methods
  Public Guardianship Office
  Public Guardianship Office
  Mental Incapacity
  Mental Incapacity
  Magistrates' Court Closures: Avon and Somerset
  Magistrates' Court Closures: Avon and Somerset
  Northern Ireland Court Service: Ulster-Scots
  Northern Ireland Court Service: Ulster-Scots
  Human Rights: State Department Report
  Human Rights: State Department Report
  French Presidential Election
  French Presidential Election
  Russia: Freedom of Expression
  Russia: Freedom of Expression
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Livestock Industry
  Livestock Industry
  Rural Proofing Targets
  Rural Proofing Targets
  Livestock Shows: Biosecurity Rules
  Livestock Shows: Biosecurity Rules
  Cumbria: Foot and Mouth Disease
  Cumbria: Foot and Mouth Disease
  Packaging Waste Recovery
  Packaging Waste Recovery
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  NHS Hearing Aids
  NHS Hearing Aids
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Department of Health: Written Answers
  Department of Health: Written Answers
  Quality Protects Management Action Plans
  Quality Protects Management Action Plans
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  Boundary Commission Paliamentary Constituency Changes: Members Resettlement Grants
  Boundary Commission Paliamentary Constituency Changes: Members Resettlement Grants
  House of Lords Select Committee Reports: Government Responses
  House of Lords Select Committee Reports: Government Responses
  Northern Ireland: Office of the Oversight Commssioner
  Northern Ireland: Office of the Oversight Commssioner
  Palace of Westminster: Restoration
  Palace of Westminster: Restoration