Sitting of 21 November 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Lead Industry
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on the application of the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations to the lead industry. [81201]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The regulations apply the requirements of the 1996 directive on integrated pollution prevention and control to many installations at which the production, melting or recovery of lead is carried out. These requirements cover potential pollution risks to air, water and land. Criteria for the application of the requirements are based on the precise nature of the activity.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Government have decided that the lead industry will have to comply with the IPPC regulations before 2007, the date set by the EU. That is placing a burden on the industry; companies that have registered under the regulations have encountered considerable delays on behalf of the Environment Agency in obtaining registration. The twin elements of delays and costs are placing burdens on the usually small companies involved in lead processing. Will my right hon. Friend provide some further assistance to those companies in reducing the burdens?
    Mr. Meacher: We certainly want to do that, if we can. Phasing in the different sectors in an orderly and sensible way is the only practicable way to meet the target of permitting more than 6,000 installations in England and Wales by October 2007. If we left the permitting to the last possible moment, it would place an enormous burden on regulators and require them to take on large numbers of extra staff for a short time. I am concerned about what my hon. Friend says about registration. There should be no additional delays, but the window for the phasing-in of particular sectors is largely determined by the expected availability of the best available techniques reference documents, which are
    766
    produced by the European Commission with input from member states. I shall look at the matter again and see whether we can give any assistance to the industry.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister is fond of recycling, but is he aware that one of our largest car battery recycling plants is Endhoven's in Darley Dale, which recycles some 80 per cent. of car batteries in this country? Will he ensure that the regulations do not interfere with that process, so that we can maintain our good recycling record in this sector?
    Mr. Meacher: I am keen to encourage the good recycling plants that exist in many parts of the country, and to generate the many more that we will need if we are to meet the doubling and trebling of recycling targets that I have set down. The directive applies to about 6,000 installations, as I said. They have to meet the IPPC requirements, but most already operate in accordance with best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. As they should be meeting those standards, there should be no problem for most existing plants.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general public will feel that pollution from the lead industry is relatively insignificant compared with the pollution from oil tankers that spill their loads? They blacken the environment and the name of the oil industry, which my right hon. Friend knows I support. How can we get better international regulation of those oil tankers?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Chris Grayling.

    Animal Welfare
    Chris Grayling: If she will make a statement on the long distance transportation of animals. [81203]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government would prefer a trade in meat to the long-distance transporting of animals for slaughter, and we are encouraging the livestock sector in that direction.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know of the great concern about this matter felt by people across the country. Although he is keen to stress that any future action must not disadvantage our farmers, does he accept that people feel that the Government have failed to negotiate effective solutions with our European partners, and that they should get a move on and do so?
    Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government consider that, in the normal patterns of the livestock industry, the movement of live animals should be minimised. Of course we must look at our industry's needs when it comes to movements and take into account special cases such as offshore islands, but, generally speaking, we believe that animals should go to the nearest available slaughterhouse. The trade in this

    767
    country should be a carcase trade. The added value accruing to those animals should go to this country and it should not be exported abroad.
    David Taylor: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says, but the live export trade imposes chronic, extreme and high-volume cruelty on hundreds of thousands of sentient beings every year. Should not we go one step further? Should we not ban that trade and replace it with the export of meat and carcases only? Can we not work more effectively within the EU to require animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to the farm of rearing?
    Mr. Morley: I agree that a carcase trade is the preference that we should support. However, I emphasise that the live animal trade is legal within the rules of the single market and it has been tested in the courts. Our record on enforcement and management is very good; we want to see the standards of the best being applied to all European countries.
    Mr. James Gray: Everyone will agree with the Minister about the desirability of the shortest possible journeys from breeding and upbringing to slaughter, but does he agree that one of the greatest tragedies of the countryside in recent years, which he needs to explain, is that since the Labour Government came to power some 336 local slaughterhouses— 40 per cent. of the total— have been forced to close? Does he agree with me and his own rural White Paper that that is a result of gross over-regulation by the Government?
    Mr. Morley: No, I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a political point, let me tell him that it would be impossible to close as many small slaughterhouses as were closed under the previous Conservative Government because not enough are left in the country. Regulation is not the only reason for closure under this Government—the market, unit costs and the fact that some of the slaughterhouses have got bigger are also issues. Of course we want to support a proper distribution of slaughterhouses, which is why our rural White Paper provided financial support for some of the smaller slaughterhouses in a way that the Conservative Government did not.

    Illegal Meat Imports
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If she will make a statement on her Department's progress in preventing illegal meat from entering the United Kingdom. [81204]
    Mr. Mark Francois: If she will make a statement on her Department's progress in preventing illegal meat from entering the United Kingdom. [81211]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We are making excellent progress with implementing our action plan and a number of initiatives are getting results. As I announced in response to the FMD inquiries, following a review of enforcement structures we are to make
    768
    Customs and Excise responsible for anti-smuggling checks. This, we expect, will lead to increased deterrence and seizures of illegal meat.
    Mr. Waterson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Meridian Television programme "Focus", to be broadcast next month, will show hard evidence of a systematic trade in smuggling bush meat into this country and selling it? As if this trade were not vile enough in itself, is she aware of further allegations that there is evidence of human flesh being on sale in this country, possibly as part of black magic rituals?
    Margaret Beckett: I was not aware of the television programme nor, indeed, of the horrendous suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I am aware that there has been growing evidence and concern about the trade in bush meat, which is said to be highly profitable. The Government and the enforcement authorities are giving attention to that.
    Mr. Francois: Are the proposed amnesty bins for illegal meat now available at all the points of entry? If not, why not?
    Margaret Beckett: No, they are not, because of considerable doubts and worries about how they would operate. We continue to explore that with the relevant authorities, but when responsibility is transferred, as I anticipate it will be in the near future, it will be for Customs and Excise to make judgments between the different forms of detection and enforcement.
    Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Select Committee's inquiry into the issue, and the Government have begun to take on board a number of its recommendations. Does she agree that, coming as it does on the back of the drugs trade and people trafficking, this trade is quickly becoming a huge international industry? Would it not be a good idea for the Government to take the initiative and call for an international conference to consider how countries can bear down on the trade? It must start there— we cannot keep the trade out any other way.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know of the many expressions of concern in various countries about the trade and that procedures exist to monitor and enforce the rules. Obviously, I will undertake to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has indicated that we are tightening up some of our systems. There is a feeling in the wider country that the Americans, Canadians and Australians have beaten the trade because their controls are very tight, but I believe that considerable smuggling still goes on in those nations. Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of how much smuggling is still being carried out there?
    Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but my hon. Friend is certainly right to identify the fact that the relevant authorities in those countries are not by any means complacent about

    769
    the degree of success that they are experiencing. They share the concerns expressed in this country about our success in keeping on top of that trade.
    David Burnside: The Secretary of State will remember that I welcomed the increase in expenditure for Customs and Excuse throughout the whole United Kingdom. However, we do not yet have evidence that the extra expenditure for seaports and airports in Great Britain is being allocated in Northern Ireland, where we also have a land border to protect. Will the right hon. Lady give the House a commitment that Northern Ireland, because it has a land border, will receive those extra resources and that the matter will not be passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, but will be borne by Customs and Excise.
    Margaret Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise commitment for which he asks, but I can certainly tell him that discussions are continuing about the way in which the extra resources will be allocated over the longer term. Those discussions are focused on the use that Customs and Excise will make of the resources. I undertake to pass his representations to the relevant authorities.
    Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State agree that any measures taken need to be proportionate and based on fact—information and research? She will remember that the action plan on illegal imports called for risk assessments. They were a key part of the plan and were due to be published in September. When will they be published?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both that action should be evidence based and that we have been awaiting a risk assessment. It has taken longer than we anticipated, as I think that I have already reported to the House, but some preliminary findings are emerging. They will be subject to quality assurance and peer review and we hope that they will be available before Christmas.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady recall that her action plan, published nearly eight months ago, stated that the Government would alter the wording on landing cards so that all incoming passengers knew that they were not supposed to bring meat or meat products into the United Kingdom? Can she say when she expects that pledge to be implemented?
    Margaret Beckett: Not at this moment, although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and I am genuinely glad that he asked that question. Since we held the overall meeting to discuss the preliminary action plan, one source of anxiety to me and to the Department has been that although, in principle, everybody shares the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, it has not been easy to get the airlines, in particular, to agree to take the action that we want them to take, with regard both to landing cards and to the filler videos that we produced to warn people about the precautions they
    770
    should take and the rules that they should observe. It has been difficult to get people to take those up, but we shall continue to maintain the pressure.
    Mr. Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that it is becoming increasingly difficult for anybody in the farming or food industries to take seriously the pledges of a Government who, nearly 14 months after the end of the foot and mouth outbreak and eight months after their own much-vaunted action plan, are still completely incapable of delivering their pledges—whether on amnesty bins or landing cards? It is not enough for the right hon. Lady to express good will and good intent; it is about time that we saw some action from her Department.
    Margaret Beckett: That was an interesting little rant but, unfortunately, it was not relevant to the facts. If the hon. Gentleman and his team, and indeed Conservative Back Benchers, would like a briefing about the action that is being taken and about some of the difficulties that are perceived, for example with the use of amnesty bins, I am happy to offer it. It is important that the House is well informed. The Select Committee indicated that the action plan was proceeding reasonably well, and I would not want to stretch its words further than that. The Government are continuing to work on the issues, but it is important that we do what will be effective and not merely what is currently fashionable.

    Animal Movement Restrictions
    Mr. George Osborne: What recent representations she has received from the livestock industry about the 20-day rule. [81206]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Industry organisations and individual farmers have made a number of representations about the impact of the 20-day standstill. Ministers and officials regularly meet industry representatives to discuss their views on the current movement controls.
    Mr. Osborne: The 20-day standstill is causing enormous concern and hardship in the livestock industry. Mr. Gwyn Williams, a partner in Chelford livestock auction market in my constituency, recently wrote to me and said:
    "All within the livestock industry will be grateful for your support in removing this ineffective but draconian legislation, which is of no practical use."
    He has my support, but does he have the Minister's?
    Mr. Morley: We have made it clear that we are commissioning independent assessments to consider the impact of the 20-day movement control on farmers. The vast majority of farmers can cope with the situation, but we accept that it does cause problems for some. We are sympathetic, but we cannot get away from the fact that the control has very strong veterinary support. It was recommended in Dr. Anderson's independent examination of the lessons to be learned and, indeed, by the Royal Society.

    771
    Hon. Members may also recall the case of the unmarked pig that had symptoms of foot and mouth disease. It has now been traced to two farmers, who have been fined for a range of offences in relation to traceability. That example shows that there is always a very real risk of spreading disease if we do not have movement controls.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Given the closeness in date of the three main west country shows, the Minister will appreciate the problem caused by the fact that the closing dates for livestock entry, specifically that for sheep, all fall from the middle to the end of March. Will he therefore explain why the publication of the results of the risk analysis on biosecurity has been delayed from the end of January to the end of April? What advice can he give to the organisers of those shows, which are, of course, so critical to the economy of the south-west?
    Mr. Morley: We are regularly in touch with the industry's representatives to address those issues. It is true that the risk assessment is very complex, but it needs to be thorough so that we can get right what we do in the long-term. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever decisions are taken about future movement controls, they will be taken in time and well before the spring movements start.
    Mr. John Hayes: I know that the Minister will be stung by this week's cross-party foot and mouth inquiry, which accuses him and his colleagues of ineptitude, massive dereliction of duty and unpardonable delays in decision making. Will he make at least one quick decision on the 20-day rule? We know of the experience in Scotland, where it is applied more flexibly and exemptions are obtained more straightforwardly and more fairly. It is damaging to the industry, and it is not effective in restricting movement because farmers are forced to bend it, break it or go out of business. Will he learn that lesson? Will he take advice from the Opposition and the industry and apply the 20-day rule more flexibly for the sake of the livestock industry?
    Mr. Morley: We listen very carefully to the industry, although I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the measures in place in England and Scotland are not at all dissimilar. The principal difference is that we ask that veterinary surgeons to examine farmers' biosecurity and separation arrangements. That is a very important step in ensuring that those things are done properly. Of course I have seen the report from the European temporary committee. It is a pity that it was altered by a political combination of Greens and Conservatives, who seemed to want to make political criticisms, rather than genuinely address the disease control lessons that we need to learn for the future.

    Environmental Protection Act
    Siobhain McDonagh: What plans she has to amend section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [81207]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): None. However, we are proposing to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, to grant waste collection authorities powers to serve notice on businesses, requiring them to produce their waste transfer notes. That should ensure better enforcement of the duty of care requirements.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the fight against fly tipping, it is very important not only that local authorities have the power to check on small businesses and their waste removal contracts, but that they are aware of their powers?
    Mr. Meacher: I absolutely agree, and I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concerns and the actions that she is taking to try to improve the situation. As I have said, we believe that the right way to act with regard to the duty of care regulations is not to give local authorities access to the waste trade agreements because such documents are confidential between the waste contractor and the business that produces the waste. However, I entirely share her aim, and I hope that we can lay the regulations before the House very shortly and bring them into force in the early new year.
    Norman Baker: Will the Minister consider amending section 34 to help to deal with the problem of abandoned cars? I realise that the Government have taken steps to make it easier for local authorities to deal with this matter, but there was an epidemic of 238,000 abandoned vehicles last year, and the problem barely existed five years ago. Will he take steps to ensure that local authorities and police in particular try to identify those responsible and prosecute them?
    Mr. Meacher: We have already taken action, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, by reducing the period to 24 hours in the case of cars or vehicles that are assessed as not having value, and, in the case of those that do have value, no more than one week before enforcement action can be taken and the cars removed. As we know from Operation Cubitt in Newham and Kent, that has produced a vast reduction in the number of abandoned cars. We have also taken steps to ensure continuing registration of cars so that responsibility is placed firmly on the last owner who registers. If there is a change of ownership, and that is not registered, the last owner who did register remains responsible. We believe that those two measures will tackle what I agree is a very serious scourge of our streets.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for the raft of measures that are in place, and that are being put in place. When he lays the regulations, however, will he further consider that local authorities are now frequently in a position, because of CCTV and co-operation from residents, to know when there are carriers on the road that are persistently fly tipping, although they do not have powers to deal with them? Will he consider extending to local authorities the power of street-stopping those vehicles and the power to impose fixed penalties on those that are carrying waste illegally?
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly keen to find ways of tackling fly tipping, which is a very serious offence and

    773
    a major problem. A fly tipping forum was set up, with our support, by the Environment Agency, and it is looking at ways in which perpetrators can be better caught. It has recently spent £250,000 on new equipment to do that, including the kind of proposals that my hon. Friend has suggested. Stopping vehicles to check whether what they are carrying is going to be tipped illegally is too difficult, however, because that cannot be proven. However, I am prepared to consider any further measures to deal with this menace.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is regrettable, as fly tipping is an environmental scourge that blights both urban and rural Britain. It will get worse as landfill tax increases and the power to deal with the problem is divorced from the responsibility to deal with it. Why does he not have plans to invest in a single body—local authorities or the Environment Agency—the authority and the accountability to make the fly-tipping polluter pay for the harm that is caused to the environment, society and economy?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is strong on rhetoric, and I entirely share his purpose, but he was not listening to my answer. I indicated that amending section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act is not the appropriate way to proceed, as that would give local authorities access to the waste trade agreements, which, for the reason that I have given, is not appropriate. We are making the appropriate arrangements, however, which are to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. If he listened to me, he would understand that I share his purpose. We are dealing with the matter in the right way, and not in the wrong way that he suggests.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Ian Davidson: What progress she has made in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU during the last month. [81208]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): A limit to CAP spending for the period 2007—13 has been agreed on a basis that the Commission sees as mandating it to continue with its main proposals for reform.
    Mr. Davidson: Am I right in thinking that that was essentially a way of saying that progress this month, as in virtually every other month, has been negligible, and that the progress that the Government are making in their efforts, rightly, to reform the CAP continues to be negligible? Is it not about time that we accepted that the CAP is simply unreformable, that it is one of those areas in which modernisation is clearly not working, and that we must consider whether withdrawal from the CAP, or something similar, is the only possible alternative for us in such circumstances?
    Margaret Beckett: I thought that I was going to agree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot conceivably join him where he finished up. It is not fair
    774
    to say that progress has been negligible. It has made people look afresh at the details of the proposals that the Commission has introduced and that it will flesh out. That is a good thing.
    Inevitably in these circumstances, many meetings and discussions have taken place further to identify where different member states stand, where there is common ground and where there is scope for agreement and so on. However, I certainly cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is sense or merit in our withdrawing from the CAP, not least because we would be totally unable to do that unless we withdrew from the European Union.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When the Secretary of State goes through the discussions on the reform process, will she talk to her fellow socialist Members of the European Parliament? For example, will she ask about the recent European Parliament report on foot and mouth? Will she ask about the findings of incompetence and about a Government who were more concerned about the political implications of the crisis than about trying to solve it? Is it any wonder that she did not order a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis? What is her comment on the European Parliament report?
    Margaret Beckett: I do not need to talk to my socialist colleagues in the European Parliament about this matter. Long ago, they prepared what I understand to be a fairly sensible core report that did what the Committee was set up to do— consider what lessons there were for Europe as a whole as opposed to the lessons specifically for the United Kingdom. The people who were in a majority to force through the changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred were members of the Conservative party and the Green party. They worked hand in hand as they sought to turn the report into a rant against the British Government and not into something serious that Europe can use.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the scandalous features of the CAP is the way that it— as well as ripping off British consumers— damages the livelihoods of producers in developing countries? Does she not agree that it really is time to stop the dumping of surplus European agricultural produce at subsidised prices in developing countries? Will she give a commitment that she will pursue that objective at the forthcoming Agriculture Council meeting and at the Heads of Government meetings over the next few weeks?
    Margaret Beckett: I can certainly wholeheartedly give that commitment. I assure my hon. Friend that I have taken exactly that stance over the past few months at the Agriculture Council meetings and at the world conference in Johannesburg. I fully expect to continue taking it. He is entirely right. There is growing recognition of the problems that are exacerbated by the structures of the CAP with regard to the developing

    775
    world. I entirely share his view that it is hugely important that we lay the foundation for ameliorating those problems.
    Andrew George (St. Ives): Does the Secretary of State agree that, to secure the much-desired rapid reform of the common agricultural policy, she may need to engage in further stand-up rows with her European colleagues, particularly in the light of the obvious cynical manipulation by France of legal proceedings so that it can avoid paying the hefty fine imposed on it for its entirely unacceptable and illegal ban on the importation of British beef?
    Margaret Beckett: I am always willing, should it prove necessary, to have stand-up rows if that is the only way to get one's own way. However, I have consistently sought throughout my political career and in my role as a Minister to do what is effective. Having a stand-up row is sometimes not the most effective way to get one's way on behalf of one's country. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if getting up and shouting at someone is required, I am quite happy to do that.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Although I recognise what my right hon. Friend says about progress being made on reform of the CAP, does she agree that the basic and unacceptable principles of the CAP remain in place? Despite the cap on spending over the next few years that she mentioned, is it not the case that, if the principles of the CAP remain in place, the budgetary consequences of lack of reform will be unacceptable in the light of enlargement?
    Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has long been the case that people across Europe have appreciated the many problems associated with the CAP. Many of those problems persist. I also agree that the implications of applying the CAP to an enlarged Community are serious and substantial. It is a matter not only of the financial implications –although those are considerable, as he said –but of applying what is a bureaucratic, time-consuming, and frequently counterproductive structure to a fresh raft of member states. For those reasons, it is important to pursue reform, as we shall continue to do.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the present difficulties facing the fishing industry. [81209]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): While recognising the impact on the industry, firm action is needed to halt the decline in fish stocks. The Government are working to identify possible alternatives to an extensive moratorium on fishing activities while respecting the need to act in response to the scientific advice.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the Minister consider it acceptable that the EU Commission can propose the closure of the white fish fishery without paying regard to the conservation measures introduced—the use of
    776
    square-mesh panels and larger mesh sizes, and the decommissioning of 20 white fish boats in Scotland? If that is not acceptable, what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Morley: We are to debate these issues in detail this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that we would agree to any measure without taking into account what has been done by the Scottish and English fleets. We have not been able to do that so far, but there is a great deal of negotiation to take place, and analysis and interpretation of the science needs to be done. I know that the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the industry recently met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I also know that the Scottish Executive have debated the issue extensively, and we are working in close partnership with them. We have done much to reduce effort, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be taken into account in the calculations.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree with Arnold Locker, a Whitby fisherman and chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, when he says that if enforcement measures that apply to Yorkshire fishermen were applied across Europe to ensure that policies were delivered, we might not be in the same position?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with Mr. Locker that it is important that effective enforcement measures apply to all member states consistently across Europe. We will argue for the inclusion of that objective in a package of measures on cod recovery and common fisheries policy reform. There have been cases of rule breaking that are not unique to any one country or sector of the industry. Anyone who has been involved in that undermines scientific analysis and attempts at genuine conservation.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister investigate the workings of the eastern sea fisheries committee over the past five years? There have been enormous problems with it and serious allegations of major impropriety. The fishermen whom the committee is supposed to represent and monitor have completely lost of confidence in it, especially those in my constituency who work out of Boston.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will know that although I meet the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees and believe that the committees are important and valuable organisations, responsibility for the committees rests with local authorities. They are local committees, run by local authorities and representing local fishermen. I am aware of some of the problems that he has experienced with the committee, and we have corresponded on that. I listen carefully to points raised, especially in relation to a balance of representation, but any claim of impropriety is a matter for local authorities to investigate.
    Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the most experienced and effective fisheries Minister in the whole of the United Kingdom —[Laughter.] The Liberals will understand what I mean.

    777
    Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes a miracle to replace the fish that have been scourged from the sea in cases of overfishing? Surely those of us who represent fishing constituencies have a responsibility not only to argue the case to Ministers, but to warn our constituents of the dangers of overfishing. We should not raise false hopes.
    Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have effective enforcement, which of course starts at home. However, we must also look at the impact on our seas of all fishing fleets. We need to take into account other aspects, such as industrial fishing and whether or not they are sustainable and have a long-term impact on fish stocks. I know that many Members share an interest in that issue.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the fact that the Minister has just challenged the report by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on industrial fishing. I have that, that challenge extends to other aspects of the report. However, will he communicate to the Prime Minister the fact that it is not just the troops who are demoralised? The fishing communities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England are demoralised by the Prime Minister's apparent indifference to a crisis that threatens thousands of jobs. How does the fisheries Minister plan to engage the Government at the highest level to resist the total lunacy of the European Commission?
    Mr. Morley: First, the Government are engaged at the highest level to represent the needs of our fishing communities. We well understand the regional importance of the fishing industry and the implications and consequences of such changes. We cannot, however, deny the science. We must take it into account, but we must also challenge it. I make it clear to the House that the United Kingdom Government will not sign up to any issue until we have a clear understanding of any proposals and their justification. The restriction of the nephrops fishery, for example, was originally proposed because of the cod by-catch. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have done a great deal of scientific work on the cod by-catch in the North sea fishery. It is minimal, and he will note that calls for restriction have now been withdrawn by the Commission.

    Foundry Industry
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: How the capacity thresholds for the pollution prevention control regulations in the foundry industry are assessed; and if she will make a statement. [81210]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The regulations prescribe various capacity thresholds for different activities, including for the foundry industry, and derive from the EC directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. In assessing permit applications, regulators will determine
    778
    the capacity of an installation on a case-by-case basis. The starting point is the operator's description of the installation.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. There are concerns, particularly among small foundries, that they are being assessed on the basis of a theoretical 24-hour production capacity when in fact they have neither the moulding nor the cleaning capacity to operate for more than eight hours. As a result, the extra regulations would incur considerably increased costs, which could put some of them out of business. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to work with the small foundries to ensure that they are not inappropriately regulated?
    Mr. Meacher: I am happy to do so and consider the matter further. The precise definition of capacity thresholds is set out in the regulations. Operators should be clear whether they are subject to the full integrated pollution prevention and control regulations or, if they run the smaller operations about which my hon. Friend is concerned, only to air pollution controls. I repeat that the starting point for assessing an installation's capacity on a case-by-case basis is the operator's own description, but if there are problems that can be resolved under the regulations that are binding on all member states, I am happy to look at the details.

    Sheep Dips
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When she last discussed the efficacy of continued use of organophosphate sheep dips with representatives of (a) the medical profession and (b) the pharmaceutical industry. [81212]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The Veterinary Products Committee has considered the question of continued authorisation of organophosphate sheep dips on a number of occasions. Its most recent advice on that issue, provided in October, was that no new regulatory action was necessary at that time.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his reply, which is not encouraging. Over the past five years, compelling evidence has built up of the link between organophosphate toxins and the debilitating disease that they cause. For 10 years, there has been an all-party group on the issue. Is it not the case that the Government refuse to do anything until they are dragged kicking and screaming to the High Court, as happened with the miners' compensation issue?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman mixes two inappropriate comments. Following Government intervention, all OP sheep dips are now supplied in containers with enclosed transfer systems. A number of measures have been taken to ensure safety, and the advice of the specialists is as I stated in the reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that the Government have a special responsibility to the victims of OP poisoning, because for many years

    779
    those who were using OPs had to use them on Government instructions? Their use was not voluntary. The sheep dip was not simply an approved product; it was compulsory. Does the Minister therefore accept that there is a special responsibility to secure justice for those victims?
    Alun Michael: The Government have a responsibility to act on the best scientific advice. The original question was about the continuation of use, and it remains the view that there is currently no scientific justification for banning OP sheep dips. On the basis of the advice, precautionary measures to ensure people's safety have been taken by the Government.

    Livestock Industry
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the biosecurity regulations governing the livestock industry. [81215]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Extra biosecurity rules introduced in the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease outbreak are kept under review. Although standards of biosecurity have improved in some respects, there is no room for complacency.
    Mr. Wiggin: I welcome the action plan for the briefing session mentioned earlier. It is true that the 20-day rule has been adhered to extremely conscientiously by farmers, and I find it very positive that Customs and Excise will try to prevent smuggling, but will the Minister do more to prevent double standards being inflicted on farmers? We know that the Government are not bringing in amnesty bins and landing cards, and it strikes me as most unfair that when farmers are doing their very best on biosecurity the Government are not doing what they should be doing to support them.
    Mr. Morley: That is not the case. We accept that if we are trying to minimise the risk of disease, we must tackle various aspects of the problem. That must include borders and points of entry. We have introduced measures, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we want to do more. We must identify exactly where the risks are, and a risk assessment is currently under development. The Government accept our responsibilities—for example, for border control—but the livestock industry must recognise that it, too, has responsibilities to reduce the risk of disease, and that involves movement restrictions. We will discuss in due course whether the 20-day restriction is appropriate, but there must be restrictions and they must be permanent.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware of the criticism of the number of officials who are employed in livestock markets and collection centres to oversee biosecurity measures. Would not some of those people be better employed at airports and seaports to ensure that exotic animal diseases do not enter this country?
    Mr. Morley: Again, it is a question of risk and where resources are best applied. If we do not think carefully
    780
    about where the risks are, we could deploy a great deal of money, resources and people power, and not reduce risk. By their nature, livestock markets, where animals intermingle, are an area of extremely high risk, so biosecurity must apply. Markets recognise that and we acknowledge the work that they have done to reduce risk.

    Biofuels
    Mr. David Cameron: What representations she has received about tax treatment of biodiesel and other biofuels; and if she will make a statement. [81216]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government have received representations from industry, farmers and members of the public, both at meetings and in correspondence, requesting duty cuts for liquid biofuels. As with all tax matters, decisions on tax incentives rest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Cameron: I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that with farm incomes low and with the widespread concern about the waste of set-aside, biofuels—biodiesel—represent an excellent opportunity for farmers and for the environment? Is not the tax treatment of such fuels in other European countries, slightly more generous than in our country? Would the Minister please take that up with the Chancellor, preferably before next week?
    Mr. Meacher: I am keen to support agricultural diversification. Liquid biofuels have tremendous potential. The Government have set up the Government-industry forum on non-food uses of crops to investigate that potential. The Government have already taken action to promote the production of biofuels. As a result of the green fuels challenge, a new duty rate for biodiesel was set at 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. I am well aware of the argument that that rate needs to be lower. As I said, I hear the argument and the matter is one for the Chancellor. On the comparison with Europe, the 20p reduction is almost the average for the European Union; it is slightly below that level. I recognise that if the industry is to be viable and not only develop used vegetable oil, which is already coming forward, the argument must be very carefully looked at.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will continue to consider this matter in a very positive way? It must be recognised that, as we need to make changes in agricultural production to meet those in the common agricultural policy, the development of biofuels is an environmentally positive way of proceeding that deals with several situations at the same time. We should encourage agriculture and the National Farmers Union to work in that direction.
    Mr. Meacher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—this is a win-win situation in many respects. We are discussing a form of agricultural diversification that will certainly create more agricultural jobs and will produce

    781
    an alternative transport fuel that is much more environmentally sensitive. The issue—this has to be the issue—is that it has to be cost-effective. If further duty cuts are made, they will of course involve a reduction in revenue for the Exchequer. The opportunity costs of making those reductions as opposed to others are the essential issue that the Government have to bear in mind.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the frustration that is currently felt in the industry about the lack of leadership from the Government on this matter? People cannot plant crops unless they are sure that there is a processing plant to take the crops, and they cannot develop processing plants unless they know that there is a market for the fuel. Can he not see that much greater leadership needs to be shown, not only by his Department but by the Treasury?
    Mr. Meacher: It is not only a question of showing political leadership, as this is not a matter of political will. I was trying to tell the House that a cost is involved and that the process has to be cost-effective. Those are the calculations that the Treasury rightly has to make in considering the best way of using taxpayers' money, whether to promote an alternative form of agriculture, a new transport fuel or a reduction in greenhouse gases. I think that it can make a contribution in all those respects, but the hon. Gentleman needs to contain his frustration. The arguments are fully understood by the Government and I suggest that he wait to see what the Chancellor says in his pre-Budget report.

    Egg Industry
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What steps she has taken to ensure the future viability of the UK egg-laying industry. [81217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): DEFRA is committed to promoting sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming. The egg-laying industry is an important part of that objective.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: While I am grateful to the Minister for that apparently helpful reply, does he recognise that a prohibition on enriched cages in England after 2012 would result in egg imports from other parts of the United Kingdom and other European countries where the use of such cages has already been authorised? If the cages are prohibited after 2012, it will do absolutely nothing for animal welfare. Will he give the industry an assurance that enriched cages will be authorised?
    Mr. Morley: The Government have held a full and detailed consultation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about whether it would be appropriate to permit enriched cages post-2012. We have implemented the directive in full and in an unchanged form, but it is discretionary whether member states allow the cages to
    782
    be used after that date. I believe that it is important that we consider the issue as early as possible to allow the industry time to consider its future investment options.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the potential for competition from other countries that are not applying such systems. Some European countries have already said that they intend to prohibit such systems. However, we take the point seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was successful in obtaining a statement at Doha that world trade would take account of non-trade matters, precisely because of issues such as those that affect the egg industry. I shall not ignore the hon. Gentleman's point because we must take it into account.

    Electronic Equipment
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: For what elements of the implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive the Department is responsible. [81218]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Department of Trade and Industry is leading on negotiations of the WEEE directive, which is due to be approved by the Environment Council in December. Both the DTI and DEFRA are holding several focus group meetings with stakeholders on WEEE implementation. DEFRA takes the lead in implementing article 6 on permitting treatment facilities.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that the front-end responsibilities of producers of electrical and electronic goods are properly related to those of waste disposal authorities when the directive is implemented in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Meacher: Certainly. DEFRA remains in correspondence with the DTI about which Department should take the lead in the WEEE directive's implementation. We shall consider the strategy unit report when it is published shortly. It is important to ensure co-operation between both Departments because DEFRA leads on local authorities and dismantlers when implementing article 6, and the DTI plays a lead role in respect of retailers and manufacturers. Both should have clear responsibilities with regard to waste disposal authorities.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on levels of cases of bovine TB. [81220]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The number of new TB herd incidents recorded for Great Britain between 1 January and 30 September 2002 stands at just under 2,300, of which 417 are in Wales. That includes confirmed, unconfirmed and unclassified incidents.
    Mr. Edwards: In Monmouthshire, there have been 90 suspected cases, of which a third have already been confirmed. That causes considerable frustration to livestock farmers, who are affected by the increased costs of movement restrictions. Will my hon. Friend assure us that every effort is being made to resolve the crisis? When will the Krebs trials be completed and a vaccine developed?
    Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about bovine TB; we take it seriously. He knows that we recently allocated an additional £3 million to catch up with the backlog of testing that resulted from the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Testing was, of course, impossible then. The work has distorted the outbreak figures because we are testing in the most high risk areas first, and the figures that we get will not be representative of the spread and increase in bovine TB. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency.
    My hon. Friend knows that I recently announced a package of measures about changes in movement control. They are designed to help farmers who are under restriction because of TB.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Is there any correlation between the increase in bovine TB and that in human TB?
    There is a perception that badgers contribute to the spread of bovine TB. What analysis has been undertaken to determine whether badgers play a part in spreading the terrible disease?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the latter point. There has been a long-running debate about the link between badgers and bovine TB. It has gone on for approximately 20 years. The Krebs experiment is a five-year programme designed to consider the link and ascertain its importance once and for all. It is an important experiment that we must see through to completion.
    784
    There are two strains of TB—bovine and human. Human TB is therefore a different strain. The increase in it is due to the fact that people travel more widely. It is caused by global travel, not an increase in the cattle herd.

    Non-food Crops
    Alistair Burt: What proposals she intends to bring forward to support the promotion of non-food crops in the UK. [81221]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry are consulting stakeholders on establishing a new centre to bring together industry, academia and the research community to drive forward the commercial development of non-food uses of crops. DEFRA and the DTI are also considering a joint initiative to provide grant support to promote technology transfer through demonstration projects. The Government have allocated £70 million to develop markets for biomass in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation.
    Alistair Burt: Is the Minister aware of the excellent campaign being run by Farmers Weekly to draw attention to the non-food use of crops? Does he not feel some sympathy for its sense of a lack of urgency on the part of the Government? With such terrible prices being paid in the arable sector, the non-food use of crops—which has been on the cards for some time—could have been given rather more attention by the Government than it has been up to now.
    Mr. Meacher: I am very keen to make progress on this, as I said in answer to an earlier question. This is an important area for agricultural diversification. We set up the forum on the non-food use of crops in March last year to give us strategic advice, and it has now done so. We intend to respond to the forum's recommendations in early 2003. The centre of excellence that we propose to set up, which brings together the existing facilities in one central core, is a very good way forward. I am very keen that we should make real progress in this area.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I please ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 25 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Health (Wales) Bill.
THURSDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
FRIDAY 29 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his pre-Budget report on Wednesday 27 November.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day. There will be a debate in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party on a subject to be announced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guess!"] I would not dream of taking up such an invitation.
That will be followed by a debate on the convention on the future of Europe.
TUESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Communications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER—Estimates [1st allotted Day].
There will be a debate on the Government's drugs policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 5 December will be a debate on the report from the International Development Committee on global climate change and sustainable development.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. We are all aware that the long-awaited and much-anticipated Wicks report reached the public domain this morning. At this stage, may I put down a marker and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will guarantee that, at an appropriate time and after deliberations in the House, we will have an opportunity fully to debate the report, which has such a huge impact on the House and the way in which it works, and on its Members?
The Leader of the House may or may not be aware—I do not know how assiduously even he follows the proceedings of the European Parliament—that
786
yesterday the European Parliament produced a report on foot and mouth disease, which, in distinction to the rather dismal effort made in this country, was produced on the basis of public hearings. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is prepared to give time—probably early in the new year—for a debate on foot and mouth that will allow us to consider not only the findings of the final version of the European Parliament report but all the other investigations into that important subject, so that we can come to a proper conclusion?
Following the pre-Budget report next Wednesday, I hope that we shall have an opportunity soon thereafter for a full debate on the economy because it would appear from all reports that we are receiving that the gloss has gone off the Chancellor in particular. Following what he tells us in his pre-Budget report, we shall want to consider the state of the economy and of the Government's finances very carefully. Perhaps we shall see the Chancellor in an altogether new light. That would be an uplifting experience, certainly for those on the Conservative Benches, and it should happen in any case.
I want to ask the Leader of the House about the crisis in higher education. Is there such a crisis? The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education has told us that there is, which worries me, as I am sure it does you, Mr. Speaker, because we have all been brought up to believe in the doctrine of Government collective responsibility—a very important part of our constitutional and parliamentary arrangements. This Government, however, do not seem to have any collective responsibility, because the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education are busy flying kites on top-up tuition fees in higher education, while no less a figure than the Secretary of State for International Development has said that they are a bad idea.
Here we have two Cabinet members plus other Ministers all saying completely different things about an important policy area. Will the Leader of the House please arrange a debate on Government collective responsibility so that we can find out once and for all whether the Government have any collective view about anything at all or whether there is a permanent free-for-all in the Cabinet on important areas of responsibility?
Mr. George Foulkes: Unite or die!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Forth: I ask also for an urgent debate entitled "Honesty and Integrity in Government". The key figure in that debate, perhaps to everybody's surprise, would be Admiral Sir Michael Boyce—a man whose honesty and integrity are unimpeachable, a man for whom all of us on the Conservative Benches have the highest possible regard and a man whose word can be accepted without question on our Benches.
It appears, however, that things are rather different on the Government side. Sadly, when the admiral was asked yesterday about the impact on the effectiveness of the armed forces of their preparations for and

787
involvement in the firefighters' strike, he said, "I am extremely concerned". He is reported as going on to say that
"clearly we cannot perform at the fullest end of our operational capability".
That is the Chief of the Defence Staff stating his assessment of the impact of our domestic situation on our armed forces. In the light of that, the Secretary of State for Defence is reported as saying:
"I didn't actually hear him say 'extreme concern'."
Rather than have a debate, perhaps we should offer the Secretary of State an analysis of his hearing capability, because for the two to be at such odds is a serious matter.
It gets worse, because at column 639 of yesterday's Hansard, during PMPs—[Interruption.] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies. The Prime Minister was told that

"the Chief of the Defence Staff expressed his considerable concerns about what he described in this context as the present military effectiveness of the British armed forces in this respect."
The Prime Minister replied:
"The Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that."
The Prime Minister is now challenging the Chief of the Defence Staff on what he said. The Prime Minister went on to say that
"he said that we would have the full operational capability for any requirement that might be made of us."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 639.]
But the Chief of the Defence Staff had just said that we did not have the full operational capability.
We must have a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be left hanging in the air, because it goes to the heart not only of integrity and honesty in government, of which there seems to be precious little these days, but of the relationship between this country's top military man and members of the Cabinet. We must have a debate and we must sort this out once and for all.
Mr. Cook: Before I respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions, may I allude to a question he asked me last week about the number of written statements and the time when they were released? I am pleased to say that today there will again be 10 written statements, nine of which were laid before the business statement. The one exception is the statement on victims and witnesses, which the Home Office understandably wants to release at the same time as the publication of the Criminal Justice Bill at 2.30 this afternoon. I hope that the House will take some comfort from the fact that we are doing all we can to ensure that written statements are provided timeously, and that the House can benefit from a more transparent and open way of making announcements.
I have not yet had a chance to read all of the Wicks report, but I welcome one of its early conclusions:
"We believe that standards in the House of Commons are generally high. The overwhelming majority of Members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
I trust that I carry the House with me when I express the hope that tomorrow the press will give adequate coverage to that central conclusion of the Wicks committee.
788
The right hon. Gentleman is right—the House must have an opportunity to examine the report—but I would have thought that the appropriate time was when we had had an opportunity to reflect and to digest it. I would particularly like to know the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee before the House discusses it.
I think it would be slightly eccentric to debate a European Parliament report on foot and mouth when we already have a number of reports of our own, in Britain, about what happened. I am conscious of the deep interest in the matter, and we are keeping it in mind for a future debate; but, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, from now until the end of the year we shall have a very busy schedule, especially in dealing with Second Readings of the many excellent Bills in the Queen's Speech.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the state of the economy. I was a little perplexed to be pressed for a debate on that, given that, for the first time in my memory, the Opposition chose not to divide on the economy at the end of our debates on the Queen's Speech. That may of course reflect their recognition that they are not on the strongest ground when it comes to a record on the economy that has given us the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation—since the time of the Beatles, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in his speech—and a lower unemployment rate than any other major economy in Europe. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the gloss is still fully on the Chancellor, and that he looks forward with confidence to coming here on Wednesday and robustly defending the Government's economic record.
Let me also say this to my— to the right hon. Gentleman. I nearly called him my right hon. Friend, and would not necessarily resile from that but for its parliamentary connotations. I think it took a bit of brass neck for him to lecture the Government on the principle of collective responsibility. Only in the past week have we seen him restored to his place in the Chamber so that we can see his face again. Let me gently suggest that this may be an instance in which those in glass houses might hesitate before throwing stones.
As the House knows, preparation is currently being made for a review of higher education, which will be published in the new year. I am sure that when it is published the House will want to debate it, and explore the options that it presents.
There will of course be a debate on Iraq next week, when the House, if it wishes, will be able to discuss the military preparedness of the armed forces for any conflict that may arise. Of course everyone, whether in the military or not, would like the fire strike threatened for tomorrow not to take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been working so hard to find a basis on which talks and negotiations can continue. We strongly urge the parties to the dispute to remain at the negotiating table rather than take strike action, but I am confident that if they take such action the armed forces and other personnel will do all that they can to try to provide the best possible alternative cover, and will rise to the task with no complaints.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House notice that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) endorsed the question to the Prime Minister from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday rather than supporting his own leader? Does that not show where the real opposition is?
On the Wicks committee, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would like to comment on the fact that the report on the standards of conduct of the House of Commons—a report that could not be more relevant to Members of Parliament—was presented to the media at 11 am this morning, but was not available to Members until 11.20 because of "a technical hitch". Moreover, the written statement from the Prime Minister was not available in the Library until 11.30. Surely on this occasion at least, Members of the House should be given priority. Will the Leader of the House accept that the intention behind the Modernisation Committee's proposal that we should do away with the farcical charade of question planters was to give the whole House such information at the earliest possible opportunity? Does he accept that simply leaving it to the Standards and Privileges Committee to come back to the House with a review of the Wicks committee report will not be sufficient? After all, that Committee is itself under some attack from the recommendations of the Wicks committee.
Has the Leader of the House had time to consider Mr. Speaker's statement of yesterday, in response to a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about the obligation of Ministers and their Departments to give full, honest and accurate answers to parliamentary questions? Has the Leader of the House considered the particular point made by Mr. Speaker that he hoped that steps would be taken
"to ensure that that does not happen again."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 645.]?
Will the Leader of the House examine, across the whole of Government, examples that my colleagues and I have discovered of the way in which the parliamentary question has been debased by some Departments?
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House whether there could be pre-legislative scrutiny of the civil service legislation that we still hope to see in this Session—even if only in draft form—given that the Wicks committee's work on the politicisation of civil servants is intensely relevant to the reputation of this Government and this Parliament.
Mr. Cook: The decision on the release of the Wicks committee report was in the first instance a matter for that committee—it was in its hands to decide when it chose to publish it. I regret that the report was not simultaneously available in the Vote Office, and we did take steps to make sure that it was made available as quickly as possible. I regret the delay, and I must be frank with the House and say that, at the time of coming to the Chamber, I was unable to get to the bottom of the reason for that delay. I shall pursue the matter when I leave the Chamber, but the report is now available in the Vote Office, and is available to hon. Members.
I should say that I did not imply that a report from the Standards and Privileges Committee would itself be sufficient, but I do think it desirable. I would hope that,
790
before we have what will necessarily be a wide-ranging discussion in the House, involving Members who are not necessarily members of that Committee, the Committee and its Chairman should advise us on how we should proceed, and on how we should assess the recommendations.
I vigorously rebut the idea that the parliamentary answer has been in any way debased. Indeed, only in the past month or two, I made a submission to the Procedure Committee, robustly defending the parliamentary answers provided by Government. There are of course occasions when they are not adequate, and for that reason an apology was given this week to Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). We shall seek to do all that we can to prevent any further administrative mix-up that results in the wrong information being provided to a Member. However, I ask the House to bear in mind that the volume of parliamentary answers has almost doubled in the course of this Parliament since the last election. We are seeking to cope with the very welcome interest of Members in the work of government and the excellent work that we are doing, but sometimes that is challenging.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about bringing forward civil service legislation in draft form. I understand why he proposes that—there would be considerable interest in such legislation. Whether we will have such legislation in this Session I am currently not in a position to say, but I shall bear in mind the view that, should such legislation be brought forward, it might be helpful, if circumstances allow, for it to be seen in draft.
Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the sale of the Herald Newspaper Group by the Scottish Media Group, and of the deep concern of many that one of the bidders is the Barclay brothers, owners of The Scotsman. May I ask my right hon. Friend to provide time in the House to discuss the future of newspaper media in Scotland, and in particular to discuss the developing monopoly situation and how competition policy can seek to broaden the range of the available newspaper media in Scotland?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable interest in Scotland. I am sure that it will be a considerable talking point at next week's dinner organised by The Herald, at which many hon. Members will be present.
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Mr. Cook: I do not think that our independence of judgment on this question will be suborned, but we will wish to seek views, and it is possible that we will even express views in the course of that dinner. My hon. Friend is right that one of the objectives that we should try to achieve in the media is to ensure that there is competition and an alternative point of view. Anyone who knows of the long-standing rivalry between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be aware of the importance of those two cities having distinct daily newspapers to cover their populations. My hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that there exist well known and well worn

791
systems by which we can ensure that any merger in the media industry is subject to adequate competition checks.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I agree with the Leader of the House about the Wicks report, and I understand that neither he nor anyone else has had a chance to reflect fully on its recommendations. However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 15 of the report, which states:
"We have recommended…that no party should have an overall majority on the Committee"
on Standards and Privileges. To many hon. Members, that seems a good idea. May I urge the Leader of the House to consider it most carefully?
Mr. Cook: I have the highest regard for all those who serve on the Standards and Privileges Committee. They are not on it to follow any party line, and no party line is ever given to them. They serve as hon. Members with independent minds, and often show robust independence. That is to be welcomed. I would hesitate to introduce a party quota system in that Committee, and to place on the official Opposition the burden of providing even more members of Committees, when they plainly have so much difficulty in finding enough Back Benchers to staff present requirements.
David Taylor: In relation to the question from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I believe that all reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee have been unanimous.
My question concerns the launch by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 July of a long consultation on the future of British aviation. The consultation period ends in nine days, on 30 November. Many of my constituents have had great difficulty in obtaining the appropriate documentation for the submission of their views. The Department of Transport has resolutely refused to extend the consultation period. Has my right hon. Friend had any intimation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that there will be time for a debate between 30 November and the rising of the House four weeks today? Such a debate would allow us to look at some of the issues associated with this very flawed consultation period.
Mr. Cook: I must disabuse the House of the idea that there will be many free days in the period to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I fully understand the enormous importance of this issue to many constituents and to many hon. Members. The consultation period has gone on for four months already, which is significantly longer than the standard period. I can understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport should feel that the time may have come to draw that consultation to a close, but that will not and cannot be the end of the debate. I am very much aware that hon. Members will want to continue to contribute to the debate on the options that may be selected, and that from time to time it will be necessary for views to be aired in the Chamber.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Education Secretary come to the House to say why, with our EU
792
partners, he has signed up to five very important targets for our education system up to 2010? Those targets will limit our right to fashion education policy in this House. Will he also ask the Transport Secretary to come to the House to comment on rumours that our open skies agreement with the US is now deemed illegal and will have to be denounced by the Government?
Mr. Cook: I welcome any opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to come to the House and remind hon. Members of the Government's success in attaining the targets for education in the UK that the Government set. For example, we inherited a situation where many infant school classes had more than 30 children, and we have resolved that problem. We have also achieved the best ever literacy and numeracy levels in primary schools, and the best ever GCSE results. In addition, we have the largest ever number of students going into higher education. All those targets were made in Britain and delivered in Britain by this Government.
Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on competition policy following the decision by Tesco to merge with T and S stores, which will have a serious effect on local convenience stores in my constituency and in those of other right hon. and hon. Members? This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, which has extended the time to consider a referral for a competition inquiry, but surely the House can debate these matters in the meantime.
Mr. Cook: It is of course entirely open to hon. Members to express their views and my hon. Friend has found an ingenious way of putting his view on the record. He is correct that the matter is before the director general of fair trading, who will consider whether to make a report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate for any Minister to go further than that or for the House to debate it. However, I fully understand the importance to our constituents of convenience stores as well as supermarkets, as my hon. Friend reminds us.
Mr. Keith Simpson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised with the Leader of the House the press conference yesterday in which the Chief of the Defence Staff effectively contradicted the Secretary of State for Defence about the readiness of the armed forces. This is not a light matter. In the past there have been disagreements between senior military officers and the Government in power and sometimes those have leaked out, but this matter is of fundamental constitutional importance. I should like to know whether the Leader of the House has had any indication that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House and say that he is wrong, in which case I suppose that he would have to resign, or that he has no confidence in the Chief of the Defence Staff, in which case he would have to resign.
Mr. Cook: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not working for one of the tabloids because he has

793
managed to over-polarise and over-sensationalise yesterday's exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course he has. The Chief of the Defence Staff has certainly not expressed any lack of confidence in the Secretary of State, nor argued with him. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious—which the press always find particularly sensational—that if 19,000 troops are engaged in firefighting duties, they are not available for other purposes. Nobody would seek to deny that. I very much hope that we are successful in averting a firefighters' dispute so that those 19,000 troops are free for their military duties. However, I have not heard any reluctance from anybody in the military on the part of those 19,000 troops and their officers to undertake what they are tasked with by the Government in making sure that they provide for public safety. I am sure that many will willingly do it, perhaps with rather greater commitment than the hon. Gentleman has shown.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early statement on the unfolding environmental catastrophe off the coast of Galicia in Spain? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1997 more than 80 oil tankers have gone to the bottom, polluting the seas, and that single-hull tankers such as the Prestige will not be banned until 2015? Given that the UK is a leading maritime nation, why can we not join President Chirac in calling for an immediate ban on single-hull tankers?
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to misrepresent the position of President Chirac, but I was Foreign Secretary at the time—I am prompted on this by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who was the shipping Minister at the time—and in fact President Chirac agreed to the joint effort of the UK and the Netherlands in achieving agreement within the International Maritime Organisation. If I may put the record right, we will not have to wait until 2015 to ban ships such as the Prestige —they will be banned from 2007 under the agreement that was taken with the IMO and reflected in European Union directives.
Having said that, I fully share my hon. Friend's sense of gravity about the environmental disaster that has occurred to a coastline that I know well, which is renowned for its fishing industry and the excellence of its fish diet. This is a grave tragedy, and I hope that the investigation will provide clear pointers as to who is responsible for the disaster.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to tell us when he will publish new legislation on policing for Northern Ireland? Given the recent suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly following the discovery of a republican spy ring at Stormont, does he agree that such a Bill should not include further concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA as that would further damage the morale of the police in Northern Ireland, which is already at an all-time low?
Mr. Cook: I am not able to respond at present to the hon. Gentleman's question as to when such a Bill might be published, but I take note of what he says and I fully
794
understand that whenever such a measure is brought before the House the debate will inevitably be coloured by recent events in Northern Ireland.
Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will know that since 1997 the Government have given unrivalled support to public transport and that subsidy for bus services, especially in rural areas, is available as never before. However, does he know that in urban constituencies such as mine there is high car use and traffic congestion, and that no bus service is available to the people of Caversham in my constituency in the evenings or on Sundays? Will he find time for a debate on this issue, which is urgent for all of us, especially in the south-east of England?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct to point out that substantial additional resources are going into public transport in the rural areas—from memory, I think that the extra amount of such support is more than £200 million. The system is working extremely well but we are not, of course, the bus operator. In many places, as a result of the actions of the previous Administration, companies are overwhelmingly in private hands. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the impact on her constituents and I assure her that we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that the quality of life in rural areas is maintained.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I believe that it is the objective of the Leader of the House that the activities of Parliament, especially the House of Commons, should be more relevant and transparent to those whom we represent. Bearing in mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has announced debates for the next fortnight on referendums, which affect local government, on the future of Europe and on Iraq, does he not believe that the House should spend more time debating rather than legislating? Would it be possible for two days to be allocated for some of the bigger and more important debates, as has been historically the case, so that more Members can express their view and the Government can be made aware of the views of the people we represent about the critical issues that will be before the House?
Mr. Cook: I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we have to get the right balance between legislation and debates, between scrutiny and issues of general concern to our constituents. At this stage of the Session it is important for the House that the scrutiny of legislation announced in the Queen's Speech is under way. Indeed, it is in the interests of every Member that adequate time is available for the scrutiny of Bills, which is why it is important to get the process started. From now until Christmas there will be a high proportion of Second Reading debates, but the more of them we can get out of the way at an early date, the more room there will be for general debates after Christmas.
Mr. Iain Luke: Is the Leader of the House aware of an early-day motion that I tabled late in the previous Session, commemorating the election, 80 years ago last Friday, of the only prohibitionist Member to serve in the House, Mr. Edwin Scrymgeour? Given the proposals in the Queen's Speech to extend

795
licensing hours in England, will my right hon. Friend agree to hold a debate on the financial and social costs for the UK taxpayer of alcohol abuse?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: After Christmas.
Mr. Cook: Possibly it would be timely for Christmas.
The fact that only one prohibitionist has been elected to the House in 80 years may say something about the general views of our constituents, to whom I think the new licensing laws will be broadly welcome. However, there are other social factors to which my hon. Friend referred and we must vigorously continue to tackle them, as we are doing through the provisions of the national health service. The House will have an opportunity to debate the issues when the Bill is introduced, which will, I anticipate, be in good time.
Mr. Michael Jack: Within the past two hours, some further sad and worrying news has come from Spain—the crash of a pre-production prototype of the Eurofighter. Thankfully, the crew baled out without loss of life and I understand that there were no civilian casualties. However, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, there will be uncertainties and important questions for the tens of thousands of aerospace workers in the north-west of England whose jobs are dependent on the future success of the project. Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes a statement on the matter at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Cook: Eurofighter is an immense project, which is of great importance to the British aviation industry, as well as for Europe's defence strategy. I very much hope that any necessary questions will be pursued to find out what may have gone wrong on this occasion. One incident, however serious and life threatening, does not itself call the project into question, so I counsel the right hon. Gentleman not to demand answers more quickly than it is possible for any sensible investigation to find them.
Mr. Martin Salter: I too should like to ask the Leader of the House about the vexed question of top-up fees in universities, not in the context of Cabinet collective responsibility but in relation to when Parliament will have an opportunity to express a view on the matter, rather than being sidelined while we take part in what appears at the moment to be something of a spectator sport. Bearing in mind the fact that more than 100 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 2, is it not high time that a debate was granted on top-up fees for universities so that the views of our constituents can be properly aired?
[That this House notes with concern that a number of elite universities are making contingency plans for top up fees, which would create a two tier university system; and urges the Government to adhere to its policy of ruling out such extra charges in this and successive future parliaments.]
Mr. Cook: As I have already told the House, the Government will publish a review in the new year.
796
From the exchanges today and other occasions, I am certainly well aware of the enormous interest in the matter in the House and the wish that the House will undoubtedly have to debate it, but it seems more appropriate that the House should debate the issue when it has before it a review and a statement of options, rather than in the abstract and in the absence of such a focus for debate. The review will not propose hard-cut single options; it will provide a variety of options, and it will be for the House to express its view on them and it will be fully involved.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his comments about holding a debate on Iraq next Monday. Clearly, that is a deeply important subject, but the public conflict between the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State for Defence is equally important and deserves not to be subsumed in another debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House to explain the anomalies of view between those two individuals?
Mr. Cook: Of course the Secretary of State for Defence will be here on Monday. The debate will most certainly involve those who handle our affairs, and it will be perfectly plain that we will want to ensure that there is full preparation if the military are required in Iraq, but I would advise the House that we require a certain maturity. There is no suggestion in anything said by the Chief of the Defence Staff that he is opposed to any involvement in Iraq if that is required, no suggestion that the services are not ready for that and no suggestion that they are not willing to undertake the duties that are required to stand in for the firemen if the latter go into dispute. The obvious solution to all those problems is that we avert the dispute, but if we cannot do so I do not believe that the Chief of the Defence Staff is seriously saying that he cannot undertake the necessary duties.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Unscrupulous commercial landlords can buy houses in my constituency for about £8,000, put tenants in them without making those houses decently habitable and then not concern themselves at all about the antisocial behaviour of those tenants. My constituents hope that that major issue will be dealt with in the draft housing Bill, which was proposed in the Queen's Speech. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can give us an idea of when that Bill might be published and when we might therefore be able to start its pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. The issue that he raises is a repeated concern in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies. Of course what makes it particularly serious is that communities that are already on a knife-edge as to whether they can survive are often destabilised by the actions of such unscrupulous landlords. That is why we propose to provide local authorities with the necessary powers in the forthcoming housing Bill. I anticipate that my hon. Friend will have sight of that draft some time in the new year and with good time for pre-legislative scrutiny to take place in this Session.
Dr. Evan Harris: We look forward to the Second Reading of the local

797
government Bill in due course, but I would be grateful to the Leader of the House if he clarified whether it is the Government's policy to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, as I was unable to get a clear answer on that yesterday. Will he also clarify why the Government have asked Back Benchers to propose such amendments usually on Report, rather than putting the provision in the Bill itself so that it can be debated fully in Committee?
Mr. Cook: I recall that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment on section 28, but on the proceedings in relation to the Bill, it is perfectly valid to table amendments on Report. Indeed, that is a good way for the full temper and view of the House to be heard in a way that cannot be done in Committee, which necessarily consist of only 16 hon. Members. I would robustly resist any suggestion that an amendment tabled on Report is in any way a lesser amendment, and in view of the debates that may take place in the other place, I would suggest that it is not in the hon. Gentleman's interest to press that view either.
Mr. Tom Harris: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when it will have an opportunity to debate the Government's proposed tax on plastic carrier bags, the environmental benefits of which are not as clear-cut as some of its supporters might assume? I ask that because a company called Simpac in my constituency may have to consider laying off up to 40 people if the tax is introduced in its current form. I will have an opportunity to debate the matter next week in Westminster Hall, but all Members would welcome knowing when we will have an opportunity to consider the proposed legislation.
Mr. Cook: Any such legislation is a long way away. All we are considering at present is what may be in a performance and innovation unit report that will come out next week. I have read reports in the press that I suspect may be slightly coloured versions of what may be in that review. I invite my hon. Friend to study it with care when it comes out next week, and to vigorously express any view that he feels is appropriate before any legislation is on the horizon.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The Leader of the House will surely recall that the Scottish electorate, prior to their referendum for new strata of government, were promised that the cost of their Parliament would not exceed £40 million. With that price now escalating towards £400 million, and with the prospect of the Scottish Parliament having to meet in a public house from September next year, what opportunities will there be for us to make clear to the English regions the poor experience in Scotland of regional government, and to do what we can to explore the issue with every possible means?
Mr. Cook: It is for the English regions to consider those factors that they think are relevant when they come to judge whether they wish to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly for themselves. They will no doubt consider many factors, including some of the extremely popular, distinctive polices that have been pursued by the Scottish Executive, and the fact that we
798
have been successful in passing 10 times as many Scottish Acts in the Scottish Parliament as we ever would have passed at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman should be honest with the Chamber and with his constituents, too. If he is really proposing that his party would abolish the Scottish Parliament and end devolution, he should say so. If he is not saying that, he should stop carping from the sidelines.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I wonder whether you noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how untypical it was of the Leader of the House to fail to look in the eye my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) or my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) when they raised their points about the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff's extreme concern about the state of the armed forces under this Government. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about whether he still has confidence—as he should have—in the Chief of the Defence Staff, even though the Chief of the Defence Staff evidently has no confidence in him?
Mr. Cook: This story is now spiralling out into the stratosphere. At no point did the Chief of the Defence Staff say that he had no confidence in the Secretary of State for Defence. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has no right to misrepresent the Chief of the Defence Staff, whose words should be treated with greater respect than he is showing for them. Nor did the Chief of the Defence Staff say anything about this Administration's neglect of the armed forces, probably because, as he also served under the previous Conservative Government, he is aware that this Government is the first for 20 years to start to increase defence spending, unlike the massive cuts that he witnessed under the Conservative Administration.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I take the Leader of the House back to the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), my Leicestershire neighbour, about the questionnaire in the consultation on the future development of air transport in the midlands? May we have a statement specifically on the questionnaire from the Secretary of State for Transport? Not only have my constituents found that they have had to wait months to get a copy of the questionnaire, but it is so hopelessly flawed that it includes the following question:
"Would you like a greater number of flights from the Midlands to London, or is the current number adequate?"
There are no flights from the midlands to London.
The questionnaire has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. On the basis of this questionnaire, there is a proposal to ruin all the ground between Coventry and Rugby. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on this questionnaire?
Mr. Cook: I am aware that there have been a number of complaints about the consultation process, and they will obviously have to be taken into account by those assimilating the response to it. However, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are more airports in the midlands than East Midlands airport. I am not entirely sure that they necessarily agree with him.
Pete Wishart: What assurance can the Leader of the House give us that Monday's debate on Iraq will give us the opportunity to consider a proposition that would compel the Government to seek a United Nations mandate before any military is taken in Iraq? Given that so little separates those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches on this issue, we are unlikely to have an amendment from them. Will he therefore use his considerable influence to ensure that we can consider such a proposition, that it is properly debated and that, if necessary, we can divide the House on the future role of the UN?
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the motion for next Monday says. The final part states that, if Iraq fails to comply fully,
"the Security Council should meet to consider the situation and the need for full compliance."
I cannot imagine any responsible Member of the House who is committed to the UN as the authority for peace and security in the world objecting in any way to any part of that phrase.
Mr. Mark Francois: On Monday, the House will debate the very serious prospect of going to war with Iraq. However, yesterday, there was an official Ministry of Defence press conference at which the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff were publicly at variance about the degree of strain placed on the armed forces by having both to prepare for that conflict and to cover for the firemen's strike. Who does the Leader of the House believe is right—the Secretary of State for Defence or the principal military adviser to the Cabinet?
Mr. Cook: I have to say that there is nothing original left to say on the topic, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has found it. Let me put a question to Conservative Members. If they are really saying that they believe that the conclusion of the Chief of the Defence Staff is that he cannot sustain a military action in Iraq and also handle the fire dispute if that disputes proceeds—is that what they are claiming he said?—will they tell the House which of the two they would jettison and not carry out?
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to ask
800
Opposition Members to respond to a question when they have no opportunity to do so under the procedures of the House? It is clear that the response that we would be able to give is perfectly capable of coping with his question, because we would point out that the extreme concern expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff is about a matter of overstretch, which the Government have consistently and wrongly denied is taking place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That matter has probably been aired sufficiently. No doubt it can be aired again if that is the wish of hon. Members.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(REPRESENTATION)
    Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Secretary Helen Liddell and Secretary Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision enabling alterations to be made to the total number of Members of the European Parliament to be elected for the United Kingdom and to their distribution between the electoral regions; to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of an electoral region including Gibraltar for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 7].
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Secretary Helen Liddell, Secretary Peter Hain, Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper, presented a Bill to make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service; to amend Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 8].

Common Fisheries Policy
[Relevant document: European Union document No. 12137/02, Commission Communication, a strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture.]
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union documents No. COM (02) 181, Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ("Roadmap"), No. COM (02) 185, draft Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, No. COM (02) 187, draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, No. COM (02) 190, draft Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels, No. COM (02) 186, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. COM (02) 180, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and supports the Government's objectives, which are to work for a Common Fisheries Policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable, to strengthen the Common Fisheries Policy's regional dimension, to increase industry involvement in decisions on fisheries management and conservation and improve the dialogue between fishermen and scientists, to increase the integration of environmental concerns into fisheries management, to introduce clearer procedures for responding quickly to conservation emergencies, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, to ensure greater effectiveness and consistency in control and enforcement of European Union requirements, while attempting to simplify the burden of control on fishermen, to improve the value for money of third country agreements and their coherence with development and environmental objectives and to promote the effective operation of Regional Fisheries Organizations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
Mr. Morley: I am pleased that the House has an opportunity to debate the take-note motion on the European documents, particularly in the light of the circumstances of which we are all aware. I refer to the Commission proposals and to the very bad recommendations from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in relation to the state of North sea stocks and cod, in particular.
The debate was originally scheduled to give Members an opportunity to discuss the proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. That was important in that it would have allowed them to contribute their views. However, we cannot ignore the severe scientific advice on the state of stocks, and nothing could underline more clearly the need for the Council of Ministers to take brave and radical decisions on the future shape of the CFP. We are debating the issue at the right time, because the time for decision is the December meeting of the Council of Ministers. It will not be an
802
easy meeting—they never are—because the December Council will have to consider the annual quotas, the recovery plan and the finalisation of the CFP review.
Sir Robert Smith: It is more urgent than the Minister suggests. Negotiations with Norway are taking place now and the results will set the framework for the meeting of Ministers. So it is crucial that we are aware of the arguments about the latest scientific information and the more subtle messages that come from it.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although we can make progress on some stocks in the agreement between the European Union and Norway, as we will on pelagic stocks and saithe, the outcome of discussions on the North sea and the cod recovery programme will greatly influence decisions on other stocks.
David Burnside: Can the Minister be more specific when he refers to the North sea? Does he mean just the North sea or all the seas around the British isles, including the Irish sea? He is well aware that conservation in the Irish sea is more advanced in respect of moratoriums during the spawning period. We hope that we can defend the North sea and the Irish sea, but can he be more precise?
Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in my methodical way I am working my way around the seas around the coast. I have no intention of underestimating the possible impact on the Irish sea, the west coast of Scotland or the western approaches. I am the United Kingdom Minister and it is my responsibility to pay heed to the whole of the country and every region in it, which I intend to do. I will specifically address the Irish sea. I understand that particular issues are a priority for fishing industries in particular regions. I work closely with the devolved Administrations and listen carefully to their views so that I ensure that the concerns of their fishing industries are taken into account.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am glad that the Minister mentioned the science. The report by the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management shows that the haddock spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1971; the saithe spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1976; and the whiting spawning stock biomass is the largest it has been since 1991. Prawn stocks are also robust. Even the spawning stock biomass for cod, which is low, has increased 27 per cent. since last year. Given that, where did the recommendations for a total closure or draconian cuts come from, because they are in no way supported by the underlying scientific figures?
Mr. Morley: With respect, we need to interpret the science carefully, including those figures. Although some of them are encouraging, the underlying trends are not good for any stock, including haddock and whiting. It is true that there is a good year class in haddock. One of my objectives is to ensure that we manage that successfully so that we have a sustainable haddock fishery. I wish I could show the House a chart on the

803
spawning biomass of cod. Although we can argue about the details of fishery science, which is not a precise art, there is no question about the trends, and the trend for North sea cod is demonstrated by a line that plummets below its safe spawning biomass.
The situation is serious. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), have written to me about it and I propose to invite MPs, especially those from the North sea fishing ports, to attend a meeting to talk about the science in more detail. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I will try to ensure that one of our scientists attends the meeting to discuss those figures, their interpretation and exactly what they mean.
Andrew George: No one questions the seriousness of the problem, but does the Minister accept that the science is largely based on estimates made earlier this year? It does not take proper account of the effect of the technical and other measures in place, some of which have been taken unilaterally by the industry. Those measures might lead to a significant perceptible improvement in the spawning stock biomass for cod in the North sea later this year.
Mr. Morley: Much has been done in this country. We have not been sitting around doing nothing when we have been considering the science. We identified that cod in particular was in some difficulties. That is why, since 2000, we have embarked on a number of recovery programmes, particularly in the Irish sea. The industry is to be congratulated on its involvement in the success of those programmes. We have a long way to go, however, in achieving recovery from a low base.
The hon. Gentleman is right about what we have done, and those actions must be taken into account—I shall say more about that in a moment.
Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he has been characteristically generous in doing so. He is aware that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking into fishing at the moment. We have just come back from Brussels, where we received a gloomy message on stocks. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent scientific investigation into discard? We should look at the amount being thrown back, as that is completely unacceptable, not only in the operation of a modern industry, but in economic terms—we are almost paying people to cheat or not care about conservation. If my hon. Friend could initiate such an investigation, his epitaph would record that he had sorted the problem out.
Mr. Morley: I am always looking for a good epitaph. My hon. Friend is right—discard is a bane of fisheries management. We hear a lot about marketable fisheries thrown over the side of a boat because the quota has been exceeded. We do not hear very much, however, about high grading or undersized and unmarketable fish which are thrown over the side in large quantities in fisheries in all European Union states. We need to tackle that. Incidentally, one of the proposals concerns effort management on kilowatt days, which I know is
804
controversial in the fishing industry. However, I talk to it a lot about discards, and always make it clear that I am prepared to look at alternative management approaches to reducing them. The annual quota is one method, and has some benefits. However, the only alternative to a quota system that promotes discarding is a form of effort management along the lines of kilowatt days.
There are mixed views in the industry about that approach, which does not invite universal opposition—there are people who support it. At this stage, where we are negotiating with the Commission, looking at options and talking to the industry, I do not rule any approach out or in.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister said that we need to tackle discards. Surely, the scientific research from the research voyages conducted for Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Executive shows that we have tackled discards? The summary of the findings shows that there is a 70 per cent. escape of marketable whiting and a 50 per cent. escape of marketable haddock. When the fishermen went to Brussels on Monday, the Commission said that it had not even considered the scientific evidence for fishing with big mesh and square mesh panels. When will it do so, and when will that be introduced?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's comment is true. I am not aware of any evidence in the figures or proposals that takes into account what we have done in this country. I repeat: we have not been sitting back waiting for the situation to get out of hand. There has been a reduction in effort in the UK fleet, and I will ensure that that is taken into account.
Mr. John Hayesrose—
Mr. Morley: It is only courteous to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but may I first point out that this is a standard European debate? When I discussed the procedure for this debate, my office assured me that it would not be an hour of intensive questions, as it normally is. I do not duck that approach, but I want to develop my argument and give other hon. Members a chance to contribute.
Mr. Hayes: In that helpful spirit, I shall limit my interventions to one, as I shall have a chance to challenge the Minister's assertions later. He talked about discards and the industry's efforts. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was right that those efforts have been considerable, but that is not universally so. I draw to the Minister's attention a producer in the south-west who was told by his French counterpart, "Of course we stick to the rules. We only sell officially those fish that can be sold within the rules—the others are sold unofficially." Fish that should have been discarded were being marketed. That is happening widely in other countries, even though their industry is playing it by the book.
Mr. Morley: This year we prosecuted 200 people in the UK who held similar views to the French, so let us not think that everything is perfect in our own country. I shall say a few words about that in a moment.

805
Let me focus on reform of the common fisheries policy. There is a link between CFP reform, recovery plans and quotas. We must discuss a number of aspects of the hake and cod recovery plan, which will be dealt with in the December Council. The background to all these issues, which we cannot ignore, is that fishing mortality is too high and is unsustainable. Stocks are diminishing, and although the instruments used under the CFP so far, such as total allowable catches and technical measures, have had some effect, they have failed to produce the reduction in fishing effort on depleted stocks that is fundamentally required. There are various reasons for that, not all to do with the CFP.
Mr. A. J. Beith: When the Minister speaks of fish mortality, he must surely recognise that fish caught for human consumption are but a tiny portion of fish mortality. Compared with the effects of Danish industrial fishing, what power stations do to fisheries stocks, what seals take and what seabirds take, the amount fished for human consumption is very small. The Minister must ensure that we concentrate our efforts on producing a satisfactory basis for that.
Mr. Morley: Yes, but we must see the problem in perspective. There is natural mortality within the fish stock, and the biggest predator on fish is other fish. There are other impacts, which I do not discount, but we cannot get away from the fact that there is a natural cycle of mortality and that fishing at an unsustainable level is not natural and will lead to a terminal downward spiral of the stocks. We cannot allow that to happen.
Miss Anne Begg: I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that one of the problems of the CFP is that when stocks become unsustainable the suggestion is that one of the fisheries should be closed—in this case, the cod fishery. The processors in my constituency are afraid that if the cod fishing grounds are closed they will not have access to the haddock and whiting. They are terrified—that is genuine, and it happens every three years—that their whole business will be wiped out, because the skills will be lost if those fisheries are closed even for a year. People will go off to other jobs. It happened with the herring a couple of decades ago, and people are anxious that it should not happen this time. For them, the closing of the cod fishery would be the worst decision.
Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. She and colleagues from Aberdeen have arranged meetings with me about their processors. I understand their concerns and their vulnerability. That is an example of the balance that we must achieve in our approach to the problem. I recognise that onshore jobs will be affected by what happens to jobs at sea. I assure my hon. Friend that that is always at the back of my mind.
On the package of measures relating to the CFP, we strongly support many of the suggestions. There are measures covering the scrapping of vessels, and deals for the granting of subsidies. The Commission's CFP reform package also includes an action plan, which we endorse, to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, a communication on integration of environmental protection requirements into the CFP, which we support, and action plans on aquaculture and on the management
806
of fisheries in the Mediterranean, which are based on very sensible ideas. The UK welcomes the fact that care for the environment and the adoption of the precautionary approach to stock management are watchwords of the Commission's whole CFP package.
On the basic package before us, one of the key elements that we strongly support is the abolition across the EU of subsidies for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. Given the problems that we face with regard to fish stocks, it makes no sense to subsidise the building of more efficient fishing vessels. We will strongly support the Commission on that. We also support a commitment to put in place recovery plans for fish stocks shown by science to be outside safe biological limits, as well as multi-annual management plans for other stocks. We think that that is the right way forward.
We support a commitment to establishing effort controls among the management options available in both recovery plans and multi-annual management plans. It is now difficult to believe that the sort of adjustments needed in fishing efforts can be achieved without some element of direct control. We will have to explore that issue.
We support the retention of relative stability. Indeed, that is one of our key negotiating positions. The retention of relative stability is absolutely essential as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy. It provides the basis for dividing fishing opportunities among member states, which is important if we are to avoid the development of extra pressure on already depleted stocks such as those in the North sea. Related to that issue is the question of Hague preference, which the Commission says will be taken into account in the future allocation of quotas. Again, we strongly welcome that. For us, it must simply mean that Hague preference is retained so that UK fishermen continue to benefit at times when quotas are low, with a recognition of the special circumstances of our fishing communities and the history of fishing in the UK and of our relationship with the European Union.
We also support retention of the current restrictions on access to member states' 12-mile limits, which the Commission proposed should be given a permanent basis. We will certainly support that proposal. We support renewal of the Shetland box, which we believe is justified on socio-economic and conservation grounds, and a stronger role for the Commission in monitoring member states' enforcement of the rules and promoting co-operation among member states on enforcement—another matter that has been raised in interventions.
One of our key objectives is putting in place regional advisory councils, drawing together for the first time all stakeholders in fisheries that are of interest to more than one member state. Our idea is that the councils would develop management measures and recommend them to the Commission and Council of Ministers for adoption. We believe that that innovation is vital if we are to improve the effectiveness of management measures. Fishermen in particular need to know that their views count—we need to assure them of that—and to have confidence in the measures that are adopted and some input into decisions about them.

807
We need in many cases to seek to shape those key features of the Commission's proposals to take account of the United Kingdom's various concerns and interests.
Mr. Peter Duncan: I accept what the Minister says about improving the industry's confidence in the procedures. Does he accept that he and his colleagues throughout the EU would go a long way towards increasing confidence in the industry if they allowed fishermen access to the negotiations?
Mr. Morley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should be accompanied in the Council of Ministers by all the fishermen of the United Kingdom and that all the fishermen of every other member state should also be present. Frankly, there would not be a room in Europe big enough to fit them all in. We must certainly involve the fishing industry as far as possible. That is why I have a meeting with all UK industry representatives before each Council meeting. I usually give them an update of what is going on in the middle of the proceedings and I meet them all again at the end to tell them the outcome. I assure him that we take very seriously the involvement of the industry and that I ensure that it has its say and is kept informed.
Sir Robert Smith: One of the frustrations at the Norway negotiations is that Norwegian fishing industry representatives are present with their Government's representatives, but no fishing representatives are allowed in from the EU side to help back up the negotiations from that perspective.
Mr. Morley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our fishing industry representatives are present at the EU-Norway talks. There may be a slightly different system in relation to Norway, but I am not aware that any special treatment is given to Norwegian fishermen's organisations in comparison with ours. None the less, I shall look into the matter for him.
I was very anxious to be brief, but I am willing to take interventions. I only hope that hon. Members do not hold that against me and that it will count as injury time to be added to my speech.
On the discussions that are currently under way, hon. Members will be aware that a block of member states has styled itself "friends of fisheries", although some say that with friends like that, fisheries are in more trouble than we thought. Those in the group have rather contrasting views. What unites them is their opposition to the abolition of construction grants, but there is a great deal on which they are divided. We are not alone in the Council of Ministers in arguing the UK view.
We have allies and we respect individual member states' positions. Although we may not agree on every aspect of the CFP with every member state, we have a qualified majority on a range of objectives that are vital to our country. On other matters, including building grants, we do not have a qualified majority. We have a blocking minority, but although I have blocking minorities on a variety of subjects, that applies to other countries and other issues.
808
It is in no country's interest to be deadlocked at the end of the year, and I am trying to secure an agreement on the reformed CFP by then. That will require negotiation with the presidency, the Council and other member states.
Mr. Drew: We could push international inspection. The biggest problem in the industry is lack of trust. Is it not sensible to take the friends of fisheries aside and try to negotiate with them about the benefit of having up-front independent inspectors, so that we know what is being caught?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We are already co-operating with other member states. Spain is a good example because Spanish inspectors have visited our ports and our inspectors have been to Spanish ports. We have a good personal relationship with countries such as Spain. That country has made it clear that it does not object to the idea of a stronger role for the Commission in spot-checking and international enforcement that is applied equally to all member states. We would like that to happen, and I believe that we can develop the proposal.
As I said earlier, it is likely that we will decide on the total allowable catches and quotas for 2003 in terms of the cod and hake recovery plan at the December Council. We do not know what the Commission will propose, but the EU must respond to the severe scientific advice on cod and other stocks.
Andrew George: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. Morley: I want to make a little progress.
The advice is that we must introduce a moratorium on fishing for cod and stocks such as haddock and whiting, unless we can find ways in which to minimise by-catches and discards of cod. The implication is that the North sea will shut. Let me make it clear that I do not believe that that is a realistic option. However, we cannot simply oppose it. We must recognise that the Commissioner is responding to the science, and welcome his wish to identify alternative approaches. We should be in no doubt that such alternatives will have a serious effect on fishermen if they are to lead to any stock recovery, but there are options other than wholesale closure. That also applies to the Irish sea and the west coast of Scotland.
David Burnside: Will the Under-Secretary assure hon. Members that a moratorium is not being considered for the Irish sea because of the current state of stocks? He recently said:
"At worst the cod situation has bottomed out and at best there are signs of improvement."
Will he confirm that the Irish sea is not under consideration for a moratorium?
Mr. Morley: I have that point in my notes. A great deal of work has been done in the Irish sea. Although we must be cautious about interpreting the science, it encourages me that there has been an upturn from the almost terminal decline of the breeding biomass of cod in the Irish sea. However, the upturn is modest, and we cannot

809
ignore that. One upturn in one year does not mean that we have turned the corner. We cannot be complacent about the Irish sea, but we are making progress.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I am pleased with my hon. Friend's statement. Will he reassure Fleetwood fishermen that the full impact of the Irish sea cod recovery programme will be taken into account? They have co-operated with the programme and worked hard within it, and they are more than happy to continue with it. They want it to be fair, and they want the full impact of the past three years to be taken into account so that there is no complete closure, and to ensure that they have a future.
Mr. Morley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She arranged a meeting between the Fleetwood fishermen and me at the recent Blackpool conference. That was constructive, and I acknowledge the work that they have done in co-operating with the recovery programmes in the Irish sea. I understand their point of view, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take it seriously in future negotiations.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend recognise that long-lining is a highly environmentally sustainable method of catching fish, particularly cod, because it does not result in young dead fish being hauled up in nets, only to be thrown back? Bearing that in mind, whatever has to be done to preserve, or to try to resurrect, cod stocks in the North sea, will he seek a future for long-lining? I do not believe that long-lining is the reason that cod stocks have been so badly damaged.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has arranged meetings for me with his long-liners to discuss the issue. Certain methods of fishing are highly selective and have a very low impact, and I do not think it unreasonable that people using such methods should get some special consideration or treatment. That view may not be shared by other member states, but I am certainly prepared to make a case for it.
Andrew George: The Minister's remarks are welcome, but will he comment on the uneven focus that a number of the member states are giving to other fishery methods? The result is a much-needed focus on the white fish industry, but we are only now reaching the stage of planning that an impact study of the effects of industrial fishing will take place next year. We should be much further forward in dealing with that issue, as industrial fishing has the greatest impact of all on fishing, especially in the North sea.
Mr. Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I do not disagree with many of the points that hon. Members have made, particularly on behalf of their constituencies, which can be quite severely affected by these changes. They are right to raise these issues; it is the responsible thing for constituency MPs to do, and taking their views into account is the responsible thing for me, as a UK Minister, to do.
We cannot, however, get away from the fact that we must take the scientific advice seriously. Without fish, there will not be a fishing industry. That is not to say that we should not challenge and examine the scientific
810
advice, and I give the House an assurance that that will be done. Attacking the science is not helpful, however, and one or two politicians—not, I hope, those in the Chamber today—have made unhelpful remarks about it. They think that they are doing the industry a service by rubbishing the science and pretending that there is not a problem—but we cannot do that; we have to recognise the reality.
We must identify an approach to achieving recovery that will impact even-handedly on all the fleets in the European Union, because I have no intention of allowing the UK to take all the impact of such measures. The approach must apply to all affected fisheries, and it must maximise the possibilities for fishing to continue. My ministerial colleagues from the devolved Administrations and I, and our officials, are talking urgently to the industry to identify the options.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister has said openly that he disagrees with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on industrial fishing. Does he appreciate how disillusioning it is when, after many years of effort by him and other Members, myself included, a fleet moves to using a big 100mm mesh with square mesh panels, only to find that no one else is doing so—not even south of Newcastle, as the Minister is well aware—and that that huge move, in environmental and conservation terms, is not even being taken into account when the recommendations are being made? Does he understand the frustration and anger that that causes among fishermen?
Mr. Morley: Of course I understand that, but it is important for those who represent the industry not to start panicking at this stage. There is a lot to do. The work that we have done on effort calculation-some of which is quite recent; we are still calculating the effort—has not been factored into the equations, but I assure the House that it will be. I will ensure that it is.
Ann Winterton: The Minister has played the environmental card throughout the debate, but is not there an inherent danger in that, as it masks the true agenda for integration and plays into the hands of the Commission? If agreement is not reached by the end of the year, the Commission can introduce six-month emergency measures—which can, I hasten to add, be continued under article 174 of the Maastricht treaty, which relates to the environment.
Mr. Morley: If there is no agreement in the Council, the Commission can introduce emergency measures that could include closing the North sea. For that reason, the alternative case that we make must be sensible and able to stand up to examination. I have a lot of respect and time for the hon. Lady, but I hear a hint of Eurosceptic conspiracy theory creeping in here. I believe that there is a broad-based approach in the House, across parties, to the points that I have outlined and to what we need to do. There is support for that.
Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, because I asked a simple and

811
straightforward question. He answered the first part, about the six-month emergency powers, but will he now accept the fact that article 174 of the Maastricht treaty—
Mr. George Foulkes: Which the Tories introduced.
Ann Winterton: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman voted for it as well.
Mr. Foulkes: The Tories put it through.
Ann Winterton: Right. I shall talk about that later, but now I am asking the Minister, who is in government and in power, whether those emergency powers can be continued under that treaty on environmental grounds.
Mr. Morley: In terms of how the powers apply to fisheries, I understand that they cannot. They are time-limited and temporary. However, I do not apologise for acknowledging environmental issues; they are very important. There is no contradiction between concern for the marine environment and concern for the fishing industry, because the fishermen themselves are concerned about the marine environment. They know that if we do not have strong environmental measures, we shall have no fishing industry. I am perhaps unique among European fisheries Ministers in that I am both an Environment Minister and a fisheries Minister. I find that a strength in my approach and my negotiations, not a weakness.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) brings me on to other points. On the environment, for example, I am surprised by the Liberal Democrat amendment, because it is weaker than the Government motion. We make it very clear from the beginning of our motion that we recognise the importance of the environment, but there is no such acknowledgement in the Liberal Democrat amendment. I am sure that I shall not disagree with a lot of what the Liberal Democrats say in the debate, but if they want a strong, credible green policy to defend our fishing industry, they should vote with us tonight. I make that minor point to them now.
I am sure that we shall hear about national control from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but I hope that he can define better than his predecessors exactly what that means. We have national control. I say to him that we face an important issue and a serious situation for fishing stocks. It is important to achieve some consensus here, and ensure that the Conservative party is not dictated to or distracted by its Eurosceptic fringe. That was a real problem for the previous Government and it had far-reaching consequences—one of which, incidentally, is that my Government have been taken to the European Court for fisheries enforcement infractions dating back 11 years from 1996.
Responsibility for that court case does not lie with Conservative Ministers. I was an Opposition spokesman at that time, so I know that they were doing their best to get to grips with the enforcement problems affecting our own fleet, but the climate created for them
812
by a Eurosceptic rump dictating to the Government made it impossible to introduce such measures. As a result, when I became Minister in 1997, black fish landings were rife in this country. I do not dispute criticism of the common fisheries policy, which is often justified, but the fishing industry must take some responsibility for infringements in the past. Not only is such action damaging; it undermines the science when scientists suspect that declarations are not accurate. That helps no one. It does not help the industry, it does not help the science and it does not help me to make decisions.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Should we not now be getting scientists on to commercial fishing boats rather than using gear that is 20 years out of date and has no credibility in the industry?
Mr. Morley: That is a common misapprehension. Research vessels use the same gear, because they are carrying out constant effort sampling. They need to use the same gear because they are measuring the same effort over a long period. I agree, however, that it is important to establish a close relationship between scientists and the industry. That is why we have invited industry leaders on to our research vessels, and why we charter commercial fishing vessels as part of our studies, with our scientists on board. In fact, I believe that some vessels from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) were chartered recently for use in the Irish sea.
It is important not to obscure a critical fisheries management issue with Euroscepticism. I was appalled to read some comments by Conservative MEPs who said that the proposed closure of the North sea was part of a great, secret Euro-plot to divide the EU into monopolies so that France would dominate farming, Germany would dominate heavy industry and manufacturing, Belgium would become the centre for "centralised bureaucracy" that does not sound a very good deal to me—and Spain would dominate fishing. Apparently, the whole idea of closing down the North sea is to allow in the Spanish. Those are just silly childish conspiracy theories. The fishing industry deserves better.
The fixation of the Scottish National party on who goes to the Council and who speaks there is not helpful either; I say that in the most gentle way. Colleagues from the devolved Administrations probably have more access to and involvement in fisheries policy in DEFRA than Scottish Office Ministers ever did. I speak as one who was a MAFF Minister before devolution and has been a DEFRA Minister since. I will ensure that the devolved Administrations are involved in every aspect of decision making, and that their voice, as well as that of the Scottish Office—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here to show her support and commitment—is heard clearly and strongly, expressing their interests as part of a United Kingdom approach.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: I cannot do otherwise.
Mr. Salmond: How does the Minister explain a letter I have received from the general secretariat of the

813
European Fisheries Council? It states that the name of the Scottish Fisheries Minister, Ross Finnie, appeared on one list of participants, but did not appear on the list for a range of other Council meetings. Although the Minister had attended those meetings, his name did not appear. What is the status of the Scottish Fisheries Minister at such meetings? There seems to be some confusion.
Mr. Morley: There is no confusion. It is the Council's practice simply to record the name of the lead Minister of the delegation.
Under the terms of the devolution settlement, this is indisputably a reserved matter for the Westminster Parliament. I am the lead Minister from the lead Department, but the Ministers from the devolved Administrations are part of the process at every stage and at every level. They are consulted closely. They attend our ministerial meetings in the Department, they attend all our pre-Council briefings, they attend the Council with me, and they speak at the Council supporting the UK line—while, of course, defending their own regional priorities. That is the strength of our approach; it is not a weakness.
Mr. Foulkes: I urge my hon. Friend to ignore the nitpicking of the SNP—and, I must confess, of the Liberal Democrats. It is a question not of who leads the delegation, but of the fact that this would forward powerfully and effectively the voice of the United Kingdom Government and of the devolved Administration. Knowing the people involved, I can say that there is no one better or more capable of putting forward that view effectively than my hon. Friend.
Mr. Morley: I was actually trying to make a point to unite the House—[Laughter]. I may have gone a bit astray.
My point was that all Members participating in this debate have legitimate constituency concerns, and I take such contributions seriously—from whichever side of the House they come. I am simply saying that there has been some nonsense surrounding this issue. It is a serious one, so let us concentrate on the threats that the industry faces and address them in a responsible way.
We will carefully examine the science. I have spoken to the Executive and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I will give a commitment that we will not blindly sign up to any proposal until we have properly evaluated it, looked at its implications, and considered whether or not it is justified. I also give an undertaking that we will recognise the impact on the fishing fleet—we do not ignore that—in all parts of the country. Northern Ireland's priority in respect of nephrops is very important, and I think that we can address that, along with matters relating to the North sea and the west coast.
We will of course strongly challenge practices such as industrial fishing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that I am denying the science, but I am not. I have looked very carefully at it, and we are participating in scientific studies on industrial fishing. However, there is also a precautionary principle. When it comes to a choice between industrial fishing and
814
fishing for human consumption, the latter must take priority on all occasions. An element of doubt guides many of the commission's proposals in terms of a precautionary approach, and the industrial fleets must be part of that approach. They cannot be exempted from it, and we will be making that point.
We will also look carefully at the proposals for the west coast and the Irish sea. At the moment, I am not happy about the idea that the Commission is simply taking some of the scientific analysis on the North sea and applying the methodology to the Irish sea. That position is not necessarily justified, and I can assure hon. Members that we will consider our approach to the issue closely. The fact is that, whatever we do, I cannot guarantee that there will be no impact on fishing ports and fishing fleets. If there is such an impact, we will of course examine what help we can give through the available structures and structural funds.
David Burnside: I find it hard to talk about "decommissioning" without thinking about the other form of it. One of the greatest threats is the permanency of the decommissioning of fishing vegetables—[Laughter.] I meant to say fishing vessels. Is there a form of subsidy similar to the set-aside subsidy that applies to agricultural land? There are strong feelings about that subsidy, but it does keep land in operation, and in the ownership of farms. The issue is keeping vessels in existence, and in the ownership of local fishermen and fishing families who have been involved in the industry for a long time, without permanently ending the use of such vessels.
Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made very articulately before. I realise that decommissioning is double-edged, in that it permanently takes away capacity. The advantage is that other fishing vessels become more viable, and I do not rule out a possible role for decommissioning as part of an overall package. I shall of course think about the issue, and discuss whether decommissioning is appropriate.
Provision is made under EU rules for time-limited—in other words, not very long-tie—up support. Unfortunately, the problems that we face are not short-term. I do not want to mislead the House, or to duck the issue: turning some of these stocks round will take a number of years. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but decommissioning is one of a number of options, although I stress that it is not the only one. I understand the long-term impact that it has on fishing ports, and that will influence the decisions that I take.
In conclusion, I can promise that we will examine the science carefully. We have done that already in connection with the North sea nephrops fishery, on which I see no justification for restrictions. The Government are clear that that fishery is very important to both Scotland and England.
We will expect any recovery measure to apply to all nations with access to a particular fishery. We will not accept severe restrictions if other nations do not take their share of the responsibility. We will continue to engage with the industry and with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to find the best way forward. We will vigorously defend our national interest with all

815
the facilities at our disposal, and we will adopt a partnership approach with colleagues in the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Office, Northern Ireland and Wales.
We are committed to the sustainable management of our seas. We will act responsibly in respect of the science, but we will also defend our industry's interests robustly. It has a proud record, plays an important role and serves vital regional interests
2.6 pm
Mr. John Hayes: At the outset, let me assure the House that I have no doubt about the Minister's integrity or knowledge of the subject. He has done this job for a long time, and taken part in many debates in the House. His breadth of knowledge and understanding are remarkable. However, the British fishing industry feels betrayed—by the EU, the common fisheries policy and, most dishonourably of all, by those in this Parliament who have persistently advocated and pursued a policy that has resulted in the dramatic decline of our once-proud fishing fleet and in the consequent damage to communities where fishing is central to the culture and the economy.
I refer to those communities' culture because fishing is not just a job. It is a way of life, and is usually rooted in families that have been involved in the industry for generations. It is not something that people can lightly give up to pursue another career.
Many families and communities now face the betrayal that may be the final chapter in this tragic tale. The industry has declined dramatically. For example, the east coast of England once boasted many important fishing ports, but now it is almost bare of this great industry. Yesterday, I met fishermen from the east coast who struggle to continue with their way of life. Their confidence has been eroded and their hopes dashed. We should not be surprised at their solemnity, given the tiny numbers of boats that now set to sea from those once-proud ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), such a champion of the Boston fishermen, tells me that about 20 boats now work out of that port. About 10 boats work from Grimsby, and the same number from Whitby. Scarborough has about four working boats, and Bridlington and Hartlepool a couple each. The Minister must concede that those numbers are as shameful as they are pitiful. However, those ports are in a better state than Lowestoft. Who could have believed a decade—let alone 20 years—ago that Lowestoft would have no fishing industry?
Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that the industry has revived in Lowestoft. I should be delighted if that were the case.
Mr. Blizzard: When Opposition Members get put on their Front Bench, they do not think that they will be there long, so they make rash statements. Lowestoft has an inshore fleet comprising 18 vessels, and there are nine
816
beam trawlers that stop fishing in the summer. The town also retains its fish market. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can talk down Lowestoft fish market and finish it off, he will have the fish merchants down on him.
Mr. Hayes: That is a pretty low intervention, from an hon. Gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect—although he is not as big as he once was, as we were discussing just the other day. He knows what I meant when I said that the industry had declined dramatically in Lowestoft to the point of extinction. Of course there is an inshore fleet and a fish market in Lowestoft. There is still a thriving fish industry in Grimsby as well, but most of the product that it uses is imported. It is not caught in or anywhere near Grimsby. That is what shocks people. I acknowledge that Lowestoft is not dead in that respect, but the hon. Gentleman, who is a decent and honourable representative of that part of the world, will be as sad as I am that the fishing that it once enjoyed and for which it was famed came to an end just a few months ago.
The Minister tells us that the British fleet in England and Scotland is still unsustainable, despite the reductions. He did not give a very good answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who said that the decline in fish stocks is at least as much to do with the other threats to fish such as toxins and industrial fishing as with fishing for human consumption. The change in climate, for example, has driven cod further north into the North sea. The Minister was aware of those arguments but dismissed the intervention that pointed out the facts. The Minister has come to the view that the British fishing industry, even in its current form, is, in his words, unsustainable.
The decline in the fishing industry has cut by a third the number of boats that go out from British ports, but the amount of fish caught has fallen by only about 10 per cent. The Minister will say that that is the whole problem. However, he does not acknowledge that the reason for that equation is that our fish stocks continue to be fished by many other nations using methods that we regard as unacceptable. I will talk later in more detail about industrial fishing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a telling intervention about it today, as he did a few days ago. We have yet to have a satisfactory answer. I do not say that the Minister does not have a noble record on this. I have had much pleasure over the last few weeks reading his speeches over many years—they are most entertaining and have been my bedtime reading. He has always been against industrial fishing but his assurances today will come as cold comfort to an industry that sees it perpetuated, particularly by Denmark and Norway.
Mr. Morley: I am proud to have negotiated with Denmark, in a very friendly way, a three-year closure off Scotland on Wee Bankie. It comes to an end this year. I welcome the opportunity to assure the House that it is my intention to continue that closed area because I think that our justification for the original closure still stands.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for that assurance but the Minister knows that industrial fishing does not occur only off the coast of Scotland. He would not want to deceive the House in any way, shape or form and he will

817
acknowledge that industrial fishing is a massive problem in waters around the United Kingdom, particularly the North sea, and that the effect has been devastating.
This further plague of reductions is on a baseline already so eroded that, in many cases, it will be the end of the deep-sea fishing industry from ports up and down the country. This is decommissioning by bankruptcy.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend think that, if a tie-up agreement could be negotiated, other EU countries would stick to it?
Mr. Hayes: The Minister has personal experience of this, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to the House's attention. There was a tie-up agreement off the north-west coast in the early part of 2000—the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) will speak about this with some authority—and the Fleetwood fishermen, being decent and law-abiding folk, abided by it. I was speaking to them only the day before yesterday. Large Dutch and Belgian boats exploited those waters, to the Minister's enormous embarrassment, and he had to trade off a share of our quota in the North sea to bribe them out of the place.
Mr. Morley: I did not.
Mr. Hayes: That is not what the Fleetwood fishermen say. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I give rather more credence to what they say on this occasion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood joins me in my high regard for those hard-working fishermen.
Mrs. Humblerose—
Mr. Hayes: I see that she is about to do so.
Mrs. Humble: Tempted as I am, I must intervene. The fishermen of Fleetwood saw the relevance and importance of the cod recovery programme, so they actively engaged in the debate. However, in the first year of the programme, they had concerns about which parts of the Irish sea were closed down. My hon. Friend the Minister met a delegation of fishermen in London and listened to what they had to say. That early closure was varied to take the views of the Fleetwood fishermen into account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the way forward is to listen to fishermen's expertise and their knowledge of their own areas.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a separate but equally valuable point. Her point is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness. She reminds the House that, when the tie-up agreement was enforced, the fishermen became aware that it was at the wrong time and in the wrong place because the cod had already spawned and moved on. The fishermen knew that before the scientists and drew it to the attention of the hon. Lady, the Minister and the scientists. To his credit, the Minister took note. That leads us to conclude that the fishermen must be involved in all these exercises from the beginning. There must be a partnership between scientists and fishermen. Too often, fishermen have been left out until it becomes clear
818
that they know a great deal about fish stocks and the industry. I should have thought that that was obvious, and I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees.
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling argument in favour of regional management. Can I take it that he will join us in the Lobby tonight to support the Liberal Democrat amendment?
Mr. Hayes: I always take Liberal Democrats seriously, usually in the Tea Room, where we enjoy many interesting discussions on this and other subjects
Andrew George: More seriously than the Tories?
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) knows what I mean. I shall talk later about our history together in fishing. He propped me up on a boat in the middle of the ocean when I was about to fall down. It could have caused a by-election, but he saved not only me but the people of South Holland and The Deepings from that experience. However, the point of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) deserves serious treatment, and I will address it later.
As well as meeting fishermen from Fleetwood and the east coast, I have also had the privilege, due to the generosity of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, of meeting a group of Scottish fishermen's wives. Tragically, they tell a similar sorry tale. Let us look at the effect of a dramatic reduction in white fish takes in Scotland. Let us consider the dependence of the east coast of Scotland on fishing and the proportion of people in the local economy engaged and employed in the industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has the chart, and I am familiar with it. Fishing is responsible for anything between 20 and 60 per cent. of the employment in some of those communities, either directly or indirectly. Then there is the knock-on effect on the local economy and communities. Imagine the effect on the retail or service sector if we dramatically reduce the fishing income to those communities. I was genuinely moved by those ladies and I will not let them down.
It is predicted that about 30,000 jobs will be at risk in that part of Scotland, and some 175 boats have already gone. How can we talk about a baseline? How can we talk about the contribution that we have already made or, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood pointed out, the commitment that fishermen have already made to this programme of balance, conservation and restructuring?
All those things are being done in the name of conservation, as we heard from the Minister again today. He is as consistent on that subject as he is on industrial fishing. In 2001, he said:
"The CFP is not a great conspiracy …Its overwhelming priority is conservation." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 51WH]
By that measure, the common fisheries policy is palpably a complete and utter failure. Even if we could forget what it has done to the fishing industry and to the morale of those communities, we have only to think

819
about what it has done to fish. Uniquely, the policy has damaged both fish and the people who catch them. There is something Orwellian about that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hayes: Talking of Orwell, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, even for that accolade.
Is not it high time that we examined the CFP? It has been a disaster in every respect: for conservation, for employment in terms of the number of British boats and in respect of discards—the wasted fish that have to be put back. The Government should grasp the nettle, tear up the CFP and negotiate an entirely new fisheries policy with our partners.
Mr. Hayes: That lies at the nub of the problem. The House will admire my hon. Friend's stout defence of Cotswold fishermen. No one engaged in the fishing industry could fail to value his contribution. He is right: the CFP is at the centre of the problem.
However, there is a difference between Conservative Members, Labour Members, Liberal Democrat Members and minor party Members, although I share many of the concerns of the Liberal Democrats on this subject. The Liberal Democrats believe—we have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—that the CFP can be shoehorned, twisted or amended to meet the challenges and the crisis. We have been told that time and again for 20 years. We have been told that with honour and decency—the Minister does not lack decency—but we no longer believe it and nor do the fishermen. Fishermen have been divided on the matter, but their position is hardening against the CFP because they can no longer believe that it can be adapted to meet their needs.
Mr. Frank Doran: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that for 15 of the 20 years he mentioned we had a Conservative Government. I realise that he is relatively new to his Front-Bench post, but he may recall that there were regular debates on fisheries during the last Parliament when some of the key points related to why the Conservative Government signed up to the CFP in 1972. They did not see the policy as important so they threw it away.
Mr. Hayes: I do not want to be seduced by the hon. Gentleman into discussion of the murky business of how the CFP began when we entered the EU, but in this debate I shall neither defend nor attack previous Governments for their role in those matters, as that is not relevant to us at present. We have a Government who have to deal with the CFP and they have been in power for many years. The Minister has been in his post man and boy. We have to deal with the current situation. That is the imperative.
The CFP has been a disaster for conservation and for the fishing industry. I do not want to cast too many doubts on science. There is always a tension between the
820
fishing industry and science, as I remember from when we examined these matters in the Select Committee and visited the fishing industry in this country and abroad. Indeed, I remember my dalliance in Galicia with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), when we visited a fish market in northern Spain looking for small fish because we wanted to uncover some dreadful scandal. In my broken Spanish, I asked for the small fish and we were directed to another shed. We got quite excited. His camera was at the ready—as it always is—and we ended up looking at sardines. Our plot came to nothing. There is always a tension between the science and the fishermen.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To complete the story, the hon. Gentleman should have added that I photographed some minute monkfish and other small fish that should never have been landed.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes an intelligent and serious point on the back of my anecdote. It cannot be emphasised too often that small fish are landed and sold. We know that there is a taste for small fish in southern Europe so there is a demand and a market for them. The idea that "black" fish are not marketed throughout Europe is nonsense, as he made clear.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an interesting and valuable point during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time. He said that enthusiasm for the regulatory regime to control such fishing, and the willingness of inspectors to act, varies across the countries of Europe. In Peterhead, there are more people checking up on the fishing industry than there are policemen. There are more inspectors monitoring everything that our fishermen do than any other officials. Is that true in the fishing ports of southern Europe? I suspect not. That is what the hon. Gentleman was alluding to when he spoke earlier.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I agree about the importance of stopping black fishing and clamping down on it in foreign ports, but we should also acknowledge that we should check on it in our country, although that may not be popular. We constantly hear stories about it both from the catching and the processing sides. It is vital that we have the strictest possible standards and the greatest possible compliance and co-operation in our industry, because we are in crisis.
Mr. Hayes: Typically, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Of course, we have to be diligent and standards must be high. Inspection must be carried out openly, properly and fairly. No one would deny that. I was picking up on an earlier point: I am not confident that standards are universally applied with the same vigour, openness and straightforwardness as the hon. Gentleman advocates.
The arguments about science, are not about the analysis of declining white fish stocks, as I think we would all acknowledge. That decline is taking place in Norway and in other countries; even as far away as Canada there is a problem with cod stocks. The argument is about what the scientists are not taking into account: the measures that have already been taken.

821
The Minister generously acknowledged that. However, until those things are taken into account, we cannot come to a balanced view about the likely factual and statistical outcome of the measures that are likely to implemented. Scientific analysis cannot be partial; it must be holistic and comprehensive or the industry is bound to question it. Indeed, it is bound to be invalid.
There has been no proper scientific analysis of the real effects of industrial fishing. Canada and Norway have reduced their cod quotas due to the problems with white fish. Incidentally, haddock quotas in Norway have risen by more than 80 per cent. during the past year. That would be a dream for our fishermen.
Until we have comprehensive, holistic, wide-ranging and believable science, which has integrity and can be trusted by the House and people involved in the industry, there will always be a tendency to distrust what we are being told. I refer to tension, and we must not increase that tension by producing a partial picture. We have been given no projection, no plan and no notional figures concerning the effect of further restrictions or decommissioning. The Minister said that the process will take a long time, but I want to see notional figures and good arguments based on comprehensive science.
Our fleet is at breaking point because it can do only so much restructuring—once the fleet has gone, that is it. One cannot restructure nothing. We know that there are exceptional numbers of codlings and young haddock in the North sea because this has been an unusual year, as the Minister will know. If we get rid of our fleet, it will not be able to take advantage of those fishing grounds when young fish grow to maturity and can be harvested.
In the meantime—I make no apology for returning to this issue—Norwegian and, in particular, Danish industrial fleets continue unabated to catch sandeels for fish food. It takes about 8lbs of wild fish to produce 1 lb of farmed salmon. If we do not tackle industrial fishing, with its million tonne quota, these proposals will just be for show. Industrial fishing destroys the food source of mature fish and, via the bycatch of between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes of cod and other species, it destroys mature and juvenile fish. As we know, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the latter are not always discarded. Without measures to curb that shameful situation, we cannot in all conscience expect our fishing industry to commit itself once again to changes recommended by Europe and, today, by the House. We want a degree of balance and fairness in our handling of this matter, and industrial fishing is neither balanced nor fair.
One of the deepest ironies is that because of the greater numbers of sandeels in Norwegian waters, cod stocks are migrating towards that area so that they can feed more easily. Are we really saying that we will stop British fishermen using their 120 mm nets while industrial fishermen continue to use their 16 mm or even 8 mm nets? We cannot do so with any pride or decency.
I am now going indulge in the "irrational Euroscepticism" suggested by the Minister because I like to live up to my stereotype. I do not want to disappoint him, and I would not want anybody to say that I was not on top form. I shall set the matter in context. The European proposals are not principally about conservation, although there is concern about that. They are not even about fishing at all; they are
822
about European integration and the subordination of our national interests to central direction. Competency for fishing lies within the Commission, and the proposals come not from our Ministers or the Government but from EU Commissioners through treaty obligations about which the Minister has little to say because he has little control over them. I do not blame the Minister for that because it is a simple fact of life.
The Prime Minister must take the lead on this. He must face up to our European partners. We are sending our second XI to the current fishing negotiations. The matter must be elevated. We should say that fishing matters. The Prime Minister should take it up personally and raise it in the corridors of power in Europe. Ultimately, we must have the courage to take control of these matters, but not through a regional or zonal system. That would simply create many common fishing policies. We would have a multiplicity of centrally directed, bureaucratic and insensitive policies
Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lawrie Quinn Lawrie Quinn(Scarborough and Whitby) rose—
Mr. Hayes: I will not give way because I want to make progress and the Minister is chivvying me to conclude my remarks. He does not like it and he is looking up at the clock, thinking, "How long is this going to go on? I can't take much more of this pain and punishment." I do not want it said that I will be the man to inflict that pain on him. I will give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) after I have given way to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who made such an important point about regulations
Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The name of the place that I represent is Whitby, not Whitney.
Mr. Hayes: I did say Whitby
Lawrie Quinn: There seems to be a problem of geography, but never mind. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come to Whitby whenever he likes.
The hon. Gentleman gave a compelling diagnosis of the problems in the industry. I am sure that many people in the ports that I represent will have found his comments sensible, but they will be waiting for answers. Everyone in the House would like him to provide the answers, rather than going down the well trodden route taken by previous Conservative spokesmen and spouting Eurosceptical dogma.
Mr. Hayes: None of my Eurosceptic views is dogmatic. I am familiar with Whitby. How could I not be familiar with the birthplace of Captain Cook?
Lawrie Quinn indicated dissent
Mr. Hayes: Captain Cook was not born in Whitby? He lived there. There is a huge statue of him in Whitby and he had associations with the town. I am not going

823
to give way so that the hon. Gentleman can correct me. I will give way instead to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Sir Robert Smith: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman dismisses regional management too quickly when many in the industry view it as crucial. Fish do not respect national boundaries, and it is far more important to manage what happens within the regional fishing area, such as the North sea. If we did not have management across the whole of the North sea, over-fishing on one side would have meant recovery programmes on the other side failing completely. The industry has been demanding regional management, so that those who are affected by the decisions have a say in the results.
Mr. Hayes: The industry would have said that once. When, as a member of the Select Committee, I looked at these matters in great detail, that view was expressed by some in the industry. However, there was division and some believed in national control. Now the industry has changed its view because it is increasingly coming to believe that we can no longer pretend that the common fishery can be made to work. It is rotten at its very core.
The hon. Gentleman made sound points about local sensitivity and about involving the industry through proper collaboration and consultation. There is also a need for proper co-operation between nations. The Minister wrote to me in October, saying, sensibly, of course we need "international agreement and cooperation." However, he said in the same paragraph:
"A common approach is essential to tackle European fisheries under the auspices of the common fisheries policy."
That is the error—we can have international agreement and co-operation, which is an inevitable part of dealing with fishing because, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly says, fish know no boundaries. However, the accountability for that, and the management of it, should be vested in nation states. The Minister looks surprised, but he knows that that is precisely what happens in some of the most successful fishing nations in the world, including New Zealand, Namibia, Iceland and Norway.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is, to use a fishing phrase, going a bit adrift. Theoretically, of course, a number of fisheries nations can pursue different policies, but we share the North sea and the English channel. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we draw a line down the middle and have one catch on one side of the line and a different catch on the other? Should we have different mesh sizes on each side of the line? That is not a conservation policy; it is anarchy. No matter what terms the hon. Gentleman uses, there has to be a common framework in European waters.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous because he knows very well that the countries with governance of their own waters that I have mentioned—I could have listed many others—have agreements of the type that he describes. He knows very well that the European Union has an agreement with Norway; he was talking about negotiating such an
824
agreement only a few moments ago, when he was challenged on why he will not let the fishermen around the table given that Norway is very happy to do so. Of course there are agreements on the very subjects that he describes, but the fact is that the governance and accountability for the policies that a nation develops about its fishing industry should rest where sovereignty rests—and sovereignty should rest in the House.
I feel sorry for the Minister because with all his knowledge—I have acknowledged his understanding of such matters—and all his good intentions, the truth is that he cannot do many of the things that he would like to do. He is stuck in an amalgam, in which people always want to find some shoddy compromise, rather than to pursue the genuine interests of the nations of Europe
Lawrie Quinn rose
Mr. Hayes: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene again, so long as he does not talk about Captain Cook.
I refer not only to the interests of Britain because the Minister will know that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster not just for Britain, but for many European countries. I would make this argument if I were a representative of several other countries of Europe. For example, the hon. Gentleman will know that the EU has had to buy African fishing rights. There are very real concerns about the cost and effect of that on those African nations. Not only have they suffered from deaths caused by the very large boats using their waters, but their own fishing industries have been damaged economically, and their local communities have been damaged by those activities. That has happened in a desperate effort to prop up the Spanish industry, so the Spanish industry, which has also declined, has suffered from the common fisheries policy. This is not a narrow or xenophobic point because I am not a narrow or xenophobic person.
Lawrie Quinn: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time. He has demonstrated his prowess as a student of history and geography this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Minister asked him about a putting a north-south line down the centre of the North sea, but where would the hon. Gentleman put a line between the Scottish and English fisheries? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here, and I am sure that he would be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's answer to that question.
Mr. Hayes: That problem is not as significant as the hon. Gentleman pretends
Lawrie Quinnindicated dissent
Mr. Hayes: Well, many of the issues that we are debating today are common to the industries of Scotland and England. We talk about conservation, aid to the communities, the effect of the changes and the impact of regulation and inspection, but there is not much difference between the impressions of English fishermen and those of Scottish fishermen.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Hayes: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman-I do not want him to breach the unanimity

825
that I hope to achieve as I approach the last part of my speech—I wish to tell the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who raises the issue of my knowledge of geography and history, that he will be sorry to know, given my earlier remark that I am trained to teach history, whereas I have only an O-level in geography. I plead guilty to the point about geography, but not to that about history.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Hayes: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene very briefly because I want to make some progress.
Mr. Salmond: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been reading up, but he should be aware that the Conservative party and the Labour party combined in 1999 to transfer 40,000 square miles of Scottish waters to English jurisdiction, and I can tell him that that was opposed by every Scottish fisherman; there was no division on that.
Mr. Hayes: There are always local difficulties between those splendid nations that are happy to be part of this glorious United Kingdom, and I know that the hon. Gentleman celebrates precisely that.
Mr. Simmonds: May I assure my hon. Friend that the fishermen in Boston are against regional control—the regionalism that the Liberal Democrats purport to support—and very much for national sovereignty in fishing policy.
Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to hear that. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend is known as a doughty champion of the fishermen of Boston—they are largely cockle fishermen—and he will know that, in particular, they face environmental problems in the Wash and that those stocks have been affected by toxins and climatic change. He has taken up those matters with the vigour for which he has already become renowned since being elected.
We should follow the example of those countries that have had the courage to take control of their own fisheries policies. Although I acknowledge the fact that the Liberal Democrat amendment has merit, especially in its analysis of the problem and in emphasising many of the current problems that we face, I have to say that I do not buy the solution. The hon. Member for St. Ives has a deep knowledge of and a real commitment to fishing, but I suspect that the Liberal Democrats' fisheries policy is driven more by their overall policy on European federalism than by the interests of the fishermen.
In my judgment, as the debate becomes louder and more widely heard in the next few weeks and months, fishermen will conclude that the only way that we can really offer them a glimmer of hope is by having the courage to take control, rather than having to get involved in these rather grubby deals that are done behind the scenes in smoke-filled rooms without the fishermen being present, as we have already heard. [Interruption.]
Let me just deal with this point once and for all. If the Prime Minister was really concerned and fishing were a high priority for the Government and a dominant issue
826
in European discussions, the Liberal Democrats' argument might hold some water, because the Prime Minister could then negotiate the sort of zone or regional system that they favour, but the truth is that none of that is so. Fishing will be abandoned; it will be traded off and given away as part of some bigger deal in the negotiations. That is the truth of the matter, and no one can dutifully and honestly advocate the reform of the common fisheries policy because it will not be made a priority or made to fit the needs of the British industry, nor those of several other European industries
Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: I must make more progress. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that I have been generous in giving way.
Of course the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is a doughty champion of fishing interests in Scotland, but unlike the Liberal Democrats, who at least recommend some solutions to the problems of regional control, he identified the problems very cogently in his amendment but offers no solution. I hope that he will support me in saying that the United Kingdom should take control of such matters, but I rather doubt it.
I want to say a word about relative stability. The Government argue in their motion for the continuation of relative stability, which is at the heart of their approach. The Minister has previously argued many times that we are protected by that principle, but how can we share out EU resources among EU people and maintain the same size of United Kingdom fishing fleet? Of course the answer is that that cannot be done. Britain's share can only decrease, so we may say that too many British fishermen catching the for ever shrinking share of resources is the result of relative stability. The proposed solution will eliminate British fishermen, so fishermen ask: why just ban catching cod, haddock and whiting, which happen to be the fish that we catch? Is it solely because of the conservation issues? Fishermen are understandably sceptical—I say no more than that—about that kind of policy.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Is it not the case that, in the past 20 years, there has been no serious effort to conserve fish stocks and that the Commission's only solution has been to reduce quotas and accelerate decommissioning, with the result that there has been the increase in discards, as he and the House know?

Industrial fishing has destroyed the food chain, so why has that been allowed to continue for so long? It is a scandal that our countrymen will be stopped from fishing with the large-mesh nets that I have mentioned, while allowing industrial fishing to continue to use 16 mm and smaller nets.
Will the Minister protect access to the deep-sea fisheries westward of the British Isles—an important new area for many Scots fishermen, where they have made significant inroads? I am afraid that they will suffer drastically under the new proposals, and we should have a commitment from the Minister on those matters.
Is it not true that the EU policy, which has destroyed the food source and causes adult fish to be dumped and baby fish to be sold, does not give nature much of a

827
helping hand? Can we have a guarantee that enforcement— the issue raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby— will not be a uniquely British phenomenon, and that compliance and serious commitment will be evident across the European Union?
In all of this, I am afraid that I have little faith in the Prime Minister. I read in The Times today that whereas most of us have pictures on our desk of our wife, our baby, our father or the Duke of Wellington, he has a picture of President Chirac! That is why I have little faith in the Prime Minister— he is not committed to British fishing and the British interest. He is not committed to the nation in this respect: he will sell us out in Europe, as was illustrated by his dismissive answer to a perfectly fair question that was put to him yesterday. He is preparing the industry for its demise. That is the truth of the matter.
We must not allow our fishing industry to be traded off in some disreputable EU deal. The Prime Minister could have said yesterday that aid, assistance and financial support for the communities of Britain that rely on fishing must be at least equivalent to those enjoyed by other countries. He could have said that, during any tie-up, all foreign boats must be made to honour any restrictions. He could have said that industrial fishing, which causes immense damage to the food chain and therefore to the level of food stocks for white fish, must be stopped. He could have said that conservation measures should be developed in partnership with the industry. He could have said that third country agreements must be urgently reviewed with the aim of a dramatic reduction in cost and in the damage that they do to the other countries. He could have said that we will defend our industry openly, honestly and purposefully— but I fear that I expect too much from him.
The cynical and contrived nature of EU politics means that many in the heart of Europe view the painful crisis faced by our fishermen and others as "beneficial". It is not beneficial to those hardworking, decent men, their wives and their babies, whom I have met in the past several weeks. It is not beneficial to their communities, to our land or to our nation. Let me tell the Minister, the House and our fishermen that the Conservatives do not share the Prime Minister's complacent acquiescence. We will champion the British fishing industry, and we will work with other parties who are prepared to share that campaign with the industry and with us. We will fight to secure the fishermen's future, because their battle is our battle, and it is emblematic of the battle for our nation, for our right to decide on policies that affect our communities. We will fight for our right to govern ourselves
2.53 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: It is always interesting to hear the views of the Conservatives. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) took comfort from the fact that his predecessor in post, the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton)— her constituency is that well known fishing port-is sitting directly behind him.
828
The hon. Gentleman was pulled up a little by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on history. Perhaps if he had concentrated a little on history before making some of the points in his speech, he might have done a little better, especially in relation to his plaintive cries that the Prime Minister should pay more attention to the fishing industry. I remind him that the last time a Prime Minister put fishing at the top of the agenda, he gave the industry away, walked into the common fisheries policy, and created almost 30 years of turmoil in the Conservative party. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding at that, and I am grateful for an acknowledgement. The matter is being dealt with properly, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is joined in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to acknowledge the importance of the industry not just in the UK but particularly in Scotland.
Clearly, this is a difficult time for the industry. In all the years I have been attending fisheries debates, there always seems to be an air of crisis at this time of year. On this occasion, the crisis seems a little more real than on previous ones. That is no wonder, given the bombshells of the scientific evidence and the response from the Commission, especially the threat of a complete ban on cod fishing and severe restriction on other quotas— particularly white fish quotas— not just because of the state of those stocks, but because of the cod by-catch. That has caused real fears in the fishing industry.
There are many reasons why we are here today, some of which we understand, some of which we are still trying to learn about. There are some very important points to make, and I acknowledge the robust stance taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the position that the Government will take in the Council negotiations next month. It is important that that be maintained to the bitter end.
My first point is that we are seeing a significant sea change in the way in which we look at the issue of conservation. In the past, with the odd exception of some effort control, the main tool has been limitation of catching. We have controlled it by quota, by technical measures and by gear changes, and it is clear that that has failed over the years. When one speaks to people in the industry, one finds that there is a great deal of cynicism about the effectiveness of controls on the catch. One prominent member of the industry recently said to me that catching controls would only have worked if we had had a policeman or inspector on every boat. Clearly, that would be ludicrous.
As the Under-Secretary pointed out, however, the industry has a history of black fish— and, sometimes, illegal fishing— of very high and often unnecessary discard rates, of wrong reporting, and sometimes of elaborate methods to circumvent the technology. I know from my experience in north-east Scotland that although the industry body, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, makes tremendous efforts and takes a lead in introducing and encouraging new technological measures to limit catching in the North sea, not all members of the federation follow that lead. It is important that that be understood. If we accept that we are currently in a crisis, we must be realistic and honest, and the Under-Secretary was certainly honest.

829
The realities in the North Sea and other fishing grounds are such that there is enormous pressure on our fishermen, which is another part of the reality. It is part of the culture to catch fish while they are there— by the next visit, the fish will have moved on or someone else will have caught them. I understand that pressure. The most important thing about catching controls, however, was that they were an attempt to use biology as part of the process of making the scientific evidence relevant. The contribution of scientists to the debate, in using biological measures as the basis for establishing quotas, is entirely justified. That also enabled scientists to avoid any responsibility for the social and economic consequences of their advice.
What the Commission proposes is different. We have had attempts at effort limitation previously— in the early 1990s, when we had tie-ups and days at sea— but they have not lasted. However, that seems to be the direction in which we are heading, as the Commission proposes to impose effort control and limits on fishing capacity. If the result of scientific evidence is that our fishing boats are tied up in harbour, and fishermen cannot go out to earn their living to feed their families— or, in most cases, to service their substantial bank loans— the scientists are moving themselves right into the centre of the debate in terms of the socio-economic consequences of their decisions. There is a big difference between imposing a quota on a man who goes out to do his daily work of catching fish— which may or may not be there— and saying that he cannot do that. That marks a significant shift in the Commission's policy and the way in which it should be viewed. When the Under-Secretary attends the Council next month, I hope that that point will be borne heavily in mind. I know that he has heard, and will hear from, my colleagues from the north of Scotland in particular— they sit on the Opposition Benches— about how devastating the consequences of the Commission's proposals are. It is extremely important that all of that be borne in mind.
Because there are dire socio-economic consequences for the catching side, for the communities that rely on their efforts, and for the processing side, which still relies heavily on locally caught fish, there is no doubt that we face serious restrictions and that we need to implement strong conservation measures. The policy should lead to a sustainable fishing industry, and it is important to put it on the record that both sides of the industry have been working hard to develop policies for sustainability.
I recently received a report from the Fish Industry Forum entitled "Sustainable Seafood— Working Together". It has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the objectives in the report are important. It wants
"a profitable and sustainable seafood sector that competes internationally, is a good steward of the marine environment and provides good food and a significant contribution to a healthy diet for people in the UK and around the world."
Most important, the forum says:
"We want to set up a new working partnership between government and industry."
We have waited years to hear that sort of language and it is a bit of a tragedy that it comes through only at a time of crisis in the industry.
The industry needs time and support to adjust. That is why I am particularly worried by the way in which the Commission approaches its responsibilities. It seems to
830
be suggesting an abrupt, almost overnight, move from catching controls to very severe effort limitation, with no time for the industry to adjust and for the Government to introduce the necessary support measures.
It has always been a mystery to me why anyone should tolerate decisions on how the industry should operate from 1 January being taken in virtually the last days of December. That is one of the hazards that the industry faces. It is impossible to plan and for anyone to develop a proper operation for their business. I know that we are moving to multi-annual quotas, and they are to be welcomed, but it has taken a heck of a long time to get there. However, and more important, rapid change and abrupt turns need time to be implemented, and the Commission's proposals are not the best way to do that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that point in mind.
I refer to a recurrent theme at this time of year. I am concerned about the agenda for the Council meeting in December. The future of the CFP is being shoved on to the same agenda as all the other important issues that are traditionally debated at this time of year. I have spoken of crisis, but we in the House must work hard to be responsible and not talk up a crisis. It is easy for an Opposition to do that. I have been in opposition, and I know how often we did it. However, it is important not to talk up a crisis, because people's livelihoods are at stake. They are worried. Their bank manager is phoning up to tell them that he has been reading the local newspaper and about the crisis in the industry and asking whether they will be able to pay their loans next year. The pressure is on us now and not next year, when the measures may or may not bite.
I am deeply concerned about what has been the almost traditional approach of the Commission. It has introduced what appear to be draconian measures and puts them on the table on the basis that they will be discussed. However, that is done in the full knowledge that negotiation and settlement will take place much further down the chain. That is extremely worrying. However, I am even more worried this time, because there appears to be an attempt to trade off the annual negotiations against the longer-term review of the CFP. I am worried by the Commission's approach. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the issues must be separated. The CFP must stand in isolation, and we must not be bullied by the Commission's threat of draconian measures into accepting measures that we would not otherwise accept.
My main concern is with the fish processing side of the industry. In modern times at least, there has been the assumption that, whatever happens in the North sea, the processing industry will be okay because it can survive on imports. It is true that a large proportion of the cod that is processed in Aberdeen, Peterhead and Fraserburgh is imported. It comes from Iceland, the Barents sea and some from as far afield as China. However, the industry makes it clear that it still relies heavily—the figure is about 60 per cent.—on the white fish caught in the North sea.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he says about imported fish applies to large processors? There are many small family firms in my constituency and they rely totally on fish landed at

831
Scottish ports, principally Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen. The closure of the fishery will destroy such firms. The large firms may be able to survive with imports, but the small ones cannot.
Mr. Doran: I understand that point entirely. The firms in my constituency range from small one-man businesses to larger companies.
Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree with the concern expressed on the quayside at Whitby about the Faroese, in particular, dumping stock, depressing the price and, therefore, compounding the problem that the industry faces?
Mr. Doran: Prices are falling because supplies are healthy from the Faroes and Iceland.
Mr. Savidge: My hon. Friend is making an excellent, balanced and comprehensive speech. As recently as last week, our producers in Aberdeen were telling us that, although it is true that some people can rely on imports, a number of local processors rely on perhaps as much as 85 per cent. of white fish caught locally.
Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend makes his point.
I have spoken to many processors and they express a range of views. The most consistent opinion that they express— this will probably cause dismay to many catchers who do not already know this— is that they support a total ban on cod fishing but that the quotas for haddock and whiting should be appropriate to the stocks. There will be a by-catch with the haddock and whiting, and many processors recognise that such a ban would cause great difficulties for many fishermen, particularly those who invested heavily in buying up cod quotas. They would face serious difficulties. It is not an easy choice and I do not pretend that it is. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear such issues in mind in the negotiations.
The fish processing industry employs about 4,500 people. The figure constantly fluctuates, but processing is still a major industry in the north-east of Scotland. Even Aberdeen, which is a significant oil town and known as the energy capital of Europe, relies heavily on the fish processing industry. In fact, my recent discussions with the industry have concentrated as much, if not more, on labour shortages as on quotas. The industry is still a major contributor to the local economy. The industry will find it difficult if cuts to the haddock and white fish sector of the market take place on the scale suggested. The industry already faces a skills shortage and we might lose the skills that we have. We lost skills in the herring industry 20 years ago, and we do not want that experience to be repeated. A significant number of my constituents depend on the fishing industry, and skills have been acquired. Those skills are not transferable, and we want the industry to be sustained.
We face difficult times. I know from my private conversations with my hon. Friend the Minister that he fully understands the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland and to the whole UK. I know that he will
832

fight our corner— this is the party political broadcast. It is important at any time of crisis to recognise that there may also be opportunities. For years in Edinburgh, London and Brussels, we have debated the need for a sustainable sea fishing industry. We have made some progress, but most of the time we have lurched between annual quota negotiations without too much sense of direction. Out of this crisis may come an opportunity to lay the ground for a properly structured system that is based on sustainability and tied to conservation measures that can guarantee a viable future for the industry.
3.9 pm
Andrew George: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, leave out from "fishing" to end and add:
"calls on the Government to resist any proposal for inappropriate and excessive cuts in fishing effort and Total Allowable Catches for 2003, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, and to seek the early review of third country agreements; believes that future policies must be based on Regional Management Committees through which fishermen would work with scientists and governments to agree sustainable and fairly enforced zonal management for their local fisheries; and calls on the Government to work with the devolved administrations and the fishing industry to produce its promised strategy for the long-term sustainable future of the UK fishing industry and to seek backing for this strategy at meetings of the EU Fisheries Council."
Given that we have little more than two hours left, I shall do my best to be brief. Many hon. Members have a great knowledge of the fishing interests in their constituencies, so it is a pity that a disproportionate amount of time was taken up by the Tory Front Bench. Although I like the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)— [Interruption.] I do not want to get into an argument about time, because that will only result in the loss of yet more time.
There is a gathering consensus among hon. Members who represent constituencies with a fishing interest. The Government motion is ostensibly about the common fisheries policy. A great tome has been presented to the House on aspects of that. It is clear that those who know about and understand fishing constituencies are coming to recognise the right and proper direction that the policy is taking.
The Liberal Democrats have not tabled the amendment because we disagree with the Government motion. Our concern is that it does not reflect the debate in the industry and the concerns about what might happen as a result of negotiations on future quotas for stock, especially around the UK's coast. It is important to ensure that the debate gives time to those issues. We want to put fire in the Minister's belly and hope he accepts that some of the science is questionable. He said that we should challenge the science if it can be robustly attacked on scientific grounds, and take our concerns to the Commission.
The question is whether we will sustain enough of the fishing industry in this country to make a debate on the future of the common fisheries policy worth while. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) rightly said that we often debate the future of the fishing industry at this time of the year, and every year we are at various degrees of crisis management. Although I do

833
not want to say that we have cried wolf, it is important to realise that the issues are now so serious and deep that we have gone beyond crisis management. If the proposals by the Commission and ICES are accepted, they will have a significant impact on fishing communities not just in Scotland, but around all the UK's coast. The problem demands special measures and urgent attention. We need cross-party consensus on how to proceed. It is clear that the future of the fishing industry is far more important than narrow party political point scoring, which is often a factor in the debate. I will do my best to avoid that.
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In that spirit, does he agree that it would be appropriate for fishing communities around the country for the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment? They have in a sense provoked the debate, although it is not necessary to put fire in my hon. Friend's belly.
Andrew George: I am sure that the Government will accept our amendment after the Minister reflects on what my hon. Friends and I have to say on such serious issues. Our amendment embellishes and improves their motion.
Mr. Salmond: I think I have a way out of the impasse. If the Liberals and the Government accept the Scottish National party amendment, we will all be in agreement.
Andrew George: Enough of this jocularity. Let us get on with the main business.
The Minister said that his criticism of our amendment was minor because we have not incorporated the word "environmental", but Liberal Democrats do not need to do that. As we have tabled the amendment, it is self-evident that it is on the basis of environmental sustainability. We do not need to state that, but the Government clearly do.
We welcome the general direction of the common fisheries policy, which favours the implementation of multi-annual quotas. In the first year that I came into the House, I could not believe that we had to face ll thhour brinkmanship. I suggested multi-annual quotas, but that was met with derision. So if they are successful, I want to claim some credit for them. If they are not, however, I might find someone else to blame.
Regional advisory councils are welcome but do not go far enough. I think the Minister accepts that we need regional management councils instead. They need teeth. It is clear from unilateral measures in one fishing zone in Scotland that the industry can benefit from a more localised shared concern about the future of a fishery in one region or zone. That is helpful.
Extension of the six and 12-mile limits is also important for sustainability, but the common fisheries policy is weak on the problem of industrial fishing. As I said, an impact study on industrial fishing is only now being considered for next year, but draconian measures are already being introduced to many other sectors. Attention is only just being turned to the full impact of industrial fishing.
The Government need to be certain that aquaculture, which is dealt with at the end of the papers, is properly assessed. We need to be sure that the sea has the capacity
834
to enable that to happen. I hope that in developing aquaculture we will not deny or discourage hatchery projects. Those have been successful, certainly off the north Cornish coast, and we should encourage them.
We all agree that it is important to have a sustainable fishing industry. However, we must stick to sound science. Obviously, that raises questions about how sound the science is and whose science it is. I caution the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in appealing to the emotions of people in coastal communities by saying, "We will not let you down." The fact is that we will let them down if we do not stick to the sound science because they will end up with no fisheries for ever. If difficult decisions need to be taken, it is important that politicians are tough, strong and robust enough to see them through.
Much of the science has to be questioned. Serious and genuine arguments are being put forward by the industry to counter the science. Questions inevitably arise about the science itself. The science is not an unquestionable pronouncement of God. We must consider who is producing it and how sound it is. If it is based on a balance of probability using projections, who is doing the assessment, is it up to date, and are all the factors taken into account? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave alternative figures that challenged the science on the spawning stock biomass in a number of important fisheries. In fisheries in area VII— the western approaches— the hake recovery programme is showing a decrease, admittedly small, in mortality and an increase in the spawning stock biomass. Most of the science on cod in area VII comes from area VIId, where conditions are closer to those in the North sea, and does not take proper account of the state of cod in the western approaches and the Celtic sea. Some of those issues must be considered before making hard and fast decisions about managing and setting quotas for important species in those areas.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not want to disturb the Liberal policy of squaring every circle, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should trust the scientists except in area VII?
Andrew George: No, I have already made my view clear. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and a number of arguments by my hon. Friends who will speak later from a Scottish and Shetland perspective. I am making a general point that the science needs to be properly and robustly challenged on scientific grounds, not on emotional or political grounds. I was giving the example of stocks in area VII— the western approaches— particularly hake, but cod and haddock as well, because the subject would not otherwise be raised in this debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave me an opportunity to highlight that. There are serious uncertainties about the science and current information raises many questions. I therefore urge the Minister, instead of making hard and fast decisions that will affect the fishing effort from 1 January 2003— after all, fish stocks do not recognise human calendars-to take a more cautious approach, roll the debate forward if

835
necessary and keep a watching brief on critical fisheries. We would ultimately regret decisions that resulted in thousands of fishing jobs being lost overnight.
Ann Winterton: I am a little confused as to why the hon. Gentleman thinks that we will be able to make decisions to roll over the management of fisheries into the new year. He knows as well as anyone else that there is a cut-off date of 31 December and that Spain must be accommodated thereafter. The Commission makes the proposal, and the Minister only has 10 out of 87 votes in the Fisheries Council.
Andrew George: I have raised with Commissioner Fischler the issue of the six-mile and 12-mile limits. If they are not resolved, he has confirmed that there are ways of rolling forward the debate.
I do not want to spend much more time on the issue, as we do not have long and I know that other Members wish to speak. We need to look at alternatives such as selective and sophisticated local measures. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has proposed the closure of two areas in the Trevose ground. We need reassurance that the scientific advice is adequate. If recovery programmes are to be effective, we must look carefully at proposals to invest in them. If lay-ups, closed seasons and closed areas are to achieve a recovery of stock, it would be unwise to decommission vessels. We should find ways of funding their tie-up for an agreed period so that when stocks recover they can continue fishing.
The Minister has just left the Chamber, but I was just going to tell him that he is highly respected, resilient, sympathetic, sensitive and modest. Given that he was not born yesterday, he would wonder what all that flattery is leading to. It is this: can he go to the next Fisheries Council meeting and demonstrate not only knowledge, understanding, resilience, sensitivity and modesty, but passion? Once he has understood and taken on board the scientific issues and weighed the arguments about the balance of scientific evidence, will he fight for the fishermen? There have been stand-up rows between our Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers on other matters. Fisheries are of such importance to our country that I urge the Minister if necessary to engage the attention of the Prime Minister and other Ministers to ensure that the urgency of the situation is conveyed to European Ministers.
Mr. Morley: For the benefit of the House, may I point out that the Government are engaged at all levels? Indeed, this week, a representative from No. 10, a member of the Prime Minister's personal office, met me for a long briefing on where we are with these issues, our priorities and what we want to do. The hon. Gentleman should not think that we are not engaged with every single level of Government in every single region of the country.
Andrew George: That is reassuring, but we would like public evidence of that engagement.
Finally, we can take decisions in haste, but we would repent at leisure, which is why I urge the Minister to consider our amendment carefully. If many thousands
836
of people were made jobless in the manufacturing sector because of the closure of a factory, special taskforces would be set up, public money would be invested and urgent plans developed to deal with the problems. The fisheries problem is of equal severity, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the seriousness of the issue, given his clear and intricate knowledge of the subject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless contributions are considerably briefer, some Members will be disappointed
3.29 pm
Lawrie Quinn: I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall try to represent as best I can the interests of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I both entered the House in 1997. Over the years, it has been a great pleasure to work together in the spirit of partnership that he has demonstrated this afternoon, and I shall take up where he left off.
From my perspective on the Government Benches, the Minister was right to draw attention to the interest and support coming from the highest levels of the Government. I hope that, through the Minister's work in future discussions at European level, we will be able to demonstrate to our fishing communities how seriously the Government take the issues facing the industry, as evidenced by the industry taskforce, which has been so important in my part of the world when the loss of other jobs has been threatened.
The fishing industry is linked to Scarborough and Whitby almost by an umbilical cord, and I want to consider some of the socio-economic effects of the current proposals on the people whom I represent. Earlier today, on behalf of the fishing community based in Whitby, I drew attention to the representations that I have received from Mr. Arnold Locker, a Whitby fisherman and the current chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I understand that Arnold, with his colleagues from the NFFO, will be visiting the Minister early next week.
I take this opportunity, on behalf of colleagues from the North sea ports, to thank the Minister for the briefing that he is arranging for us next week. I, and the others who attend, will make the most of that. I was pleased to hear that hon. Members from all parts of the House will attend. That is as it should be; we should all listen and try to work on behalf of the communities that we represent.
At Question Time today, I raised the issue of enforcement. Mr. Locker asked me to convey to the House a clear message about the type of enforcement to which his boats, like the boats of most of the Yorkshire fishery, are subject. He tells me that the boats may be boarded three or four times a week, when they are out there trying to earn their living. Mr. Locker wants the Minister to argue as strongly as possible in future weeks for that approach to be replicated across Europe.
I was pleased to hear from Mr. Locker that he wanted more robust science— science that was more effectively supported, and would be more meaningful than what we

837
have heard in recent years. Having spoken to the fishermen in Scarborough and Whitby over a number of years, I was gratified to hear such clear and unambiguous support for science from such an important leader of the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to build on that in his discussions with the NFFO next week.
I mentioned the impact on local communities. The people who live in the old town of Scarborough—the bottom-enders—have lived in that community and gained a livelihood from fishing for generations. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to the number of deep-sea fishing vessels based in Scarborough and Whitby. I believe he said that there were four, but he did not mention the fact that over the years there has been a transfer of deep-sea vessels from the ports of Scarborough, Whitby and the rest of the North sea coast to the north-east of Scotland, as I am sure the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would acknowledge.
Although the reference to the importance of the distinction between the English fishery and the Scottish fishery was dismissed, there is a strong historic link between my communities and those north-east ports. I say that in a spirit of solidarity, as we recognise that for every person involved in the fishing industry in England, there are probably three or more people working in the fishing industry in Scotland. We view the problem from a united community perspective.
The people of the old town in Scarborough and the fishing communities of Whitby are living on their nerves. They are so frightened. They are under pressure from the banks and from the people who try to help them with loans. There is a real sense that our communities are on the edge of a precipice. I hope that in his discussions with other members of the Government, the Minister will have regard to the serious psychological impact of the present situation on those communities. I hope that the public services will take account of the stress and trauma that relatively small but tightly knit communities such as mine are undergoing, and ensure that the appropriate support is available.
I take this opportunity to celebrate with the House the wonderful work done by organisations such as the Seafarers Mission and the fishermen's missions throughout the country. They are supporting fishing communities through extremely difficult times. In debates such as this it is traditional for the Minister to mention all the people who are, unfortunately, lost at sea as a result of their efforts to harvest the sea; perhaps he will do so in his concluding remarks. It is worth noting that the Whitby lifeboat has now celebrated 200 years of existence. That is an indication of how tightly knit that community is. We want to see fishing as a vibrant, sustainable way of making a living, and we want people to be able to go forward with the hope of future prosperity.
As the Minister knows, there was a small sign of hope for Whitby with the opening of the fishermen's apprentice school at the beginning of October. He has said that he will make every effort to visit the school in the new year, to see the work that is being done there. I can report to the House, including my hon. Friend, that people from as far a field as North Shields and further down towards Grimsby are showing great interest in the
838
school as a centre of excellence. I hope that the skills and techniques being taught in that important facility will start to address in an English context some of the concerns highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) when he said that there was a drift of skills away from the industry. The school is a vital sign that the industry will not roll over and die without putting up a strong fight.
The hon. Member for St. Ives called for a fighting spirit. The families who fish, work and live along the coast of Yorkshire have a message for the House about the living that they earn from the North sea. They not only want the Minister to do his best for them—they know that from this Minister, they do get the best, because of what he has done for their industry—but they want a realistic approach that delivers for future generations. That is how they want me to express their views to the House today. After today's debate, we want to see some punches thrown by our fisheries Minister on behalf of the United Kingdom fishery—although we do not expect him to emulate the manner of the Deputy Prime Minister when he visited a certain north Wales town. We want to hear about a real fight—but not necessarily with shouting—for a sustainable future for our communities.
I have three questions for the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with in his closing remarks. First, diversification into the prawn fishery has been extremely important for boats that go out of Whitby, and we discussed earlier the important issue of by-catches. Will the Minister consider making representations or giving some confirmation for fishermen who have diversified about the dispensation for the by-catch? Will there be an opportunity to consider making even more effort with the prawn fishery?
Vera Baird: As my hon. Friend well knows, I represent the constituency immediately to the north of Scarborough and Whitby. Redcar has a very tiny fishing industry comprising small boats. In the scale of things—but I suppose that that is a silly word to use in a fishing debate; I shall start again. In terms of content, a minute quantity of cod is involved, and those in the industry now fear two things. The first is that they will not be able to catch cod any more, and the second is that their second catch, which consists of prawns but inevitably includes a small by-catch of cod, will also be stopped or severely restricted because of that minute—and, I would suggest, pretty inconsequential—by-catch. Can the Minister do anything to reassure them that they will not have to sustain a double collapse of their current means of living?
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. and learned Friend put the argument far more succinctly than I could—but I am a mere simple engineer, whereas she obviously really is learned as well as honourable.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I might be able to help both him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). We have obviously been considering take-up and quotas in different parts of our fishery. The Thames inshore fleet accounts for only about 2 per cent. of the cod quota. In that respect, referring back to my

839
comments about low impact sustainable fisheries, I want to see whether I can make special arrangements for those sectors, and I shall try to do so.
Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all fisherman in northeast England will be grateful to hear that response so swiftly.
Secondly, I have a question about the situation of the netsmen and the people who go for salmon. The Minister and his officials have been helpful in terms of dialogue and the bridge that I have tried to build for licence holders and netsmen based in Whitby. As a result, considerable progress has been made in getting a sustainable result for this important industry. Will he maintain a strong personal interest in how that situation evolves, recognising that the fishermen concerned are also involved in the shellfish fishery? Will he also have regard to opportunities and development support work in marketing that important fishery?
I know that the Minister's officials have looked into the important contribution that species such as the velvet crab might make. That product is very marketable, especially in the Iberian sector. On the basis that most of the shellfish landed at the port of Whitby seem to be placed in refrigerated lorries and sent across the country to the fish markets of Paris and Barcelona, a strong contribution could be made in relation to my demand that the fishing industry and community be kept tightly knit together in Whitby. I hope that the Minister will consider that important point.
Finally, there are parallels between the fishing industry and the other major heavy production industries in the economy. The Minister will have recognised in his community of Scunthorpe the changes and the problems that the steel industry has faced. He knows that my background is in the railway industry, and he is aware of the changes that have occurred in transport engineering in the city of York and the north Yorkshire area. I am sure that he knows about the impact of that great change on coal mining communities. Will he use his best efforts to ensure that there is greater engagement, especially in the English regional development agencies, in recognition of the fact that those communities are on a knife edge? They are waiting for something to happen. They think that it will be awful; indeed, many Members here share their fears. Those communities need support and assistance from the Government to see them through some dark days. I hope that the Minister will make clear representations to Commissioner Fischler, and have regard to the fact that if the provision of social support for fishing communities is good enough for other European countries, we certainly want to see it in the United Kingdom—in Yorkshire, and in Scarborough and Whitby.
3.45 pm
Ann Winterton: This debate is being held at a critical time for the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry, which has perhaps finally realised that it is facing a cliff face. Those in the industry say that the matter is now becoming political and has nothing to do with common sense. In the few words that I am about to
840
say, I hope that I can show them why they are right, how the matter is political and how that will adversely affect their future.
To understand the future, we need to look at the past. Thirty-one years ago, the House of Commons was misled during debates in which it was suggested that we were entering what was portrayed as a common market. Members of Parliament were assured that our fishing industry was safe and that our fishermen were protected by the British veto, when the true situation was quite the reverse. Seventeen years ago, the House of Commons was misled once again. During debates on the accession of Spain and Portugal, we were led to believe that the 1983 agreement sharing the stocks among member states was the common fisheries policy that we had signed up for. Spain was portrayed as having been successfully accommodated in the common fisheries policy with no future threat to our national fleet.
For the past 31 years—and, indeed, in today's debate—there has been little mention of the acquis communautaire that we originally accepted on taking up our membership, as do all new entrant countries to what is now called the European Union. The management system of 1983, which consisted of quota cuts and decommissioning, has not provided one successful fishery. Speaker after speaker has seconded that view. The real aim of that system was to enable the integration of the individual fishing fleets of the member states into a single European fleet operating in the already declared and accepted single European Union pond. If the industry does not understand that that is the core of the problem, no one will be able to prevent the eradication that will come.
The maritime cake comprises the available resources from all member states—the waters in their exclusive fishing zones plus any temporary agreements negotiated with third countries. Our nation, the United Kingdom, contributed the largest proportion to that maritime cake. It is surely obvious that, as other nations join, they will look to our slice and to United Kingdom waters for their equal share. The same applies when time-limited agreements with third countries are not renewed and the participating countries require a bigger slice of remaining resources. I hasten to add that that is always inevitably to the detriment of the United Kingdom. After all, the one basic principle of the common fisheries policy under the acquis communautaire is to provide
"An equitable standard of living for the population which depends on fishing for its livelihood."
The cod situation has created the beneficial crisis needed to ensure that the Commission can achieve that goal. The cod and hake recovery programme containing the details of the new management system will be adopted: let there be no doubts or misunderstandings about that. Faced with a choice between total closure and greatly reduced effort, Ministers will accept the latter.
As John Farnell, Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament, recently said to that Administration's Rural Development Committee,
"The main driver for reduction of the fleet"—
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ann Winterton: Let me finish.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ann Winterton: If hon. Members sat quietly and listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was his name?"] I intend to repeat not his name but his words. At least, I shall begin to repeat what he said. If hon. Members disagree with his views, they can let the House know that.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should know that Mr. Farnell is a European Commission official, not a Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament.
Ann Winterton: I beg the House's pardon if I am mistaken. I slipped up when reading my notes and I apologise for that. However, John Farnell's words constitute the vital point. He said:
"The main driver for reduction of the fleet will no longer be Community legislation with targets for capacity to be achieved at the end of a given time; rather, it will be the economic consequences of having to live with fishing effort limits."
He continued:
"We believe that much of the fleet will decide to move out of fishing because it will be difficult for vessels to remain profitable with some of the fishing effort limits that might be necessary for conservation."
That majority will be the British, mainly the Scots. A trail of deprivation and social problems will ensue in our coastal communities.
It sickens me to the core to think that those years of deception, as European Union integration drove quietly and surreptitiously onwards, will result in the eradication of a way of life and of skills built up and passed down from generation to generation.
Before anyone asserts that we are protected by relative stability, let me emphasise the genuine difference between the principle and the application keys that were determined under it. Why do people imagine that successive British Governments signed designation orders for every member state, including Austria and Luxembourg, allowing them to catch all species outside the 12-mile limit? How will relative stability protect vessels with different quota allocations for cod, haddock or whiting when the Commission's proposal prevents any vessel that has exhausted the days allocated for cod from going to sea to catch other species, even if some of the quota remains?
John Farnell informed the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament that allocation keys should be reviewed every five years,
"in order to ensure that they correspond to real fishing interests, as opposed to interests on paper".
The quota that British vessels were given in 1983 does not reflect the current structure of the fleet.
I am delighted that the important issue of the food source has been raised. The food chain continues to be broken by industrial fishing. Many people do not know that it takes 4 kg of fish to produce 1 kg of fish meal pellets. It takes 2 kg of pellets for a salmon to grow 1 kg in weight. Raising a farmed salmon that weighs 2 kg
842
requires 16 kg of industrial species. Cod also rely on that food to survive in the wild. They are therefore deprived of the feed that they need to survive, grow and reproduce. If there is no food for the fish, is it surprising that they move to areas where they can find sustenance? After all, as has been said many times, the sea has no boundaries.
What do our fishermen face in January 2003? The relevant area covers almost the whole UK 200-mile limit. Fishermen face a restriction on their days at sea in the form of kilowatt days, a multiple of time at sea and engine size. Vessels that have no record of catching cod or hake will have to discard every single fish of those species that they find in their nets.
When days at sea are used up, the vessel will not be allowed to put to sea again in the relevant area. Any reduction in time at sea will destroy the whole white fish fleets in areas such as Shetland, Peterhead and the north-east, and the hake fleets from the south-west.
The Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management has proposed a complete ban on landing cod, haddock and whiting while promoting an increase in the total allowable catch for saithe or coley. Under the current relative stability keys for the UK, the share of the North sea quota is 47 per cent. of cod, 78 per cent. of haddock and 53 per cent. of whiting, but 17 per cent. of saithe. Most of the latter falls to France and Germany.
It is ironic that British fishermen have claimed for more than five years that the scientific advice on, and subsequent TAC for, saithe is not in line with what they were catching and discarding. Yet the scientists have decided to increase their assessment by more than 30 per cent. only now, when most British vessels will be tied up and unable to benefit from it. That provides more evidence, if it were needed, that British vessels are to be forced out of business to save the rest of the European fleet.
The only realistic answer is for the UK Parliament to assert its undoubted authority and restore fisheries policy to national control. Some of those who are listening may believe that that policy is extreme. A Liberal Democrat Member described it in precisely those terms on South West Television. However, in the early 1990s, a fishermen's leader from Senegal visited the south-west. He asked for help to prevent the CFP from destroying the lives of many artisanal fishermen who were run down in their open pirogues at night by vessels from the European Union that were permitted to fish Senegal's waters through a third country agreement.
An article in "Classic Boat" magazine in September stated that in 2000, 300 fishermen from Mauritania were drowned after the European boats sank their indigenous craft, often at night. Those responsible were fined a mere £3,500 and, in some circumstances, let off scot-free.
I therefore emphasise to Liberal Democrat Members that continuing to support the CFP in any form is to support an extreme regime that destroys fish stocks and the livelihoods of our fishermen. It has destroyed the lives of fishermen from the west African states that I mentioned.
Taking extreme action now is the only way in which to halt the extreme predicament of fishermen. They are staring disaster in the face because of the eradication of the white fish sector in the north-east and Shetland. The predicament is caused by the EU's pressing need to

843
accommodate the Spanish fleet, which has waited 16 years for equal access to the common resource under the terms of its accession treaty. Other countries are waiting to join in 2004. Poland in particular has huge fisheries interests.
The way forward, if we had the political will, is to stop the impending disaster in its tracks by doing what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) attempted in 1996. I am glad that he is in his place today. He promoted a Bill to introduce national control. One of its sponsors was the current Leader of the Opposition, who was present earlier to listen to part of the debate.
The Fisheries Limits (Amendment) Bill sought to amend the European Communities Act 1972. European legislation can be incorporated in UK law only through that Act. Are the Government prepared to take that action? It would not mean that we had to leave the European Union.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, although she might not like the reason for my intervention. I accept her lavish praise for my 1996 Bill—it was a brilliant Bill—but I must remind her that it received practically no support from the Conservative Government at the time.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but that was then. We are now facing the meltdown of the United Kingdom's fisheries. The situation is so dire that politicians who are elected to the House—those in Government in particular; after all, it is they who propose measures, not Back-Bench Members—must take action. I hope that he will join me in encouraging his Government to follow the excellent example that he set many years ago, when he had the foresight to know what needed to be done.
I ask again: are the Government prepared to take the action that I have outlined? Would the other political parties in the House support such a move? I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Democrats would not, because their declared policy is unequivocal support for further European integration. [Interruption.] It is. That is well known, and no Liberal Democrat Member has got up to deny it.
Mr. Carmichael: We are hoping that the hon. Lady will sit down.
Ann Winterton: I have given way to interventions, but I shall be as quick as I can so that the hon. Gentleman can speak.
If we are not prepared to act in the best interests of our country, we relinquish our responsibilities to our constituents. Those hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies, in particular, will need to think carefully about this. If they are honest, they should tell their constituents that they support the unelected European Commission having the control and management of this vital resource—a resource that, by Act of Parliament and under international law, belongs to the British people.
844
The common fisheries policy has a track record of producing social and environmental disaster of unbelievable proportions in United Kingdom coastal communities. Those who wish this policy to continue in any form have already decided that the interests of European Union integration come before the interests of the United Kingdom. I am one of those who believe that the interests of our country and its people are paramount, and we have one last chance to save the British fishing industry. I hope that we do not fail it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Clearly, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members want to catch my eye. I therefore urge them to make shorter speeches.
4.3 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not think we have ever had a fisheries debate that has been surrounded by such an air of gloom, particularly from the fishing organisations. The DEFRA officials in the Box have not even smiled once during it, so I take it that the situation is fairly serious. I have been worried that the crisis has been hyped up by the Commission as a justification for more draconian changes to the common fisheries policy. I was not going to voice that suspicion, because I want to advance my career in the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Minister has, however, given us his "less Eurosceptic than thou" peroration. I accept that there is pleasure to be gained from jumping on the guilt scars and the Heath complexes of the Conservatives, who are so embarrassed by the situation that they have created that they have not even bothered to attend this afternoon's debate, in contrast with every other party.
It is fair to recognise that we are in this crisis largely because of the common fisheries policy. A policy that is based on equal access to a common resource cannot provide for effective conservation in a way that a nation state controlling its own waters—and making swap arrangements with other countries on that basis—can do. In Europe, politics is more important than conservation. There has been a tendency to give everyone a catch, to trade catches, to make room for incoming states such as Spain, and to dole out catches by means of quotas, which is an inherently bad means of conservation. Those faults are implicit in the policy and it would be unreasonable not to recognise that.
If the nation that contributes two thirds of the stocks to the so-called common market pool—which once had the richest fishing grounds in Europe and which needs a healthy fishing industry and healthy fishing communities—has to accept the biggest cuts in its efforts and its fleets, that outcome will be totally unacceptable to the House. That will be compounded if we maintain for too long the current policy of accepting only minimal grants from Europe. Other fishing industries have done far better out of grants from the common fisheries policy than we have, partly because of the Fontainebleau agreement, which means that the Treasury does not want to make its contribution. It would be unreasonable to see other industries financed to take the stocks—when they build up—that our industry cannot because it has not been adequately financed. We need to make that point to the Government.

845
I have every faith in my hon. Friend; he has been an excellent Minister. He has done well for the fishing industry and consulted it closely. He has to build up coalitions in Europe, however, and we cannot therefore expect pristine clarion declarations from him. It is fair to point out, however, that fishing organisations have questioned the science, and I believe that they should do so. They have pointed out that the measures make no allowance for the fact that fishing effort has been falling while the stock biomass has been increasing, and that there has been no time to assess the new measures involving mesh sizes, and fleet reductions produced by decommissioning, particularly in Denmark. They also point out that the advice can be contradicted in some areas—perhaps only in area VII, although I have heard of this in other areas, too—by the practical experience of the fishermen.
It is fair to point out that the advice from the scientists is tentative; it is not absolute. I shall quote them:
"This is the first step in establishing linkage.
It is too early to take existing recovery measures into account.
The numerical veracity of linkage is not endorsed.
This is a new untested mixed fishery model.
The calculations are not validated."
If we were to allow the scientists to produce a ban—particularly on North sea cod—we would be making a serious mistake.
It would be ludicrous if we did not ban industrial fishing in this situation. The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) made the point earlier that this is the equivalent of killing eight cows to produce one genetically modified cow. That is the feeding ratio of fish caught in industrial fishing to farmed fish. The industry could not accept a situation in which draconian cuts were made, but industrial fishing carried on. There is always a by-catch, a catch of immature, juvenile fish that will grow up, and I think that we have to have that.
There is a case, too, for postponing the advent of Spain in the system. I know that it has a legal right to join, but it is going to want to establish a track record. It is unrealistic to expect that it will not fish in these areas. If it establishes a track record, there will be by-catches and discards, and it will have to put back species that it is not allowed to catch—that is, most of them. We cannot afford that further damage to the stocks.
It is right that the regional advisory committees, which are a very tentative part of the Commission's proposals, should, in fact, be regional management councils. That is what the industry wanted when it adopted that measure as a means of giving the stakeholders, the fishermen, a say—in fact, giving them management and control—in the catching in their area. We must beef up those committees to that level very quickly, because only they can apply the specific measures that specific areas need. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has said that it is prepared to talk about the targeted, special measures that are needed-indeed, it should talk about them. Those measures would be a far better way of dealing with this situation than an outright ban. The NFFO lists the following suggestions:
"Targeted decommissioning
Closed seasons
Closed spawning areas
846
Closed nursery areas
Funded voluntary tie-ups
More selective fishing gear".
I would add a one-net rule to that list. Those are all approaches that we need to embark on in this crisis.
I come to days at sea. I fought alongside my hon. Friend the Minister—I was his bag carrier, for which he gave me the valiant service medal, but not the job as his parliamentary private secretary that I was looking for—when the Conservative Government proposed the days at sea limitation. The NFFO is still strongly and strenuously opposed. In fact, it destroyed days at sea with its appeal to Europe.
Days at sea limits, or time limits on fishing, still have a problem of intellectual consistency, although that is par for the course on this side of the House: having opposed it, can we now accept it? I am coming round to the view that, because we would limit the time spent fishing, which is crucial, we could consider it on two grounds. First, the benefit of being closer to the stocks than competitors, if we receive it, is substantial; secondly, the lying-up periods, tying-up periods and non-fishing periods are financed by Europe or the Government—they have to be. The industry is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy in many cases, and it is unreasonable to force it to accept a limit on effort without financial compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made a point about discards. When we saw the Commission's director of conservation—if I had that title, I would commit suicide—he told us that the Norwegian system of requiring all discards to be taken back to port is not working, but there is a case for it that we should consider. If all discards had to be brought in to be used for fish-meal or to be sold for whatever purposes, provided that the minimum landing rules are changed, we would know exactly what was going on, and we certainly need to.
That point brings me back to where I started. My hon. Friend the Minister will fight for the British fishing industry—I have every confidence in his doing so—and Labour Members are not here to negotiate the death of the British fishing industry. The World Wildlife Fund has produced an important set of proposals on what it calls investment in fishing, and it is quite right. How do we finance a fishing industry from here, where it is going to contract and there has to be decommissioning? Those matters should be handled fairly between Scotland and England, not by the Minister being left to scratch round in DEFRA's back pocket for whatever money is left over to match the £25 million provided in Scotland.
We must help to finance that managed decline and curtailment of effort to the point at which we get sustainable stocks and sustainable fishing, which will be the reward for the conservation measures that we are being asked to accept. We will accept them, if there is a future for fishing and if the Government or the Community—I am not bothered which—invest in the industry.
There must be investment in fishing so that it can come through from where we are now—the prelude to further decline—to the point we shall reach if and when those conservation measures work.
4.13 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I was watching television this morning and I saw the harrowing pictures from Galicia of the oil spill and the resulting damage to the environment, wildlife and fishing communities. Perhaps it has been caused by human greed in terms of single-hull tankers, but it is a tragedy none the less—an environmental and natural disaster.
I thought to myself how much more of a tragedy it would be if fishing communities here had visited on them an unnecessary disaster, not one resulting from an accident or from the environment. The more I consider the issue, the more convinced I am that any panic measure taken by the European Commission this December would be unnecessary and wrong. It would visit extreme suffering on many communities in pursuit of a totally unworkable policy and conditions not borne out by the science.
A few days ago, the Minister accused me of attacking the science—I wish he had not—as if the science were read. I was not attacking the science; I was attacking the conclusions drawn by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea from the scientific research that we have in front of us. The Minister himself, as has been pointed out twice in the debate, reserves himself the right, correctly in my view, to question the ICES recommendation that 1 million tonnes of industrial fish can be swept out of the North sea, including 50,000 tonnes of human consumption by-catch, while a human consumption fishery is closed down. He questions ICES on that matter, so the rest of us are entitled to consider the ICES report and the reality of what is in the science rather than the panicky pronouncements and manipulations that we see in so many of the comments from Commissioner Fischler and elsewhere.
The reality is that the figures show that the haddock spawning biomass, which, as the Minister knows, is by far the most important thing, is the highest since 1971. The spawning stock biomass for saithe is the highest since 1976, the whiting spawning stock is the largest since 1991 and everyone knows that prawn stocks are extremely robust. All that is in the figures.
Cod stocks are extremely low and extremely vulnerable, but even cod stocks have increased by 27 per cent. on the estimates in the figures compared with last year's total. Furthermore, all the figures that I have read out to the House—[Interruption.] The Minister looks at his officials, but I have the figures here and I can easily read them out. He does not need his officials when I am here. If he so wishes, I can read out the spawning stock biomass figures; believe me, they are correct.
The figures—the estimates—that I have read out refer to the largest spawning stock biomass for a range of white fisheries and, even from a very low level, there is a recovery in the cod stock biomass. However, all those estimates take account of the same effort this year as last. That is the underlying assumption in the scientific advice, but we all know that there was not the same effort last year as this. Why not? Because 20 per cent. of the Scottish fleet is no more—it has been decommissioned. The Scottish fleet is also now fishing with 110 mm nets with square mesh panels.
Incidentally, the £25 million package already referred to was for not just the decommissioning scheme, but £1 million went to research involving scientists and
848
fishermen. We have the results, which show the escape of marketable haddock from 110 mm nets as 50 per cent. and that of marketable whiting as 70 per cent. We know that, as a direct result, the whiting and haddock quota will not be fished this year, not because there are no haddock and whiting in the sea, as they are there aplenty, but because there are very few discards of those marketable fish in the Scottish sector of the North sea as a result of the technical measures introduced by the Scottish fleet.
My good friend the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made some interesting remarks. I am tempted to say that he said he wants to join us, although he was not making a territorial demand. That is my understanding, but he should remember, of course, that if he did so his fleet would be fishing with 110 mm nets with square mesh panels, as opposed to those in waters south of Newcastle where, remarkably, there are small cod and people are fishing with 80 mm nets. [HON. MEMBERS: "120 mm."] In Norwegian waters, 120 mm nets are used, but 80 mm fishing is allowed, as the Minister well knows, south of Newcastle. The reality is that serious conservation measures have already been taken—conservation measures that he and I have argued for over many years. However, somehow and fantastically, they have not been included in the scientific assessment presented to us as the solution when stocks, or at least the biomass, are expanding. Somehow, the solution is to close the fishery. That is an unbelievable and lunatic recommendation from the European Commission and any serious analysis of the science would come to exactly the same conclusion.
Why is that important? It is important because no one will be to blame if we allow people to say, "It is a shame about our fishing communities—a great tragedy—but there are no fish in the sea." We could all blame each other for the various stances that we have taken in politics over the past 20 years: people might blame the fishermen and the processors, the fishermen might blame the processors, the east coast might blame the west, Scotland might blame England and everybody might blame Spain. None the less, nobody would be essentially to blame because nothing can be done.
The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is one of the few Members who is more loyal now than when he was a member of the Government, illustrated that point by saying, "Nothing can be done. What hope is there?" Read the figures: the reality is that plenty can be done. If it is not done, the people who live around the coastline of Scotland and elsewhere will want to know why.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am very interested in the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and I hope that he makes his information available or tells us where it is available. Is there not a contradiction? The Scottish Fishermen's Federation says that
"there is a tendency to 'high grading' (landing only the most valuable fish) in cod and associated fisheries …This will lead to excessive discarding and will increase mortality beyond the levels foreseen by the TAC."

849
However, the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that that is not happening in Scotland. Why has the SFF alerted us to this fact in its own brief?
Mr. Salmond: What is happening in Scotland is this: because of the move to a large mesh and square-mesh panel, there are huge escapes of haddock and whiting. Haddock and whiting are smaller than cod and are no longer under pressure, but in any event using a high mesh-110 mm in Scottish waters, or 120 in regional waters—will mean a much more environmentally satisfactory fishery.
The Scottish fleet's transfer to the higher mesh has caused it some grief because the higher mesh allows many fish to escape, but that sacrifice—that conservation measure—was not taken into account in the Commission's calculation. There is no argument: according to the ICES advice, there was no time for assessment of the impact of the measures taken.
Mr. Doran: There is concern about the way in which these measures are being used out at sea. It is simple enough to get around technical measures that have been quite properly implemented in Scotland. A fisherman told me recently that square mesh panels are at the top of nets because fish swim upwards, and that if the net is turned the other way up they cannot get out. I do not know whether the allegations are true, but when suspicions and problems are floating around in the industry even more caution is needed.
Mr. Salmond: If the technical measures were not working, there would not have been the 50 per cent. escape of haddock reported by the joint scientific body. Moreover, this year's haddock quota would have been fished. If the hon. Gentleman had spoken to fishermen, he would know that there is any amount of young haddock in the North sea. ICES confirms that. The quota has not been taken because the technical measures are working, and the same applies to whiting. There is no longer a threat to those species. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), sitting directly behind the hon. Gentleman, is nodding vigorously. The hon. Gentleman should probably consult the chairman of the all-party fisheries committee before making any more hostile interventions.
Let me now say something with which all will agree. For the first time, the Scottish Executive have this year published a full analysis of the impact of fishing as an industry on the Scottish coastline. I use the word "industry" deliberately. It is not just a question of the catchers or the processors, many of whom are my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran); it is a question of the whole infrastructure that the industry supports. I am thinking of all the industries associated with a fishing community—netmakers, ropemakers, joiners, electricians and harbour staff. The research tells us that not 20,000 or 25,000—as has been suggested in the past—but 40,000 people owe their employment to the Scottish fishing industry, directly or indirectly.
Angus Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those statistics show that Moray's fishing
850
communities figure largely? A representative of the processing sector in Buckie wrote to me this morning saying:
"For prawns, all the land based jobs are completely reliant on our Scottish fishery … and there are no other feasible import supplies available; thus the processing industry would collapse."
That is indeed a dire warning. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more than just assurances from the Government—that we need delivery to prevent any such collapse?
Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend is right about the Moray fishing communities, which feature heavily on the list, as do my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). As might be expected, those areas depend heavily on fishing.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the Scottish Executive's statistics is the information that while Fraserburgh is the most fishing-dependent community in Europe-55 per cent. of employment there depends on fishing—the second most dependent travel-to-work area is Annan, in the south-west of Scotland. The figures relate to the whole coastline of Scotland. Even Motherwell contains many fishing-dependent jobs. It should be understood that this is not just a matter for the north-east or for Shetland, but for the whole coastline and, indeed, for Yorkshire and parts of Northern Ireland. In many communities the concentration of fishing jobs is enormous. That is why we are desperate to convey the message that the industry should at last be treated as a political priority. It has never been treated in that way before, by Tory or by Labour Governments.
Some of today's debate has been quite jocular. The Minister and I have known each other for a long time, and many Members here are veterans of fishing debates. The consequences of what we are discussing, however, go far beyond any badinage exchanged across the Chamber. The Minister speculated on the existence of a conspiracy theory in which fishermen and fishing communities believed. It is not necessary to have a crystal ball to find a conspiracy theory; it is necessary only to look at the background—at minutes and Scottish Office correspondence released last year under the 30-year rule. According to a Scottish Office paper,
"In a wider UK context of European policy, they"—
the Scottish fishermen—
"must be regarded as expendable."
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby looks surprised, but that applied to negotiations that took place when Edward Heath was Tory Prime Minister.
The same pattern of fishing interests being traded away has been repeated time and again over the past 30 years. However, I disagree with Members who say that it is all to do with the CFP, or to do with not being part of the CFP, or to do with national control or with zonal control. I think the underlying issue relates to the extent to which fishing is seen as a priority. Spain, within the CFP, regards fishing as a priority. If the fishermen are in trouble, they will hold up the European Council until hell freezes over, or engage in a variety of other techniques to save the fishermen. It is the same as what President Chirac does for his farmers. Norway, outside the CFP, makes fishing a major priority and negotiates, year after year, a firm deal with the other fishing

851
countries. I think that what really matters is the underlying question of the extent to which fishing is seen as a priority.
Such political arguments will not be the stuff of the next few weeks and months, which will prove vital for our fishing communities. I will not have an independent Scotland in the next few months. The Conservative party will not be able to withdraw from the CFP or from Europe over the next few months. The Liberals will not be able to have zonal management over the next few months. All we can do over the next few weeks and months is to ensure that the major part of our industry in Scotland will be allowed to survive.
We point out in our amendment that many of the changes proposed for the CFP are quite positive, but academic. They will be entirely academic if there is no industry to benefit from them. That is why we must have from the Minister not just the indications he gave at the outset, but two absolute assurances. First, we need an assurance that fishing will not be traded away yet again in European negotiations, as it has been progressively over the last 30 years. Secondly, we need an assurance that the Prime Minister—who is not engaged mentally at present, given the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland yesterday—will start to become engaged in this topic, as President Chirac would be engaged if French fishermen were currently under the cosh.
It is simply not acceptable to the Scottish fishing industry for the Prime Minster to be banging the phones for George W. Bush and concentrating on the international situation, rather than banging the phones for the fishing industry in its hour of need. We want to hear from the fisheries Minister that at last, at this moment of total crisis, the fishing industry will be given the priority it deserves, and that every level of Government, including the Prime Minister, will ensure that a viable future is negotiated for our fishing communities, rather than another sell-out.
4.29 pm
Mr. Alan Campbell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and I certainly do not regard the jobs of fishermen in my constituency, or elsewhere, as expendable. Although there has been some light-hearted banter in the Chamber, this is a serious matter—indeed a critical one for people in our constituencies. We are talking not about fishing communities and glory days of the past—I, too, am a student of history, and I listened with interest to the comments from those on the Opposition Benches—but about the livelihoods of hundreds of people who go to sea or work onshore in our constituencies. That is why I welcome the Minister's inviting us to discuss these matters with him soon, and to access scientific advice. He will know that we are in regular contact with fishermen in our constituencies. They are a source of information, and we take that very seriously. We seek to give voice to their concerns in the Chamber, and that is what I intend to do.
In turn, of course, the Minister is our strong voice in Europe, and he is widely acknowledged as offering a strong voice for the UK fishing industry, including the
852
area of North Shields, which I represent. If the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had ventured north of Hartlepool, the fishermen of North Shields would doubtless have told him that. However, the Minister will have to draw on all his strength and experience, because one gets the feeling that this is a critical period. A little over a year ago, we were debating in this Chamber the effect on cod fishing of the closure of areas of the North sea. What appeared then to be extremely draconian measures were accepted, albeit reluctantly, as necessary. Twelve months on, we are now told that matters are worse than that, and that in effect we are faced with the closure of the cod fishery. Even if that proves to be 80 per cent. true, rather than 100 per cent., for many people that will amount to much the same thing. I should point out that the fishermen in my constituency do not rely exclusively on cod for a living. Nevertheless, they tell me that they oppose, and worry about the effects of, a closure, which they consider a step too far.
Perhaps naively, I considered last year's cod recovery programme as an unprecedented coming together of scientific advice and the experiences of fishermen, and I hoped that that would continue. It was a shock to many fishermen—and indeed to me—to find that that position is now diverging. Scientists are taking a much more radical position that is increasingly at variance with the views and the experience of many fishermen. In view of that divergence and the sense of near-crisis in the industry, we need cool heads. We need a rational assessment—as far as is possible—of the reality of the existing situation, and we need to ensure that we work through each of the available options.
The fishermen whom I represent are concerned. They wonder why the cod recovery programme has so far not been allowed to take effect, and whether the evidence has been properly evaluated. They tell me that some of the evidence on which recent pronouncements were made may actually date from two years ago—before the measures that we debated were put in place. Of course, since then areas of the North sea have closed. I am told that cod catches are down by about 50 per cent. Some 170 boats from the UK fishing fleet, and 70 boats from the Danish fleet, have been decommissioned. We await the assessment of the impact of changes in mesh sizes, and the lessons learned from the Irish sea cod recovery programme.
My understanding was that the plan was never intended to be a short-term fix. People talked about a period of four to five years, and many of the fishermen that I have talked to think that the plan needs to be in place for a decade.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many Spanish fishing vessels have been decommissioned?
Mr. Campbell: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman that information, but I do know that my fishermen are not concerned about the Spanish accessing their area of the North sea. They are not worried greatly by that, because it does not happen often.
Much was made in the previous speech about the cod spawning stock biomass, but fishermen tell me that evidence exists to suggest that it is in fact increasing.

853
That is not to say that there is no problem, or that it is not at a very dangerous level. I am certainly not arguing that we should not take the scientific advice seriously. The fishermen whom I talk to are not saying that either, but what they do want is to ensure that we raise important questions before we take action that we may come to regret.
We should appreciate that the science involved is an inexact one, and it deserves to be challenged. That also allows us to take a perhaps longer-term view. I do not want to appear flippant, but if we are told that lawns are going to disappear from English gardens in the next few decades, who is to say that cod will not disappear from the North sea because of environmental and climate change? It would be a sad irony indeed if we were to adopt these draconian measures, and if fishermen were to go out of business, only for cod stocks to fail to recover in the North sea.
I said that fishermen in North Shields do not rely on cod for their livelihoods, but that does not mean that this issue does not matter to them. They rely heavily on prawns, and the provisional figures suggest that the news on that front is acceptable. Even if the changes do not amount to wholesale closure, any change in the cod regime in the North sea will affect the prawn fisheries that my fishermen rely on. It will exacerbate an existing trend—the divergence of effort towards the prawn fisheries. I listened to the comments suggesting that all seemed to be well with the prawn fisheries, and I hope that that is so, but I am told that the season started late this year, and that the prawns are smaller than might have been expected. I emphasise the point that the prawn fishery is not a bottomless pit. I trust my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he does everything that he can to protect that fishery.
Various options have been suggested, including limiting effort. Let us not go down the route—either now or during the wider reform of policy—of a one-size-fits-all situation. We need to look at what works, and where it works. If we adopt a tie-up scheme or a decommissioning scheme for people who have had enough and want to leave the industry—I make this point as much for the Treasury's benefit as for the Minister's—the Treasury will eventually have to face up to the resulting cost. Either it will have to give moneys directly to the fishing industry, or pick up the cost afterwards.
These are extremely difficult circumstances. None of the available options will be pointless, and none will come cheap, but we should consider them fully before taking a step too far.
4.38 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I understand through the usual channels that if we all speak for five minutes, we might all be allowed to speak, so I shall try to limit my remarks. I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, so I shall try not to go over the same ground.
It is almost a clichè to say that there is a crisis in the Scottish fishing industry and the white fish fleet in particular. However, it is difficult to overstate the severe difficulties that it faces, as we have heard today. In the past 12 months, some 150 vessels have been removed
854
from the Scottish white fish fleet through decommissioning, losses and sinking, transfers to the pelagic sector, and sales outwith the United Kingdom. This is the second year of the cod recovery plan, and, as others have said, the target of 30 per cent. year-on-year improvement in cod stocks was very nearly met last year when, according to ICES figures, there was a 27 per cent. improvement in the spawning stock biomass for cod.
I do not wish to dwell on what was said by Conservative Members, but I have to say that I take issue with the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). She suggested that those of us who promote reform of the common fisheries policy do so because we are prepared to be European before defending our industry. That is a misrepresentation of the situation.
Ann Winterton: That is not what I said.
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Lady says that that is not what she said. I accept that, but it is what I understood her to say. In the previous two renegotiations of the CFP, which happened under a Conservative Government, we said that the policy would not work. History shows us to have been correct, and we are saying the same again now. Our belief about what is best for the fishing industry is shared by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Shetland Fishermen's Association, Shetland Oceans Alliance and the Orkney Fisheries Association.
I welcome the Minister's assurances that proper account will be taken of the experience with the larger mesh sizes, the square mesh panels and the painful decommissioning that we have gone through in Scotland. I merely observe that the fact that it has taken until now to get to the point at which the Minister says that he will take the matter to the European Commission tells us something about the process in which we are engaged. Surely any process that is truly scientific and objective would look for information, so why do we have to drag the Commission, kicking and screaming, to see the benefits of what we have done.
I was in Brussels last week. I spoke to John Farnell who, unless I am more out of touch with Scottish politics than I thought, is not the Scottish fishing Minister. I also spoke to other EU officials. They were not encouraging. The Minister is not going to find it easy. I wish him well: there has been talk about the fire in the Minister's belly, but I hope that it is well stoked up when he argues the case for the Scottish industry. I shall give him a bottle of Highland Park whisky if he can pull it off.
The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about the need for hon. Members to argue for conservation in their constituencies. It is a pity that he is not in his place, as I regard that attitude as misguided and patronising. Fishermen in my constituency are well aware of the need for conservation. Their livelihoods, and the livelihoods of some 30 per cent. of the population of Shetland, depend on having fish stocks. That is what is at stake for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) spoke about the need for rollover. There is some merit in that argument, but monitoring will present a difficulty. Again, I return to the need to get scientists out of their offices and off their research vessels, and onto commercial fishing vessels. That is where they will see the reality of the situation.

855
Much has been said about industrial fishing, but time does not permit me to do more than add my weight to what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that the important thing was not whether the CFP should be reformed or abolished, but the passion and significance that we attach to the fishing industry. The future viability of the whole community in Shetland depends on the Minister getting it right next month. For that reason, I want him to display passion and vigour in the negotiations, and in that way save our white fish fleet.
4.44 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I have attended nearly all the fisheries debates since I came to the House, as Lowestoft has always been an important fishing port. Records show that, until recently, about 10 per cent. of the fish landed in England was landed at Lowestoft. However, if things carry on as they are it will not be long before I shall have no special reason to come to these debates.
A year ago, there were nine beam trawlers in Lowestoft, and an inshore fleet of about 40 vessels. That was a historic low, yet in August this year the beam trawler company, Colne Shipping, ceased fishing. All we have now is about 18 inshore vessels. The end of Colne's was the end of generations of fishing in Lowestoft, and we have no more deep-sea trawling any more. The subject is very emotive, and last August was a very depressing month in Lowestoft's history.
Sad to say, it has taken the end of Colne's to make us all recognise what has happened. I fear that, even now, hon. Members still do not accept what is happening. Representatives of Colne's told me when the news was announced that they could not make fishing pay any more. They said that that was because they could not catch even the fish to which they had quota entitlement. Prices were poor, and the fuel costs incurred from vessels having to go to the Norwegian sector to try to catch the fish were too high.
The company was supported by the Government. In February, my hon. Friend the Minister authorised a payment of £650,000 for the decommissioning of two vessels. That huge sum was more than any company in my constituency has ever received. The Government were right to award that money in a bid to support the company through a difficult time, but the money lasted only six months. That shows how costly it is to try to buy our way out of the problem.
Was that good value for the taxpayer? The question is unavoidable. I supported the decommissioning award made to Colne's, and urged my hon. Friend the Minister to grant it. However, will the taxpayer consider paying £650,000 for six months to be a good deal?
I have referred to the Lowestoft example as a way of showing that the CFP has failed. We all know that. It has certainly failed Lowestoft. All the meetings, debates and activity in Europe have left us without deep-sea fishing, and with only a small remnant of our inshore fleet. However, that means that reality has now taken a grip. People in Lowestoft remember being able to walk across the harbour by means of the fishing boats all docked side by side, but that was the problem: all those boats plundered too many fish for too long.
856
The story of the CFP is simple. Every year in this debate, the scientific figures are produced to show that quotas must be cut. Understandably, fishermen claim that they will lose their jobs and politicians like me argue on behalf of their fishermen, but what happens? Each year, the issue is fudged. Each year, we get compromises, and then we pay the price.
That is happening again this afternoon. People have claimed that that there is something wrong with the scientific advice and that we should just ease off a bit. I can understand that, but the lessons are clear. What has been remarkable in Lowestoft this year is what the fishermen have said to me. Inshore fishermen have told me that the scientists were "right, horribly right". The representatives of Colne's told me, when the news was announced that the company would have to end its fishing interests, that we should have taken notice of the scientists all along, and that the problem started more than 30 years ago, before we ever got involved in the common fisheries policy.
The lesson that fishermen in Lowestoft have learned is to stick to the science. I think that our Government try harder to do that than those of many other member states. We know the desperate state of the stocks; we can argue that this year some year classes are a little better than the previous one, but it is all way below the safe biological limits. Whatever figures the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has, the scientists know that they are all below the safe biological limits. One year can be a bit better than the other but we are still in deep trouble.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blizzard: I will not give way.
The first year that I was elected, fishermen told me that there were more plaice than the scientists thought. I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister, who sent the scientists out again. They came back saying that that was right and we increased the plaice quota. I wonder now whether that was a good thing to do—it was at the time, but now the plaice are in a diabolical state.
If we want to conserve fish, we will have to take draconian measures for a long time, possibly for five years. Scientists tell me that the fleet will probably have to be reduced by half. On the other hand, we could give up altogether and just let the fishermen fish it out—that might be no worse than what we are doing because what we are doing is not very successful.
Whatever we do, how do the fishermen survive? Will there be an industry left to catch anything once we have taken those draconian measures, assuming, of course, that there will not be an environmental problem that prevents recovery? It is very difficult. I have told the House how much it cost to keep the Lowestoft trawler fleet alive. I asked an inshore fisherman how much money he would need to help him because he cannot catch cod. He said £500 a month. That is not a lot but it adds up to £6,000 a year and £30,000 over five years for one fisherman on one boat. If we multiply that by 18 fishermen in Lowestoft, it comes to a lot of money to keep them going. I can understand people wanting financial support—I would like them to have it. However, we are talking about a lot of money and we would simply be tying up the same number of fishermen

857
who will go out and catch the fish when it is all over. I think that decommissioning makes more sense than tying up. [Interruption.] I realise that I have been talking for six minutes, as I am reminded from a sedentary position, but there have been grosser abuses of parliamentary time this afternoon.
We have been through a difficult period but, as I said earlier, I do not think that it has been caused by fishermen who carry out long-lining, which is a method of catching fish. Will my hon. Friend exempt the long-liners from whatever restrictions are imposed regarding cod, as I do not think that they devastate the stocks?
We have been through this devastation before, 30 years ago when the herring disappeared and now they are back in our waters. Fishermen can catch herring, but they cannot get much for them—they tell me they get £20 for 10 stone. Could someone from the Department work with my local authority, using money from fisheries regeneration, to see whether we can do something about marketing herring? People in this country have forgotten about herring for generations. If we could get a price for herring, there would be a future for some of the fishermen.
The common fisheries policy has failed and we are trying to reform it. The new policy looks very familiar because no one could think of anything very different to do. The biggest flaw is enforcement. There has always been cheating, if that is what we call it. As the quotas have become tighter and things have got more difficult for the fishermen, so the cheating has increased. Probably only half the amount of fish landed is recorded. In some European countries there are other layers as well. We have all been to places and seen the small fish; we have all seen evidence of illegal nets. The cheating in some other countries is worse than it is here, but I am told that we have started to catch up. Unless there is enforcement, there is no point in having a policy. Ministers such as ours can sit up all night at the meeting in December, but if the rules are broken nobody is better off. If we cannot enforce them, we might as well give up.
The fish know no boundaries, and we must have a common approach. I do not have a great deal of faith that the approach will work but I wish my hon. Friend the Minister all the best for what will inevitably be an all-night session in December. We could not have a better representative, and I think that other Front Bench spokesmen are probably relieved that he is going and they are not.
4.54 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: Given the time that was available, it is regrettable that Opposition Members who represent substantial fishing communities have been restricted to three or four-minute speeches at the end of the debate. I want to make a few observations on some issues that relate to my constituency, which covers fishing communities in Kirkcudbright, Newton Stewart and the Machars. Indeed, some of my constituents have paid the ultimate price within the past couple of years in the pursuit of a commodity that some of us take for granted.
I am concerned about the complacency that has been shown in this debate. The industry, especially in Scotland, takes sustainability immensely seriously. When one speaks to some of those business men—for
858
that is indeed what they are—one finds that they are part of family businesses that have been established for many generations. Could any commercial entity have a greater concern about the sustainability of fish stocks than those family businesses? I come from one myself so I am well aware that sustainability means preparing for future generations.
I am only too well aware that such family businesses have played their part during the past year. The decommissioning scheme was more than 100 per cent. oversubscribed in Scotland. A £25 million fund was available, but £50 million could have been paid out. There were 215 applications—a third of the fleet wanted to leave the industry. Those people have played their part.
When I spoke to fishermen this week, they expressed frustration that no cognisance was being taken in the current review of what they had already delivered. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned increased mesh sizes. No cognisance was taken of that; nor of the introduction of "windows" for the release of small stock. There can be no frustration greater than that of fishermen who know that there are problems and are doing what they can to address sustainability, while the Commission seems to take no account of what they are doing.
The key point is that fishermen want to be involved in the process. They want to know what is going on, yet they feel excluded. Why has the two-volume report been available for two weeks, but has apparently not yet been provided to the Commission? Why are fishermen excluded from the negotiations? I can see no reason why fishermen's representatives could not attend as part of the delegations. That would do much to reassure fishing communities, which have sustainability at heart, that there is nothing to hide.
I suspect that there is something to hide, however. For example, on the west coast of Scotland the historic deep-sea fishing grounds have been carved up in a backroom deal in which Scotland accounts for only 2 per cent. of the available catch, while 80 per cent. goes to Spain and the rest is carved up between Ireland and France—[Interruption.] I accept the Minister's correction: 80 per cent. goes to France and the rest is split between Ireland and Spain. It was a political stitch-up. The ultimate sting in the tail is that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency is expected to police that dirty deed.
4.57 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I begin by informing the House that I made the Speaker's office aware of the fact that I would arrive late for the debate.
I appreciate that many hon. Members have spoken about the fishing fleets that operate out of their constituencies. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned Annan, which is my home town. It no longer has a fishing fleet; its fishermen fish out of Kirkcudbright.
Two major employers in Annan, however, are fish-processing businesses, and during the past couple of days I have spoken to management at both factories. On the surface, it seems that there will be little impact on those businesses. Both developed from cottage industries over many years. One started out producing smoked salmon and the company has now expanded to

859
give regular employment to between 700 to 800 people. At this time of year, the number increases to between 1,100 and 1,200 to cope with seasonal work for the Christmas and new year period.
The company uses very little white fish and I was assured that the current proposals would have no impact on their business. The only thing that might happen would be a small rescheduling of certain processes and the introduction of alternative product lines.
The other company, which was known in the town for many years as nothing more than "the shrimp factory", is now run by Young's Bluecrest, whose main product is breaded scampi. Clearly, it has serious concerns because although it has been stated that stocks of nephrops are perfectly healthy, if the Council of Ministers decides fully to implement the scientific recommendations of ICES without heeding any other arguments about nephrops, the business could close down. The issue at stake here is by-catch, the problem identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).
My point to the Minister is that he has an important job to do, as others have said. It is important to take heed of much of what the scientists are saying in the ICES recommendations, but it is important also that scientists do not overstep the mark with certain elements of the recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend will, as hon. Members from all parties have requested this afternoon, put up a fight for our UK fishing fleets.
5.1 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: It is clear that if the Commission's recommendations were implemented, they would have a devastating effect not only on our fishing communities but on communities throughout the country that rely on fishing-related industries such as processing. However, the main impact will be felt by fishing communities, many of which are by their very nature isolated, so other sources of employment are hard to find.
Let us be clear: even with the Commission's latest proposal for an 80 per cent. cut, the recommendations would still lead to the complete shutdown of the work of many fishing communities, and that shutdown would be permanent. The vessels, skills and infrastructure would all disappear, so even if the industry were allowed to resume fishing in 10 or 12 years, there would be nothing in place to allow it to reopen. If the Commission's proposals are accepted, the results will be permanent. That is how important it is that the Government argue vociferously for Britain in negotiations.
This is not only a case of arguing vociferously, however. The Minister has been advised to adopt the tactics of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is no good arguing and then losing the qualified majority vote; deals have to be done. I agree with what the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said about deep-sea trawling off the west of Scotland earlier this year. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation supported the scientific advice, but in the
860
secrecy of the Council of Ministers meeting a deal was done and Britain lost. This time we want the Government to negotiate seriously, and to succeed.
Much has been said about the scientific evidence, and I echo what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. The ICES figures show an increase of well over 20 per cent. in cod stocks this year compared with last year, and that, with the technical measures and the decommissioning that has taken place, indicates that the cod recovery plan is working. We should give it time to see whether it will work, rather than taking draconian measures now.
The proposed measures for nephrops are particularly ridiculous. I have written answers from the Minister saying that his officials agree that the cod by-catch from nephrops is insignificant. The fact that the Commission's recommendations are in complete disagreement with British scientists shows how discredited they are.
5.4 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I want to reinforce the message that the industry will die if fisheries are closed, and even at 80 per cent., the industry has no future. That is why it is crucial that the right decisions are made this time.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed worry about some of the figures. However, the figures for haddock come from the scientists' research, and the stock-spawning biomass has not been as high since 1971, so this is not just a minor blip; there is a reasonable stock-spawning biomass for haddock. The problem for the industry is that media coverage concentrates on cod, but that represents only between 10 and 12 per cent. of the business, and to close down the whole business for the sake of between 10 and 12 per cent. seems a draconian and risky measure.
It would far more effective to take the research on board. After all, the Scottish Executive did not spend £1 million for nothing. To have all that research available but not to use it at this crucial time would be a ridiculous waste of that investment, so the research must inform the debate, which is about getting the balance of risk right and recognising the fishing industry's valuable role in the community.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to consider what happens in the Norway negotiations. The fishermen certainly find that the Norwegian side seem to have far more direct input into those negotiations. Resolving that issue is crucial to building up good will.
I want to reinforce the crucial message about European negotiations that has come from this debate. The Prime Minister may have been briefed, but he did not show that when he answered a question yesterday. However, having been briefed, he must understand the complexity of the situation. With qualified majority voting, we need him to say, in quiet negotiations at the highest levels, that the proposals on the table cannot make progress unless people recognise that although the whole United Kingdom does not depend on what happens in those negotiations, vital communities within the United Kingdom do. In particular, the north-east of Scotland is highly dependent on the fishing industry, and a positive outcome is required.
5.6 pm
Mr. Hayes: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the debate. I shall be brief because this has been a long debate and I want to give the Minister time to sum it up.
I shall start by picking up the point about consensus made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The genuine concern on both sides of the House has been reflected in many contributions from hon. Members of all political persuasions during this important and well argued debate, which has taken place in an appropriate, serious spirit that has reflected the genuine concerns in the affected communities. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must co-operate in defence of those communities to every possible degree.
I wish to emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and various others—that those communities are rooted in the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave the figures for the employment dependence throughout Scotland. I, too mentioned those figures in my earlier contribution, and they are shocking. One begins to realise that those communities will be truly devastated if the scale of reductions envisaged in the proposals is put in place. I hope that every Member is moved by that realisation, and it should inspire them to the sort of action called for by a variety of people
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Great Grimsby, made points about the science. They questioned not the scientists' intent, but whether the whole scientific picture had been laid before us.
We should consider the latest information that has become available as a result of the changes that have taken place. We should consider not simply the technological changes referred to by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but the changes in the size of the fleet. People cannot project with any accuracy and assess the proposal's likely impact unless that projection is measured against the current state of the industry—a criticism that has been made time and again. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the point that we do not distrust scientists per se, but we want the science to be holistic, comprehensive and balanced.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said that even with 80 per cent. left, the industry would not be viable. He is right to emphasise that, because a partial restriction will not lower the mortgages or the cost of living of those fishing families, nor it will lower the fishing industry's fixed costs. The insurance costs and other permanent costs are not affected by the fact that the fishermen will not go to sea for two or three days a week, or whatever the compromise happens to be. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the real impact of these changes, even if the Commission has suggested some sort of compromise.
I have no doubts about the Minister's integrity or his knowledge of these matters. I said that at the beginning of the debate, and it has been reflected in the spirit of the
862
debate, and in comments from Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said, however, this is now a political matter, and it is recognised as such by the fishing industry as well as by politicians. It is political because it is about trading. It will involve trading, dealing, negotiations and all the other things that happen when such matters come before European Ministers. I do not doubt the integrity of our Minister, but I doubt his power to do anything about that.
Unless the matter is dealt with at the very highest level of Government, and the Prime Minister takes a personal and genuine interest and gives fishing the priority—several hon. Members used that word—that many of us believe it deserves, it will be traded away as if it were nothing. I am not prepared to let that happen without a fight, and without speaking very loudly about it in this Chamber and elsewhere. That is the challenge to the Minister. He knows that I believe that the only way forward is to leave the common fisheries policy. I will say that time and again. Given that that will not happen while the current crisis is being resolved, we legitimately demand—not on our behalf but on behalf of those hard-pressed fishermen, their families and their communities—that he fight for them with every sinew in his body, and that his boss, the Prime Minister, show legitimate concern and real passion in fighting for them, too.
5.11 pm
Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall wind up the debate.
We have heard speeches from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). That demonstrates the concern of many Members about the Commission's proposals on fishing. These debates are serious, because Members participate on the basis of their knowledge, and of representing their constituencies and the fishing industry. I very much respect that.
Looking for some of the solutions will be difficult. We should be clear that the Commission is deadly serious. There were one or two comments about scares; the idea is that a big scare leads to a compromise, which can be brought back and demonstrated as a success. We have been moving away from that for some years in the Fisheries Council. I, for one, have not been arguing against the science when it is justified, and the Commission has been very serious about its proposals and increasingly reluctant to move from them. What I have not heard tonight—I put this mildly—is solutions

863
from the Opposition for the problem. It is difficult—and it will continue to be difficult. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Congleton had some solutions; I am not sure that they were workable, but nevertheless, she had some solutions.
On some of the points that were raised, however, I should make it clear that I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that the science is paramount. I am genuinely sorry about what happened to the Colne fleet. As he knows, I have met those people many times. He still has an important fish market in that area, however, and an important inshore fleet with long-liners, and I recognise and take note of the fact that that is a very selective fishery.
I must correct what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said about the Irish sea recovery plan. There have been some encouraging signs, although we must be cautious about the science. I shall talk about that in a moment. I should make it clear that the closed area was closed to all vessels, including beamers, from whatever country. It is not the case that we were closing it to our vessels while other vessels could go in—and that is not what I would want to see. The hon. Gentleman played the blame game a bit. He implied that other countries were responsible, and that we were not, but we must face up to our responsibility.
As for the impact on other countries, Germany and Sweden have already announced that they support the moratorium and will tie up their fleets. For other fleets, the Commission is calling for a 40 per cent. cut in effort for beam trawling. That will have an enormous impact on Holland and Belgium, and on France, which also has an important cod fishery. The implications are therefore not just for the UK. Other countries are facing difficult issues, too.
It is certainly true that the North sea mixed fishery is of dominant importance to the UK. The proposals for cod stocks—which, along with those for the mixed fishery of haddock and whiting, are in the greatest difficulty—will impact on us, and I do not dispute that they will impact on us in a big way. That is why Members have been right to raise their concerns.
However, I have some reassurance about effort. We are now making our calculations about what might be the effort reduction on the baseline figures to which the Commission is working. We have probably reduced effort by 12 per cent., so one can deduct that figure from whatever the Commission proposes. It may well be possible to increase it.
However, I want to be honest with the House about our thinking. I am not prepared to argue for reductions that I cannot justify on the science. I will argue for reductions, but only if there is a strong case. The Commission has heard it all before. Many countries will demand reductions of what it proposes. They will demand more quota, and the Commission has become cynical about that. However, the UK has been successful because we have been able to justify our position on strong scientific grounds. That is why the position on nephrops has changed. Because of our research, and the evidence, the Commission now recognises that there is no case for closing the nephrops fishery. The by-catch is tiny. That important change demonstrates that we can make progress.
864
I will write to the regional development agencies in England to alert them about the potential impacts on local areas. I agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that the way in which the issue of kilowatt days has been presented in the Commission as a blunt tool that will be used to force people into decommissioning by bankruptcy is not acceptable. We will not go along with that proposal. There may be merits in considering a kilowatt days effort regime, but that involves talking with the industry and making the proposals work.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that this is a time for cool heads; it is not a time for panicking. The industry should distinguish between what might look good and produce lots of excitement, and what will produce results. I am concerned with getting good results based on good science and sustainability. However, I will work closely with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive and the devolved Administrations. I recognise the points that hon. Members have made. I shall certainly stand up for the fishing industry of this country, but I shall do so on the basis of good science and sustainable management, while recognising the justification of the case that steps must be taken to deal with the severe decline in fish stocks.
Hon. Members will be coming to see me privately soon, and I will be able to go into the science in more detail then than I can in one minute now.
It being four hours after the commencement of business, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Question necessary to dispose of the business at that hour, pursuant to Order [18 November].
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
The House having divided. Ayes 32, Noes 232.

Division No. 005]

[5:18 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Barrett, John

Inverness)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Moore, Michael

Beith, rh A. J.

Öpik, Lembit

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Burnett, John

Dinefwr)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Pugh, Dr. John

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Carmichael, Alistair

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Chidgey, David

Salmond, Alex

Sanders, Adrian

Cotter, Brian

Stunell, Andrew

Doughty, Sue

Weir, Michael

Ewing, Annabelle

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Wishart, Pete

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Abingdon)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heath, David

Mr. Alan Reid and

Holmes, Paul

Sir Robert Smith

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Ainger, Nick

Atkins, Charlotte

Allen, Graham

Bailey, Adrian

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Baird, Vera

865

Barnes, Harry

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Battle, John

Galloway, George

Bayley, Hugh

Gardiner, Barry

Beard, Nigel

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Benn, Hilary

Gerrard, Neil

Bennett, Andrew

Gilroy, Linda

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Best, Harold

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Betts, Clive

Grogan, John

Blizzard, Bob

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Borrow, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Bradshaw, Ben

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Brennan, Kevin

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Rhymney)

Wallsend)

Hepburn, Stephen

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Hesford, Stephen

Bryant, Chris

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Buck, Ms Karen

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Burden, Richard

Hodge, Margaret

Byers, rh Stephen

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cairns, David

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Caplin, Ivor

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Casale, Roger

Sefton E)

Caton, Martin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Challen, Colin

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hutton, rh John

Chaytor, David

Illsley, Eric

Clapham, Michael

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Chryston)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Coaker, Vernon

Kemp, Fraser

Coffey, Ms Ann

Kidney, David

Cohen, Harry

King, Andy (Rugby)

Coleman, Iain

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Colman, Tony

Bow)

Connarty, Michael

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Cooper, Yvette

Lepper, David

Corston, Jean

Leslie, Christopher

Cranston, hon. Ross

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Crausby, David

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Cruddas, Jon

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Cyer, John (Hornchurch)

Love, Andrew

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Dalyell, Tam

McAvoy, Thomas

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McCartney, rh Ian

David, Wayne

McDonagh, Siobhain

Davidson, Ian

McDonnell, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

MacDougall, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

McIsaac, Shona

Doran, Frank

McKechin, Ann

Dowd, Jim (Lewlsham W)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Drew, David (Stroud)

McWilliam, John

Drown, Ms Julia

Mahmood, Khalid

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Mallaber, Judy

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Etherington, Bill

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Farrelly, Paul

Shettleston)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Fisher, Mark

Meacher, rh Michael

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Flint, Caroline

Merron, Gillian

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Michael, rh Alun

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Moffatt, Laura

& Rye)

Morgan, Julie

Foulkes, rh George

Morley, Elliot

866

Mountford, Kali

Spellar, rh John

Mullin, Chris

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stevenson, George

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Lochaber)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Olner, Bill

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Neill, Martin

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Picking, Anne

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Pollard, Kerry

Tipping, Paddy

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Pound, Stephen

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Trickett, Jon

E)

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prosser, Gwyn

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Purchase, Ken

Kemptown)

Quin, rh Joyce

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Quinn, Lawrie

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rammell, Bill

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Bellshill)

Wareing, Robert N.

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Watts, David

Ruddock, Joan

White, Brian

Salter, Martin

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wicks, Malcolm

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilson, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Wray, James (Glasgow

Sheridan, Jim

Baillieston)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Skinner, Dennis

Yarmouth)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Finsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Joan Ryan and

Soley, Clive

Mr. John Heppell

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union documents No. COM (02) 181, Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ("Roadmap"), No. COM (02) 185, draft Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, No. COM (02) 187, draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, No. COM (02) 190, draft Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels, No. COM (02) 186, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. COM (02) 180, Commission Communication, a Community Action Plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and supports the Government's objectives, which are to work for a Common Fisheries Policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable, to strengthen the Common Fisheries Policy's regional dimension, to increase industry involvement in decisions on fisheries management and conservation and improve the dialogue between fishermen and scientists, to increase the integration of environmental concerns into fisheries management, to introduce clearer procedures for responding quickly to conservation emergencies, to confirm the 6 and 12-mile access restrictions on a permanent basis, to continue relative stability (including the Hague Preference) and retain the Shetland Box, to ensure greater effectiveness and consistency in control and

867
enforcement of European Union requirements, while attempting to simplify the burden of control on fishermen, to improve the value for money of third country agreements and their coherence with development and environmental objectives and to promote the effective operation of Regional Fisheries Organizations.

Committee of Selection
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Keith Hill.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of Pete Wishart.
5.36 pm
Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Mr. John McWilliam): The Committee of Selection exists under the private business Standing Orders and not the public business Standing Orders. The principal function of the Committee was originally, and still is, to appoint members of private Committees. That is because, in previous times, private interests promoted much of the legislation that passed through the House. The canals and railways were built using private Bills, as were toll roads. I know of a bridge in Oxfordshire where one has to pay a toll of one old penny—I think that it is now 5p—to cross. That has been our principal role and it remains so today.
The motion seek to discharge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee of Selection and appoint in his place the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). The change is consequent on a recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was made shadow Agriculture Minister. If anybody was in any doubt about that, they should have been present for the winding-up speeches in the previous debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire then took his place as the Conservative party's pairing Whip.
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the service that he gave the Committee and his good-natured contributions. I wish him well in his future role. To judge by his performance earlier, he needs no encouragement from me.
For many years, the Opposition pairing Whip had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees and, of course, private Bill Committees. The membership change is therefore essential to enable the Committee of Selection to carry out the work delegated to it by the House. Such changes in membership are not unusual. A similar change was made on 17 October 2001 when the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings replaced the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). On 5 November 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has described the duties and background of the Committee of Selection. Could it discharge its duties effectively if a member of the minority parties sat on it?
Mr. McWilliam: I shall deal with that later in my peroration. I intend to cover that specific point in the context of the amendment.

869
I thank hon. Members who served the Committee so well. Their service was greatly appreciated by my colleagues who remain members of the Committee. I congratulate the new members on their role. I look forward to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire joining us in due course.
The motion first appeared on the Order Paper on 15 October during unopposed private business immediately after Prayers. Hon. Members objected to it then and subsequently, resulting in today's debate. Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members were among those who objected. The debate may therefore provide a good opportunity to inform hon. Members about how the Committee of Selection deals with smaller parties.
As required by private business Standing Order No. 109, the Committee has only nine members, of whom six are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. The composition is in proportion to that of the House. There are currently 410 Labour Members, 163 Conservative Members, 53 Liberal Democrats, nine SNP or Plaid Cymru Members, six Ulster Unionists, five Democratic Unionist party Members, four Sinn Fein Members, three Social Democratic and Labour party Members and two independent Members, as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.
We take great care to ensure that we adhere to the proportions that I outlined. If we take 651 Members of the House as a base, 0.630 are Labour, 0.250 are Conservative and 0.120 are others. Hon. Members who care to work out how nine Members can represent 651 in those proportions will realise that it is difficult. We take the matter seriously: we work out the figures and round them up, which is when matters become interesting.
Enabling minority parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru to qualify for a seat would make for a large and unwieldy Committee, which would benefit neither its members nor the House. On a Committee of nine, such as the Committee of Selection, the composition is six Labour Members, two Conservative Members and a member of the largest minority party, the Liberal Democrats.
Until recently, the Liberal Democrats represented the smaller parties on the Committee of Selection. A problem arose last year, and the matter was raised through the usual channels. An agreement was made whereby Government Whips now represent the smaller parties. The new arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily. At least, I have heard no complaints, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has known me for many years, would not feel diffident about picking up the telephone or dropping me a note. I encourage that. If any hon. Members have difficulties about the Committee of Selection, I would be happy to discuss its work with them.
The arrangement worked but it broke down and the replacement is satisfactory. Anxieties have been expressed about the representation of the smaller parties on the Liaison Committee. That Committee is not nominated by the Committee of Selection. Almost all the Committees appointed by the Committee of Selection are proposed using the formula that I have
870
described to ensure that their composition reflects as accurately as possible the balance of the parties in the House.
The few exceptions are special cases, such as the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which the smaller parties are over-represented—and correctly so. I often chair the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and I take great pains to ensure that the parties whose members are based in Northern Ireland have some precendence for speaking, because they could otherwise be swamped. It is not only the Committee of Selection that does that; the Chairmen's Panel is also aware of such issues and we try our best to ensure that that happens.
I mentioned that the Committee of Selection was based on the private business Standing Orders. We still have an important role in selecting private Committees. We have had a change since the Committee of Selection was first set up. Obviously, the decision to add the setting up of Standing Committees and Select Committees to the Committee of Selection's tasks was a sensible one for the House to make. It saved setting up a totally different Committee and meant that the Committee's role continued.
Mr. Salmond: I know from previous experience that the hon. Gentleman is a very fair-minded man, but he is being less than fair to his Committee. There are 25 Members from minority parties in the House, and the membership of a number of Committees—including the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has been expanded to allow a minority party to be represented. With his long experience of fairness, does he consider it an unreasonable objective that each minority party should sit on one departmental Select Committee, over and above the territorial Committees on which they obviously have to be represented?
Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In the case of the SNP, there is a Parliament in Edinburgh to which much of the work that the departmental Select Committees do down here has been devolved. Only the retained functions continue to be dealt with here. I would think it silly to have a member of the SNP on any Committee whose functions, as they affect Scotland, have been totally devolved.
Pete Wishart: Following that logic, may I presume that the hon. Gentleman would have no problem if a minority party managed to secure membership of a non-territorial departmental Select Committee that examines the reserved powers?
Mr. McWilliam: I recall a period when the official Unionist party had a place on the Select Committee on Defence, which it lost because all its Members stood for re-election. I cannot remember the reason for that, although I am sure that it was a good one. When they resigned their seats, however, the place had to be reallocated, and it was allocated to the official Opposition. I think that I might have been one of the beneficiaries of that. Anyway, that is what happened.
To increase the representation of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, we would, as I have said, have to shove the membership of the Committee of Selection up to an

871
unwieldy number. On the principle that the hon. Gentleman raised, however, the Scottish Parliament has powers to enact private legislation. Indeed, it would be difficult to envisage an instance in which it would be appropriate for the Scottish promoter of a private Bill to promote it in this House rather than in the Scottish Parliament. I shall try to drag up an example instantly. If someone were proposing to do something on Ministry of Defence land, that would probably fall within the remit of this House, but I cannot think of anything else that would.
The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for a different position. I had the privilege of chairing part of the deliberations on that legislation on the Floor of the House. I remind hon. Members that, although the Welsh Assembly does not deal with private legislation as such, it may promote it in this House. Although there are controls over that, somebody could petition the Welsh Assembly to promote a private Bill here, but the Assembly must vote to promote such a measure, with two thirds of Members in favour. Two thirds of Members do not need to be present, however.
I understand that discussions are taking place between the Wales Office and the Assembly on whether to amend that provision to provide more flexibility for the Assembly. I do not know how those discussions are proceeding—I am in no position to know—but I understand why Plaid Cymru Members and Welsh Members of other parties may want to make such a change.
Before I sit down, I must thank personally the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for so ably stepping into the breach, which he did not have to fill, to look after the interests of the official Opposition while the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was away doing other duties such as preparing for the debate earlier this evening. The right hon. Gentleman stepped in with his usual wit and charm—he is always a welcome and useful member of my Committee.
Having said that, I have probably banged on long enough. The basis of my objection to the amendment is simple and straightforward: if there were to be a member of the Committee of Selection from a minority party, I would argue that the Scottish National party is the least appropriate minority party to have one; were the Committee of Selection to be expanded to such a size as to enable the minority parties to be represented, I would argue that it was of such a size as to be unwieldy.
Pete Wishart: According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, that rule applies to SNP Members, but surely it should also apply to Scottish Labour Back Benchers, two of whom chair Select Committees?
Mr. McWilliam: It strikes me that the Department of Trade and Industry has some powers devolved and some not, so I would not worry too much about that.
If expanded to such a size, the Committee would become too unwieldy to work. As members of the Committee know, sometimes we have to meet because someone has got something wrong or some mechanism has got stuck. I must tell the House that I do not believe
872
in back-door deals. We do not always meet in a Committee Room, but we always have a quorum and we always have a Clerk present if we have to amend a proposal before it goes on the Order Paper so as to enable the decision to be taken cleanly and properly.
Having said that, I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment and for the Government motion.
5.53 pm
Pete Wishart: I beg to move, To leave out "Mr Peter Luff" and insert "Pete Wishart".
We have nothing against the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), whom I am sure will prove to be a worthy and constructive member of the Committee of Selection. We have moved the amendment to draw attention to the plight of the minority parties. Our dispute has nothing to do with him, as he well knows, but everything to do with the treatment of the minority parties at the hands of the House.
If the House, in its wisdom, agrees to put me on the Committee of Selection, I pledge to be diligent. I will do all that I can to represent the interests not just of minority parties but of the Government and the official Opposition and to ensure that they both get all the Select Committee places that they feel entitled to or require.
Mr. McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the role that he has described is one that I take very much to heart—it is the role that I attempt to play and have always attempted to play on the Committee. I try to be as objective, fair, open and honest as I can and I try to make certain that everybody gets a fair deal.
Pete Wishart: I would not dare question the hon. Gentleman's integrity. I am sure he is absolutely right.
We tabled the amendment because we were almost at our wits' end. We wondered what more we had to do to convince the House that we in the minority parties want to be recognised as a significant constituency, and to play a constructive role in the House's business.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) described me as an SNP Member, but I also represent all the minority parties this evening. We work well together, as he was gracious enough to acknowledge, but ours is very much a business arrangement. Little unites us politically. At the end of the day, when a Division is called, we go into different Lobbies, and that is fine and dandy. On one matter, however, we overwhelmingly agree: we in the minority parties deserve better from the House.
Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman said that he would act responsibly in representing the House. I find that astounding, given that he and the rest of his party work against the House's best interests, talk it down and indeed seek to get rid of it.
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of information collected by POLIS that shows how effectively Scottish Back Benchers contribute to

873
debate here. Invariably, SNP Members have topped any contributions by Labour Members. I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall hear no more of this discussion, as it is well beyond the terms of the amendment.
Pete Wishart: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House must recognise that we in the minority parties are now 23-strong. Our membership is almost half that of the Liberal Democrats, but we have nothing like the same number of Select Committee places and nothing like the same influence in the House. The Liberal Democrats are on every Select Committee, while we are on only seven out of 46. The Liberal Democrats are a fair party that believes in proportionality. Let us see how proportional representation applies to these circumstances.
To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, it must be said that they are only looking after their own, within the rules and confines of the House. I know that it is different in the Committee of Selection, but the average Select Committee has 11 places. According to the rules, seven must be reserved for the Government, three for the official Opposition and one for the other minority parties, including the Liberal Democrats. Who can blame the Liberal Democrats for snaffling all the places for themselves? Why should they care about the other minority parties? Even when they were responsible for looking after the interests of the minority parties, they still took all the seats.
Something is not working here when a constituency of this size can be overlooked. If our membership is about half the size of that of the Liberal Democrats, we should be given about half the number of places that they currently have.
Mr. McWilliam: So who is to be cut in half?
Pete Wishart: I could suggest several candidates. I am looking in front of me, but I will not comment.
I pledge that I would be a diligent member of the Committee of Selection. In some respects, things have improved for the minority parties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new arrangement whereby the Government Whips represent the minority parties, and I must say that that has been a very satisfactory solution. We have access to the usual channels.
Anne Picking: You said earlier that minority parties get together to discuss how you want to work, but that your pathways often diverge when it comes to political decisions. How can you possibly effectively—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should use correct parliamentary language. When she says "you", she is addressing the Chair.
Anne Picking: I am sorry Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am not used to being on my feet. I do not get many opportunities to speak, because my party has such a large majority.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady makes regular applications to speak, she may find that she is more successful.
Anne Picking: Point taken, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
874
How can the hon. Gentleman represent the minority parties when they are not of the same ilk politically?
Pete Wishart: Perhaps the hon. Lady should make better use of her few opportunities to address this House than by asking such an innocuous question. As I tried to explain, our coming together is a business arrangement. We do not hide the fact that we take different political positions on certain issues. Such an arrangement allows us to progress the case of minority parties in this House.
Things have improved for the minority parties under the tutelage of the Government Whips, who look after our interests. We now have access to the usual channels, and we get quicker and improved access to the business of the House. We have managed to secure most of the places that we seek in Standing Committees and other such Committees. The Government have been generous—they have given us an allotted time to debate matters in the House, and for that we are grateful.
I seek this place on the Committee of Selection—I am ensuring that I say that several times—because in some respects things have got worse for the minority parties. Joint Committees of both Houses, which are increasingly used, are 24-strong. Even according to the crude arithmetic of this House, the minority parties should have a place on them. They look after crucial national issues such as Lords reform and communication, which is fundamental and essential to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We are overlooked in their membership, and the House should address that.
The hon. Member for Blaydon was generous enough to refer to the Liaison Committee, which has 32 members. Again according to the crude arithmetic of this House, we should have a place—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman used the word "generous", and I was extremely generous in allowing the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to deploy his arguments. However, we have gone rather wide of the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mention the Liaison Committee because I do not want to be just a member of the Committee of Selection but to be its Chairman so that I can qualify for the Liaison Committee. That is a reasonable demand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because as you and hon. Members know, to be a member of the Liaison Committee one has to be a Chairman of a Select Committee. If that is the only mechanism to get a member of a minority party on to the Liaison Committee, make me the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon would have no particular objection to that.
I believe that the Government understand and appreciate the plight of minority parties in this House, and we have heard some sympathetic noises from them. I meet representatives of the Government Whips Office weekly, and those meetings are useful and constructive. Government Whips do not deserve their fearsome reputation—they are a convivial bunch of chaps who are easy to do business with. The Leader of the House appreciates the plight of the minority parties. To judge

875
from his correspondence with me, and his responses to points raised in the House, he seems sympathetic to our cause. He says that he is looking for solutions, and I take that at face value. Nor do I want to exclude the Conservatives, who have been more than helpful in their new arrangement. I seek to be on the Committee of Selection so that I can build on such relationships with Front-Bench Members. It has also been useful to be told how we could perhaps create merry havoc in the House by continuing with this campaign.
I wish that I could extend this expression of good will to the Liberal Democrats, but, alas, that would be taking the spirit of generosity a bit too far. There is no truer saying than that you never know where you are with the Liberal Democrats—the pick-and-mix people of politics. They are responsible for looking after the minority parties, yet they took away the only non-territorial departmental Select Committee that SNP-Plaid Cymru had. Their stewardship of minority parties has been about as useful as a chocolate frying pan. I wish that the expressions of good will that we have detected from Government Front Benchers, the Leader of the House's office and Conservative Members could be translated into Select Committee places. We welcome the support, but we would rather have the places.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Has the hon. Gentleman approached the Modernisation Committee on this matter, or has he simply taken this opportunity to further his career?
Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my career. I am touched, but he makes a good point about the Modernisation Committee, which has two Liberal Democrat members. Why does it not have one Liberal, and one member from a minority party?
We are getting there, step by step. The House must recognise that it has obligations and should appear to be as representative as possible. That is why I am seeking this place on the Committee of Selection.
Jim Sheridan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the House accepts his amendment, the incentive for minority parties to become majority parties will be removed?
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern about the possibility that my party could become a majority party in this House. I assure him that it has no ambition in that direction. The House will have to ensure at some point that minority parties with substantial constituencies are properly represented. Minorities should be over-represented, not overlooked.
I realise that the amendment is unlikely to be accepted, and I accept the arithmetic that shows that the minority parties in the House have only 23 Members. However, the SNP is the second party in Scotland, and the official Opposition there. The same is true of Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) belongs to a party that, when Stormont sits, effectively forms the Government of Northern Ireland. I hope that that Assembly will sit again before too long.
876
Collectively, the minority parties represent 1.5 million people in the UK. For some time, I have wondered why it is not possible for me to be on the Committee of Selection. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I can take part in the business of the House, participate in debates, ask questions and serve on Standing Committees. Why, then, are the minority parties under-represented on Select Committees when their members can play a full part in the House otherwise? We are told that we are too few in number, but why are we unable to gain access only to the departmental Select Committees?
I hope that this campaign will allow the House to understand more fully the position of the minority parties. The House depends on the good will of all parties to function. We believe that, if that good will is not shown to us, we have every right to withdraw our good will in return. Our campaign is to increase our influence in the House, but we are not asking for all that much. It is not unreasonable for each minority party to be given one place on a non-departmental Select Committee beyond their territory.
Anne Picking: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that his party will withdraw good will?
Pete Wishart: We do not want to come to the House time and again to put forward our case for increased representation here. I hope that the House is beginning to understand that we want to play a constructive part in the House's workings and institutions.
Mr. John Burnett: We all hope that members of one of the minority parties will grace the House with their presence at the debate on next year's Finance Bill.
Pete Wishart: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us if we put in a bid to serve on the Finance Bill Committee. All too often we put in bids to serve on Standing Committees, only to be knocked back. We put in bids to be involved in Select Committees and are knocked back.
Mr. Salmond: I recall an amendment to the Treasury Committee's membership when I was nominated to replace, admittedly, a Liberal Democrat Member. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) voted against me, presumably because he did not want me to scrutinise items such as the Budget and the Finance Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was an interesting piece of parliamentary history, but has little to do with the amendment.
Pete Wishart: Even so, it is a point well made.
I shall conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that I have tested your patience in trying to stay in order. What we are asking for is not unreasonable—we are asking for one place in a non-territorial departmental Select Committee. Give us a place on the Liaison Committee for goodness' sake—it is 32-strong. Surely a

877
place could be found for a member of the minority parties. I do not think that we are asking for much. I ask the House to give us our place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that I have been generous so far in my interpretation of the motion and the amendment. In the time remaining, however, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to stay strictly in order in debating the amendment.
6.11 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I will adhere strictly to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me say first that I have the highest admiration and respect for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on the way in which he put his case.
I wish to register support for the principle that a place should be found on the Committee of Selection and other Committees so that the voice of a representative of the small minority parties can be heard. The small minority parties have met and are agreed that when given an opportunity to serve, we can, by agreement, put forward a representative. For that reason, I support the hon. Member for North Tayside and agree that he should be appointed to the Committee of Selection. At this time, he is the agreed representative of small minority parties in the House. On the basis of seeking greater inclusivity of Committee membership and in order to give Committee experience to small parties through agreed rotation of their representative, I hope that the House will seek to provide the opportunity to serve on the Committee of Selection and other Committees to the agreed representative of the small minority parties, at the earliest possible opportunity, if not tonight.

The hon. Member for North Tayside has played keyboard with Runrig; he has made music to the delight of many audiences for 15 years and is, I think, the only Member of the House to have appeared on "Top of the Pops". His inclusion on the Committee of Selection or any other Committee would no doubt bring harmony to this House. I believe that it would also increase the sense of worth and equal value of every Member and party represented in the House. I support the amendment.
6.13 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Although the debate seems on the face of it to be about the specific issue of the replacement of one of my hon. Friends with another Member in the routine way that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has described, it subsumes some bigger issues that have been touched on and to which I hope I will be allowed to refer, however briefly, because they are very important to the House. For that reason, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to touch on these issues this evening. I hope that the Government will take this seriously and allow us collectively to consider the issues again. They are, no more and no less, the role of the minority parties at large in the House and its Committees and institutions. When I talk of minority parties, I refer not only to the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, the
878
Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party but also to the Liberal Democrats, who are a minority party in the House.
If we consider the total minority party membership, it is about 80 Members in 659—or about 650 if we exclude you and your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so there could be a case for saying that the minority parties generally should have proportionate representation on all Committees, including the Committee of Selection.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that earlier this year the House voted on the Modernisation Committee proposals, which included reform of the operation of the Committee of Selection? Had that been accepted by the House, there would indeed have been a minority representative on the Committee and the problem would have been overcome. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he voted against that reform and for the entrenchment of the arrangements that he is criticising?
Mr. Forth: I am more than proud to vote against most of the rubbish that emanates from the Modernisation Committee, and hope to continue to do so.
The issue is wider than the Committee of Selection. My argument is a much more general and, if I may say so, generous one: we should treat the minority parties collectively, as I have described them, in an even-handed way. We could thus properly extend the hand of generosity and recognition to all the minority parties, not least on the Committee of Selection, as is being suggested.
This is a microcosm of the much wider debate that should take place, not, I hope, in the Modernisation Committee but in a much more sensible forum where we could achieve some generosity and common sense. I was interested that tribute was rightly paid to the current custodianship of the Government Whips Office—represented in this debate in such a distinguished way by the Government Deputy Chief Whip—for an abler and much fairer representation of the minority parties than the Liberal Democrats managed. I pay tribute to the Government for that.
The issue goes from the particular to the general. The particular issue is important, but I hope that Members of the minority parties will not press it to a vote, although they have correctly used it as a vehicle for this debate, which I welcome because it is important.
Pete Wishart: We do not want to divide the House this evening. We have made our case as we intended.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his decency and generosity in saying that. As I said, he has properly used the matter as an opportunity for a debate, but he has generously said that he will not press it to a vote. He realises, as the Chairman of the Committee of Selection pointed out, that such changes of membership are routine. They occur from time to time in order to recognise the changes that take place in the ranks of the Government and the official Opposition, so from that point of view they are uncontroversial.
I hope, however, that following this debate, which has been conducted in a good-natured and constructive way, we shall have further opportunities to examine in a

879
broader sense the representation of the minority parties throughout the Committee structure, so that we can properly recognise the role played by all the minority parties, including of course the Liberal Democrats.
Andrew Bennett: Should we not also look at their attendance? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the minority parties took the Liberal place on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as the Liberal Member did not turn up for 12 months. Minority party attendance at that Committee is not especially good.
Mr. Forth: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that it would be productive or proper to get into that point at this stage, although it may become a consideration in the future. If, for example, we were able to guarantee the minority parties collectively a place on each Committee, which is really what the hon. Member for North Tayside was asking for, we might find that they would respond by taking their attendance a bit more seriously. If the Liberal Democrats' representation were reduced, that might concentrate their minds a bit, which would help to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).
We now have an opportunity to reconsider the role that all the minority parties play in the House and in Committees, and there is a case to be made for saying that if we took the minority parties together, and allocated the total of their 80 Members to Committees according to proportionality, we could come to a fair and proper conclusion. The debate has allowed us to look ahead. We have seen the generosity of spirit displayed by the hon. Member for North Tayside in saying that he has brought the matter to the attention of the House but he does not propose to divide the House, and I am grateful to him for that.
In closing, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for, in his usual way, so ably helping and representing the official Opposition during this period of hiatus, which I hope will shortly come to an end as we conclude this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestions made by minority party representatives and myself so that we can look forward to a more even-handed and fair distribution of representation than we have seen hitherto.
6.21 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), about this being a constructive, positive debate, and I hope that he will find my responses characteristically positive.
The motion before the House is routine and straightforward. It has been outlined by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). The change being sought comes as a consequence of the recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for
880
South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was made a shadow Agriculture Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) took his place as the Conservative pairing Whip. As has already been explained, for many years the official Opposition's pairing Whip has had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees. The membership change that we are debating is essential for the Committee to carry out its work as delegated to it by the House.
The Committee of Selection was established under private business Standing Order No. 109. It has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon has already explained, nine members, of which six currently are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. That breakdown is proportionate to the political composition of the House. It has been pointed out that until recently the smaller parties were represented on the Committee by the Liberal Democrats, but that arrangement broke down last year.
Mr. Forth: Why?
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not for me to go into any grief between two minority parties, but the smaller parties are now represented by the Government. As we have heard, that arrangement seems to have worked satisfactorily, and I believe that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said from a sedentary position that it is much better.
The hon. Member for North Tayside, however, was slightly unfair about the Liberal Democrats' relationship with the rest of the minority parties. Far be it from me to come to the defence of the Liberal Democrats, but I understand that there are six examples of seats on Standing Committees being given up by the Liberal Democrats to the smaller minority parties. There also seems to be confusion about what constitutes a minority party, or at least a failure to be strict enough in our terminology.
Mr. Forth: No, no.
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but in this debate the term "minority party" has been used by some to include the Liberal Democrats and by others to exclude them.
Mr. Salmond: I am interested in what the Minister means by "giving up" places. It has been said that if the minority parties, whose Members add up to almost half the number of Liberal Democrat Members, had half their number of Committee places, we would be more than satisfied. However, we have only a fraction of that at the moment. Does what the Minister said about giving up places mean that other Members in the House are given a place on a Committee only because someone has given it up? Is not there an entitlement?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am simply seeking to point out to the House that on six occasions, at the request of minority parties—largely, I have to say, at the request of the Scottish National party-the Liberal Democrats have given up places on Standing Committees.

881
Blocking this change in membership—the effect of the amendment—is helpful to no one, although I appreciate that Opposition Members have concerns about smaller party representation. Indeed, that concern is shared, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He shares their desire to ensure that the matter is treated with fairness.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Tayside was generous enough to acknowledge that matters had improved not only under this Government but under my right hon. Friend's stewardship. I was slightly sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman express veiled threats about what might happen in relation to co-operating with the business of the House if things did not improve even more quickly. I am sorry about that and hope that he will not feel the need to follow through with any of those threats.
I wish to quote from a letter that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote in response to a letter that he received from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 14 November. [Interruption.] I am sorry about my pronunciation; my Welsh is not great. My right hon. Friend said:
"When the House voted against an overall increase in the size of select committees last May"—
as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—
"it turned down the opportunity to offer up to fifty additional colleagues places on select committees. I hope that the Committee of Selection will bear the needs of the minority parties in mind when considering members for new, or expanded, committees."
I hope that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, has heard me repeat those words in the Chamber this evening.
Mr. McWilliam: May I reassure my hon. Friend that I was present to hear those words the first time, and they are always in my mind?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I would have gone on to quote from the response by the Leader of the House to the queries from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on their grievances about representation on the Liaison Committee. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you ruled out of order the points that were made on that matter earlier in the debate, I would imagine that you would not be too pleased if I did so now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker indicated assent.
Mr. Bradshaw: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In an earlier letter to the hon. Member for North Tayside back, I think, in September, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he could only address his concerns when opportunities arose in the natural flow of business. That is our desire and intention. He went on to say that he hoped that the minority parties had found the Government helpful in Standing Committees, where we have helped to engineer extra places for the smaller parties. Of course an extra
882
Opposition day has been created for the smaller parties as well. My right hon. Friend concluded by saying that he remained alive to the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be positive and helpful, but I am a bit worried about the phrase "the natural flow of business". It strikes me that it implies that, whereas the Government will try to manoeuvre something here or there and perhaps make a little concession, they will make no positive effort seriously to consider the issue to find a more permanent solution. I hope that he is saying that he will go beyond the natural flow of business and try to do something proactive.
Mr. Bradshaw: With all respect, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said, the Government had a good go at this—at least my right hon. Friend did—back in May, and we failed, not least because some Members, such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), voted against the proposals. However, we intend to take the issue seriously. During the flow of business, positions arise on Committees and new Select Committees even come into existence, so there will be plenty of opportunities not for me—it is not my role—but for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to take such things into consideration.
Mr. Stunell: Do I take it that the implication of the Minister's last remarks is that the Government intend to bring those proposals back to the House? That would be very much welcomed by me, and, I would have thought, by Members from the minority nationalist parties and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is not realistic to imagine that the Government would bring those proposals back so soon after they were defeated in such a way. I am sure that that is a great disappointment, not just to him but to many other Members who voted for those sensible proposals.
More recently, on 17 October, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for North Tayside, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House repeated again that he was
"very much aware of the grievance of the minority parties on the question of appointments to Committees."
He pointed out that there had been a lot of correspondence on the matter on several occasions, and that he would continue to look into a solution, adding:
"There will be plenty of procedural opportunities for him to make his point."—[Official Report, 17 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 475.]
That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is doing this evening, as he made clear in his speech—it was not primarily about his unrealistic aim to get a place on the Committee of Selection, let alone the chairmanship of it, but to make the point that the minority or smaller parties were under-represented generally on Committees.
If I may, I would like to disabuse the House of the idea that the smaller parties are suffering some terrible injustice. If one looks at the figures, one sees that the breakdown in relation to Members from small parties on

883
public business Standing Order Committees, plus modernisation and House of Lords reform Committees, is as follows: Liberal Democrats, 33, official Unionists, five, Plaid Cymru, three, Scottish national party, two, Social Democratic and Labour party, one, Democratic Unionist party, one, and Independent, one. That is a total of 46. If that number were broken down with strict proportionality, the total would be 45. The number of Liberal Democrats would be 31, so one could argue that the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented by two. There would be three official Unionists, so they are also currently over-represented by two. The Democratic Unionist party would have three members, so it is currently under-represented by two. The Scottish national party would have three, so, under strict proportionality, it is under-represented by one. Plaid Cymru would have two, so it is over-represented by one. The Social Democratic and Labour party would have two, so it is under-represented by one, and Independents would have one, which is supposed to be strictly proportional, although there is only one Independent Member, so, strictly speaking, the Independents would be eligible for only half a place.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister should understand that those figures take into account the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which, clearly, all the Northern Irish parties must be represented. He should not therefore use that argument to distort figures elsewhere. Is he also aware that those figures include the Catering Committee, which was not our first choice in terms of Committee places?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has that view of the Catering Committee—
Andrew Bennett: That illustrates that not all the Committees are exciting to sit on. Can the Minister give us not only the numbers on each of the Committees, but figures on the attendance on each of them?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I do not have the numbers on each of the Committees to hand. If my hon.
884
Friend will allow me, I am happy to write to him with a breakdown of all the figures. I shall try my best to obtain figures for attendance, too, which I am sure many Members would find extremely interesting. He is absolutely right to suggest that if parties want positions on important or sexy Committees, they should also be willing to do the work on the duller, less glamorous Committees, many of which are just as important to the workings of the House and in terms of the scrutiny that they provide for Government.
Before the intervention from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I was trying to make the point that, under strict proportionality, the smaller parties are not hard done by. If anything, they are slightly over-represented on the breadth of Committees that sit in the House. That does not mean to say, as I made clear, that the Government are not sensitive to the points that have been made repeatedly this evening, which I am sure have been heard by my hon. Friend who chairs the Committee of Selection.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will not press his amendment to a vote, which he has indicated that he does not intend to do. I commend the motion to the House. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I hope that the House will reject it.
Pete Wishart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.
6.35 pm
Sitting suspended.

Fire Dispute
On resuming—
6.50 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make another statement on the fire service pay dispute. I apologise to the House for making this statement when matters are still unresolved, but the House does not sit tomorrow and I undertook to keep Members informed. The strike is still planned to take place tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. It has not been called off, and I thought it appropriate to make a statement to the House as it is not sitting tomorrow.
My previous statement on 14 November informed the House of the events leading up to the two—day firefighters, strike from 13 to 15 November. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have had numerous meetings with the Fire Brigades Union, the employers and Sir George Bain in order to bring them back to the negotiating table. The negotiations are a matter for the employers and the unions, but our latest information is that the negotiations are still continuing, as the Fire Brigades Union has just returned to them.
The employers have released some details of their pay offer. It amounts to a pay increase of 16 per cent. over two years linked to modernisation. This would give a qualified firefighter a basic salary in the region of £25,000 a year by November 2003. It is not true to say, as many people are saying on television, that the offer is limited to 4 per cent. There have been a number of questions about funding. I have repeatedly made it clear to the House that any pay in addition to the original 4 per cent. offer has to be linked to modernisation. The independent review headed by Sir George Bain has given us the route map in its position paper published on 11 November. The full report will be available in about three weeks' time.
I call on the Fire Brigades Union to engage constructively on the modernisation agenda. The FBU has made it clear that it wants a substantial pay increase. Sir George Bain has shown that a substantial pay increase can be funded by substantial modernisation. We want a fair deal for the firefighters, but we also want a fair deal for the public whom they serve. The House is well aware of the original 40 per cent. pay claim made by the FBU—that a claim I remind the House is still on the table. No Government could fund a pay increase on that scale. It would put at risk the economic stability that we have worked so hard to achieve.
The knock-on effect of a settlement on the scale demanded by the FBU would be less money to invest in public services and public sector workers; it would be unfair on other groups who also do vital jobs and have accepted smaller wage increases linked to modernisation; and it would lead to higher interest rates and mortgages. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me when I say that nobody wants this strike.
Of course, if the strike does go ahead tomorrow morning, we will do everything we can to protect public safety, based on the best operational advice from the military, police and senior fire officers. None the less, as we have always made clear, the military will be
886
providing an emergency, not a replacement, service. We all need to be vigilant during the strike, but it is also imperative that our cover is not stretched by hoax calls. Such calls put lives at risk. Anyone found to have made a hoax call will be dealt with as quickly and severely as possible.
In these circumstances it is the Government's responsibility to do all he can to protect public safety. Our plans will be kept under constant review. When it comes to saving lives, no option can be ruled out. Any strike by the union would be damaging and dangerous. It would put lives at risk. The two-day strike was wrong and dangerous, as I made clear at the time. An eight-day strike would be even more so.
The 40 per cent. claim for which the FBU is fighting is unjustified. If the union is serious about resolving the matter, it should continue the talks about pay in exchange for changing outdated work practices, but it must understand that it will not get one without the other. The country must understand that the Government will not give into claims that are unreasonable and which would have had a detrimental impact on the economy. We govern for the whole country and we will exercise our responsibilities for the whole country. Our responsibilities are to the economy and to people's jobs, mortgages and living standards. Our responsibilities are to ensure the safety of the public and to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. It is that thought that has motivated me and my right hon. Friend in the past few days in our efforts to keep people talking, not walking. Lives are saved every day a strike is cancelled. Even at this late stage, I want to call on the Fire Brigades Union to continue negotiating and call off the eight-day strike due to start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. In the wider management of the economy, we must be fair to the factory workers, shop workers and office workers and be absolutely clear that we want an agreement between the firefighters and employers.
We have to be fair to all—to nurses, teachers, ambulance workers and the police. We cannot and will not accept rises for firefighters that are unfair to others, so I say to the Fire Brigades Union: call off the strike, stay at the negotiating table and work out a deal that is fair to the firefighters and fair to all.
I promise to keep the House informed. My message again to the Fire Brigades Union is talk, do not walk.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for his prior notification of it. I understand the circumstances that required it to be made quite late. May I also associate the Opposition with his call on the Fire Brigades Union to reach a settlement at this late stage?
While we all hope that there is a last-minute settlement, it now seems extremely likely that tomorrow's strike will go ahead. It is quite simply unacceptable that people's lives should be put at risk in that way. I wish to state in the clearest possible terms that such action by the Fire Brigades Union is unnecessary, unacceptable and wrong. It is the action of the 1970s and not the 21st century. It is saddening that after months of negotiations there still remain more questions than answers with regard to this sorry dispute. However, at this late hour, our concern must focus on ensuring the safety of the public over the week ahead.

887
For the next eight days, it is likely that fire cover in this country will be provided by military personnel. Last week, the Home Office Minister Lord Falconer said:
"If public safety ultimately requires that the Army crosses picket lines to get the red fire engines, then that is what will have to be done".
Yesterday, the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
"The armed forces should not cross picket lines".
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now clarify this issue? What is the Government's position? If there is an opportunity for Army personnel to use modern firefighting equipment, should they cross the picket line to get it or not? I also understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that policemen should not cross picket lines. What is the Government's response to that?
From the start, we have called on the Government to give the military access to modern fire engines. Last time we debated the subject, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to make use of 400 modern reserve fire engines available around the country to train military personnel with modern equipment. We now understand that some 15 fire engines have been made available for training. That is too little, too late. What actions have been taken dramatically to increase the availability of red fire engines to military personnel? Is it true that one authority has refused to supply any reserve fire engines for use by the military, and what action is he taking to deal with that?
The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that he is seeking an agreement with the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that it will provide assistance in the event of a major incident. We strongly support him in that and urge the Fire Brigades Union to sign that agreement tonight. Has he established any command and control responsibility to make any necessary response both rapid and effective?
I asked him when he made his last statement about the fact that on 25 October the Attorney-General's Department wrote that it was still considering whether to use section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to seek an injunction to stop the strike on the grounds that it put the public at risk of death or injury. Now that the risk is dramatically increased, with the likelihood of the start of an eight-day strike, is the Attorney-General going to seek an injunction tonight in the courts?
During last week's 48-hour strike, commuters throughout London suffered disruption as a result not only of the closure of tube stations, but of unofficial stoppages by a reported 350 tube drivers. Union leaders such as Mr. Bob Crow have suggested that they may stop work again for the duration of a strike, citing health and safety issues. What action is the Deputy Prime Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen, and what he would do if it happened?
What is the Government's position on pay? Is it, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said, that
"the envelope is sealed and it's not going to be opened"?
Is it, as the Chancellor said, that
"we would not tolerate inflationary pay settlements that undermine economic discipline"?
888
Or is it, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that the Government are
"quite prepared to make an exceptional case"
for the firefighters?
The process has been prolonged and made worse by confused and contradictory messages. The country needs clear guidance and firm government on such a critical issue.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support at the beginning of his contribution. I agree, and made it clear in my statement, that any strike will mean the threat of loss of life. We are all worried about that, and we all have a responsibility, especially the Government, to ensure that that does not happen. However, we must remember that we are not yet in a strike situation. Matters are sufficiently serious for me to come to the House to say that a strike is a possibility tomorrow, but every one of us hopes that it will not happen, and that negotiations will continue and lead to an agreement. [Interruption.] Yes, there are only a few hours left, but I am trying to keep hon. Members as well informed as I can. If the House were sitting until 10 pm, perhaps we would not have to make a judgment about whether to make a statement now. However, I shall not tempt the Deputy Speaker, who has been generous in giving me an opportunity to make the statement.
Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's specific points. The 400 appliances to which he referred are the total number. Some have no engines, some have no wheels and others need repairing. However, 27 are immediately available, and more than 100 extra will be available to the command structure. In some cases, there may be a better way of dealing with specific incidents.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the military is worried about its soldiers and believes that the best method of training is with the simple technology on the green goddess. I am sure that he agrees that I must leave it to the judgment of the armed services. It is not therefore necessary for some invading force to go to fire stations. Several FBU members in different areas have said that the armed services can have the engines; they do not want a dispute about that.
The amount of training that is required before the engines can be used is another constraint. It is not currently a problem, but the Prime Minister has said that we shall take whatever actions are necessary to ensure public safety. The armed services did an excellent job with just over 1,000 vehicles, compared with approximately 3,000 under normal circumstances. They dealt with all the calls. The public co-operated through reducing calls by a third, but we are generally maintaining adequate cover.
We have already established that normal command control will apply in the emergency circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The fire service, the military and the police will be involved in such incidents, as happens under normal circumstances.
Hon. Members will recall that I previously failed to reach agreement with the FBU. I was therefore not prepared to make an announcement because I simply did not have an agreement. Both sides have subsequently thrashed out an agreement. The employers, the Government and the FBU support it, and it has been

889
passed by FBU lawyers. It is waiting to be signed and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the FBU will sign it tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about the Attorney-General. I have held several meetings with him. Of course, we have discussed public interest and public safety. His responsibility is making the legal judgment, mine is to advise him about whether his actions would make it more difficult to intervene, and whether everything is being done to enable him to justify any actions to a court before which he might appear. He has the power to apply for an injunction. It is up to him to make that independent judgment. It is up to me to advise him about whether such action would inflame the dispute and make matters more difficult. At the end of the day, if such actions prolonged the strike, the threat to public safety would be even greater. It is his judgment, however, and I give him advice. It is far better to keep people talking than to seek action in the courts, because that would inflame the situation. That is not a judgment for me, however, but for the Attorney-General.
On the union leaders, my mate Bob Crow—I am bound to say that I do not have a friendly attitude every time I hear his name—has constantly complained that everything that we do is about safety, but that is a proper concern to have. Some of the drivers' actions in relation to the fire dispute, however, were unjustified. London Underground has made that clear and there have been discussions between the Department of Transport and us on that. Let us wait and see what happens on the next occasion. The employers have made it clear that the action of certain staff was unacceptable. The people who should make judgments about safety are the members of the independent body that the House set up: the Health and Safety Commission. It is not an employer or a trade union. It makes the judgments, and it has made it clear that the services in question are safe to operate, so I hope that the union members in that industry will take that into account.
On the right hon. Gentleman's final point about inflation and pay, what can be afforded out of the available resources is the pay offer: 4 per cent. That is what has been offered. In the agreement that I have seen—we shall have to wait to see whether it will be agreed to—that figure relates to November just gone. Next November, the firefighters would get another 3.5 per cent., so 7.5 per cent. would be funded by the authorities themselves. The dispute appears to be about something like 7 per cent. We have made it absolutely clear that any increased payment has to be connected to modernisation. The Bain report has shown that it is possible to modernise the fire service. That is our position. We do not support claims that will be inflationary, nor claims that appear to be based on the idea that people can challenge the Government and, if they are pretty tough, get away with it.
Kate Hoey: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that modernisation in the Palace of Westminster was not linked to the payment of Members of Parliament. Why cannot the fire dispute be settled by looking at pay first and, afterwards, discussing in a
890
longer-term way the changes to practice that may be necessary, as they are in all sorts of jobs? The changes here were not linked to our pay.
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has overlooked one simple fact. We had an independent inquiry to decide the issues here, which is precisely what I wanted for the fire workers. We set up such an inquiry, despite their not wanting it. That is an essential point. The inquiry made a judgment and that is what we are trying to operate on at the moment. If my hon. Friend is saying that we should be in the situation in which the firemen say, "What is the worth of a fireman? We believe it is £30,000", who makes the judgment about the worth of a nurse? Does he or she walk out of the wards and use that pressure to get a pay increase? No, that is neither acceptable nor fair. Our judgment is that we have to be fair. Where there is disagreement, we appoint an inquiry. That is what we did for the MPs, and that is precisely what we have done for the firemen.
Mr. Edward Davey: We are grateful for the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly at this grave hour, and for his giving us advance notice of it, given the changing situation. While he rightly holds out a hope that, even at this late stage, the FBU will agree to some sort of deal, does he not agree that the British public will simply not understand it if the union goes ahead with the strike, given the very generous 16 per cent. pay deal that is now on the table? Does it not increasingly appear that the FBU is setting its face against real reform, and that the strikes are no longer about pay but about modernisation?
On funding, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, if the FBU had accepted the pay and reform deal offered by the employers, the Government would have been prepared to provide the necessary transitional funding both to secure the vital modernisation and to avoid these dangerous and damaging strikes? Finally, now that the police have joined the armed forces in arguing that officers should not be forced to cross picket lines, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the emergency arrangements for an eight-day strike are in place and are genuinely robust enough? Will he assure the House that the advice of the police and the military commanders will be kept under review, in case there are life-threatening situations that demand the use of equipment that is held at the fire stations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is true that the offer that has been made by the employers—we shall wait to see what comes out of the final negotiations—was, indeed, 16 per cent. That is their judgment, but I think they feel that they cannot finance all that 16 per cent. The Bain inquiry showed that the remaining part—over and above what the employers were offering—could be financed by modernisation. The union is making it clear that it does not want the modernisation on any terms. Given those circumstances, there is no argument about whether we are financing 16 per cent. or not. The union must start the process of negotiation.
The other factor I have had to consider is that it is difficult to get accurate information from the local authority employers as to exactly what we are saving or what the costs are. That is one problem that I have had

891
and why I asked the Bain inquiry to give me its advice. At the moment, if the FBU sets its face against the concept of modernisation and does not accept it, even though nurses, teachers and all sorts of workers have accepted it, we have to say clearly, "You are not going to get that lump sum of money on the table without any negotiations on modernisation." As to whether the Government give anything, we have to make a judgment as to what the authorities would say. Bain tells us, "You can save the money." I shall wait to see what comes out of their negotiations.
We have taken all the necessary action to ensure that all the necessary measures are in place to deal with the circumstances of an eight-day strike. I shall not kid the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey): an eight-day strike is more difficult to deal with than one of 48 hours, but I was pleased with how the armed services reacted to the last strike. They did an excellent job and that gives me encouragement, but we have no doubt about the fact that it would be far better to have a full fire service rather than a green goddess service. That is an important point.
As to whether the police and the Army should be crossing picket lines, they have not been asked to do that in those circumstances. I note what is in the ACPO statement tonight—the police will not be involved. I do not know how that comes about, because they were pretty well involved in the miners' strike. They did not have any arguments about that.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on the time and effort that they are putting into trying to resolve the dispute?
About this time last week, there were hints from the FBU that 16 per cent. would do it, and I went out to meet the local firefighters on the picket line in my constituency last Friday and they hinted that 16 per cent. would do it. They have now been offered that 16 per cent., which is about seven or eight times more than inflation. It is a fantastic offer. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time for the FBU leadership to put that offer to the membership and call off the strike?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I must be absolutely clear about the matter of the 16 per cent. Even on the deal being discussed at the moment, the local authorities say that they cannot fund it. During the negotiations earlier in the year, those authorities made it clear that they had no money and would not advance beyond their initial offer. In this deal, they have made a 16 per cent. offer, but they are making it clear that they cannot afford it. We have made it clear that any extra moneys that have to be found over and above the resources available to the authorities must be found through modernisation.
We have not adopted any position on the agreement-we will have to wait and see what comes out—but it should be clear that anything over and above what the local authorities have the resources to fund must be financed out of modernisation. All the fire people should consider the truth of that, because there is an awful lot of news manipulation going on. One
892
reason why I am giving this advice to the House is that people who were watching the television would think that 4 per cent. was all that had been offered, although the negotiations were still going on. That seems to be a sophisticated manipulation of news.
I hope that the people in the fire union take into account all that is being offered before they arrive at their judgment.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Even if there is some modernisation, there is no way that that will immediately convert into the hard cash necessary to pay for higher salaries, and the Deputy Prime Minister should stop hiding behind that myth and pretending that the Bain report says that modernisation will deliver the money. The Chancellor has said that he is not prepared to pay either, so what calculation has the Deputy Prime Minister made of the average council tax increase needed to pay for each additional 1 per cent. in firefighters' pay?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not have to make that calculation, because I will accept what George Bain has said. He has done a thorough report, and his final report comes out in three weeks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the report. He will see in the appendices that Bain highlights the changes that are necessary to make. There is an important distinction to be made here. His offer was over two years—whatever period is offered is an important negotiating factor—but basically he has shown clearly that that amount of money can be saved to pay for this kind of deal. He said, "Do all this modernisation, pay 4 per cent. to begin with and then pay 7 per cent." That is how he advocated the 11 per cent. agreement. I do not have to look in the crystal ball; I look at the inquiry. That is why we set it up and we have its recommendation.
John McDonnell: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for keeping the House informed. I apologise for missing his previous statements; I know he was anxious about that, being fastidious about my concern.
During the week the FBU has moved dramatically on both pay and modernisation. Only this evening, it has clearly stated its willingness to negotiate on shift patterns. The employers have also moved. I think we breathed a sigh of relief today in the hope that the 16 per cent. offer would materialise and resolve the dispute, but the employers said this morning that even their modernisation proposals would not produce the money to fund that offer. There is a budget gap, and, as the employers' leader said this morning, another partner is needed in the negotiations—the Government.
The union has moved. The employers have moved. The employers have said that even the Bain proposals will not cover the costs of the dispute. They—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a succinct question rather than engaging in a peroration.
John McDonnell: Let me finish the question, then. If the unions and the employers have moved, why cannot the Government move?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he had to say. He was the man who called for

893
me to apologise for misleading the House. What he said was totally untrue, as he would have found if he had checked the facts with the trade union or anyone else. We did not interfere with the deal earlier, as I told the House. I note that my hon. Friend did not apologise for what he said, but I want to put it on record.
As for whether the union has moved, it has not withdrawn its 40 per cent. claim. There is a lot of talk in the papers that it might accept 16 per cent. or 20 per cent. That is a good basis for negotiation, but, whatever is in the papers, I do not know what the union will finally settle for. I shall wait and see. I hear what the union says to me about modernisation, however. It says that it does not want to deal with change in the rigid shift system, that it does not want a block on full-time firefighters' working with their retained colleagues, that it is against using defibrillators and that it is against a ban on joint control rooms. What I find odd is that some brigades in some areas are already doing those things. Why is this such a matter of principle for the unions nationally? Why can they not accept practices that already taking place in some parts of the country? In fact, I do not ask them to accept those practices, but will they please start negotiating? That is all I ask. Negotiating is far better than walking away and increasing the risk to our citizens. Modernisation is the key, and the basis on which I will make a judgment.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the police had had no problems crossing the picket line during the miners' strike. That is wholly inaccurate, and I hope he will withdraw the slur on the police. The police ensured that those who wanted to cross a picket line in order to go about their lawful business could do so. The slur that the Deputy Prime Minister has cast is unworthy of his office.
How has the Deputy Prime Minister enabled the situation to reach this stage, given that most firemen do not know what is being offered to them at this moment?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry that I cannot tell the House exactly what has been agreed and what is on offer, although statements have been made by various people on television. I told the House at the outset that I did not know the facts, but I thought it wanted to be reassured about what we are doing to deal with the strike that may occur tomorrow. I always promised the House that I would keep it informed, and that is what I am trying to do.
I cannot provide all the information that I would like to provide, and I am sorry about that, but let me make one thing clear. The question relating to the police was whether they had authority to enforce the law. I referred to the miners because in that instance they were trying to enforce the law, although it might have been controversial. I suppose that if anyone had to go into fire stations and remove vehicles, the police would follow the same principles despite the difficult circumstances. What they would probably not want to do is drive the vehicles out themselves, which they would not normally be expected to do. I am sure that those who did so in such circumstances—although to my mind it would be completely unnecessary—would have the protection of the law.
Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has rightly said some very strong things about
894
hoax callers who anger the public, and who can only add to the enormous dangers. Is he satisfied with the sentencing powers available to the courts, and will he try to ensure that the message goes out loudly to sentencers that some exemplary sentences would be a very good thing, and very popular with the public?
The Deputy Prime Minister: There are difficulties with this issue, and we have referred to them on other occasions. We wholly condemn hoax callers, and hopefully the number of such calls might fall off in the next few days—if there is a strike.
On enforcement, the courts have plenty of powers to deal with such incidents. In one incident that was referred to—it may have been in Scotland—the person responsible was found immediately, but he was released on bail for three or four weeks while reports were compiled. Perhaps all of us felt that such an opportunity should have been denied by opposing bail, thereby showing that the offence was considered serious. The powers exist, and magistrates and court authorities should take note that we believe this to be a serious matter even under normal circumstances, but that, under these extraordinary circumstances, they should be tougher.
Mr. Peter Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister referred frequently to soldiers and the Army during his statement. Occasionally, he corrected himself by referring to the armed services, but will he remind the House that the Navy, in particular, is making a significant contribution during this dispute? Increased pressures, cancellation of leave, uncertainty, the compromising of operational objectives—such as those of the south Atlantic patrol ship, which is moored in Portsmouth, rather than protecting the Falkland Islands—and the protection of the public demand that the Government do more than is being done, to judge by the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), to ensure that the armed services have access to proper firefighting equipment.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I certainly do not want to give the impression that I am unaware of the situation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I did stray into referring to the Army, and that the armed services in general are involved. I properly record this House's appreciation of the work that they have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although less than 10 per cent. of the forces are involved, that is still quite important. We have heard the comments of defence spokesmen, and we will seek to strike a proper balance to meet the requirements of our armed forces. We are extremely grateful for their help during the circumstances of a firefighters' strike. There is no doubt that they are under stress and strain, but on meeting them they come across as remarkably cheerful and committed to helping communities. That is what we have always come to expect from our armed services, along with giving effective military assistance when called on to do so. They enjoy the confidence of this House, and we are grateful for their actions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most strikes are finally settled around

895

a negotiating table? There have been a few exceptions, but generally speaking that is what matters. Does he also agree that, while Bain has put forward some important modernisation proposals, the union could well come forward with modernisation proposals of its own? In fact, it already has done so, and although those proposals have not been costed yet, they could be. Is he aware, for instance, that in Derbyshire a pilot scheme already exists, through which the ambulance station and the fire station operate together? Let us assume that that could be rolled out nationally. Would that be advantageous, and could it be costed? If the union's own modernisation schemes—I hope that he will answer this point-which have already been tried in certain parts of Britain, were rolled out, could that be a part—solution to the problem?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes some very sensible points. I encouraged the union to bring its modernisation proposals to the table, and it did so. However, I should point out that the proposals involve expanding the service, using more modern engines, and going out into the community to explain how to reduce fire risk. Those are the things that a modern service should properly be doing, but that does little to address the question of conditions of work and the delivery of service. Both issues have to be addressed, and the various proposals on modernisation—including the FBU's alternative proposals—need to come together. The issue is not just about wages and conditions; it is about having a modern emergency service that meets the requirements of communities. Both aspects should be very much to the fore.
I note with interest that a pilot scheme in my hon. Friend's area puts together the fire service, the ambulance service and the police in a common control room. The FBU is totally opposed to that because it does not consider it modern practice. Curiously enough, during such strikes we do have a common control room, which works very well. If the FBU cannot accept that proposal, the least that it could do is to negotiate on it.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Deputy Prime Minister spoke earlier about sophisticated news management. Coming from a new Labour Minister, that was a bit rich. There is now utter confusion about figures. In the course of the statement, the House has heard mention of 4 per cent., 7.5 per cent. and 16 per cent. The Deputy Prime Minister told the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that he was not sure what was on the table. Will he confirm what is being offered? Are the employers willing to offer 16 per cent? What would the Government contribute to settle the strike?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been reading much about the situation. We all agree that the FBU, in Scotland as well as England, is asking for 16 per cent. That has not changed. Bain proposed that 11 per cent. could be paid, with modernisation. The employers have come up with various proposals. The one currently on the table is for 16 per cent., under certain circumstances. That is why the figures differ.
896
I try to give the House as much information as possible. I arrived at a figure of 7.5 per cent. in the following way: the 4 per cent. will be for one year, 2002; another 3.5 per cent. has been agreed as the annual payment, with the remainder to be paid for by modernisation. In those circumstances, that takes us up to 16 per cent. We must therefore ensure that whatever agreement is arrived at is agreed by both parties.
I have just been given a note, the latest report from the front. It says that the offer is still 4 per cent., according to the FBU general secretary, that the strike is almost certainly on, but that the general secretary's telephone will be on all night. In any case, I hope that both sides keep talking and find agreement. If they do not, I have made clear my view about how to deal with the matter.
Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes never solve any problems? Should not a simple message be sent to the firefighters to the effect that, regardless of the varying degrees of sympathy and support that have been expressed in the House, they should call off the strike? They should negotiate, and settle the dispute at around 16 per cent., with modernisation. Is not that the way forward? Should not that be the united message from the House to all firefighters?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I hesitate about saying that strikes do not have a role or that they cannot influence some situations. The sad fact is that strikes will not always be won on the day that they commence. There is nothing wonderful about striking and losing after a period of time. It is far better to have an inquiry and an intelligent discussion, with both sides trying to come together in agreement.
I repeat that the employers are offering 16 per cent., which I believe should be paid for through modernisation. If a strike is called, it will be about modernisation, not pay.
Mr. John Randall: The news is clearly desperately disappointing. I hope that, even now, the FBU will retreat from the brink and consult its rank and file membership, as other hon. Members have suggested. The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that, if the strike goes ahead, it will cover a weekend for which many public events will have been organised. Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or any other, give advice to the organisers of public events, and to those who might wish to attend them?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We first gave advice about public events in relation to Guy Fawke's night, 5 November, and the weekend either side. We are concerned about that matter. We have a public information campaign and are giving advice to all bodies involved in events. We will continue to do so, even under the circumstances that I have described.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We will never reach a settlement if we follow the proposals of the Opposition. That will lead only to the destruction of all contending parties in the dispute. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope is to hold negotiations that involve him and the FBU directly? Should he not

897
pick up the telephone tonight, and have a discussion about modernisation as well as pay? As well as the Bain proposals, the FBU has its own proposals that could be developed, extended and worked out.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but neither the FBU general secretary nor I have been slow in picking up the phone and talking. Many exchanges have gone on. The difficulty is no longer one of communication, but of accepting that modernisation should be part of any agreement. The union has made it clear that it should not, and it has rejected—savagely and, in my view, wrongly—the results of the independent inquiry held by Bain. The way to settle the dispute is to have the will to do so and to sit around the table. I was pleased that the Fire Brigades Union came back to the negotiating table because ultimately it has to be settled by talking, not walking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In this evolving situation, I imagine that the Deputy Prime Minister needs to be back in his office to keep in touch. I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the status of this sitting to the House, since we are now past the time when the House was scheduled to sit without passing a resolution to that effect? Could you confirm, therefore, that there is no necessary limit to the time during which the House can sit at this stage? Could you also confirm that it would be possible for you to suspend the sitting yet further to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to come back at, say, 10 o'clock, as he indicated he would like to do, to bring the House up to date on further developments? Could you confirm that all those things are perfectly possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister sought my permission in this particular case—I think that Mr. Speaker may have heard it first but it was confirmed by me—that a statement should be made to bring the House up to date at what nevertheless was an awkward time. It is always possible for other requests to be received, but it may be for the convenience of the House and the better conduct of negotiations of national interest if the Deputy Prime Minister is performing his official duties other than simply those of this House. He has come to the House to report on the dispute but he may have other responsibilities in connection with it that he has to pursue. Therefore, I think it appropriate that at some reasonable point, the proceedings on this statement are terminated.
David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A significant point arose during the course of the Deputy Prime Minister's responses. He made the clear point earlier that the Attorney-General did not want to intervene for as long as the negotiation was going on. He has now indicated to the House that those negotiations have come to an end, whatever Mr. Gilchrist has said about his telephone still being on. Is it possible for the Solicitor-General to come to the House and give us her view on a material matter in this dispute?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which Ministers come to the House is a matter for them and not for the Chair.
898
I do not believe that it would be for the convenience of the House or the people who serve us for the sitting to be suspended to an indefinite time. I cannot believe that that is right. The Deputy Prime Minister has come to the House at the last possible moment before we suspend for the weekend, and I think that that is a reasonable balance. I now propose to take two hon. Members from either side before we move on to the next business.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In agreeing with most of what the right hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to clarify the position regarding the Bain report? He quoted from it a number of times with approval, and one agrees with that, but then said that it will not be available for three weeks. What, precisely, will not be available for three weeks and what, precisely, is available now?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry if I misled the House on that. The Bain inquiry will, I hope, give its full report in mid-December. On 5 November I asked whether, in view of the circumstances, it could produce another report to take the threatened strike into account. Sir George Bain produced a position paper on where modernisation could be introduced, saving resources and paying towards the modernisation of the fire service. The final report will be available in mid-December.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does my right hon. Friend realise that the public will be mystified that the Government cannot make at least some financial contribution towards the settlement of the dispute, particularly when they believe that the Government are preparing to spend God knows how many billions of pounds on a war in Iraq?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Perhaps I can let my hon. Friend into a secret—they are using public money. It is called the local financial settlement, and is used in the 4 per cent. deal. As for whether any more resources should be available, I have made it absolutely clear that that has to be linked to modernisation. I do not think that the public are in any doubt about that—nurses, teachers and doctors have all gone along with various modernisation proposals to get their wages. They do not believe that it would be right just to give the money to the Fire Brigades Union without any conditions.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that modern appliances, with trained crews and modern rescue equipment, are available in all our major urban centres and adjacent to all our main transport facilities and transport routes?
he Deputy Prime Minister: s I said, even with the extra facilities of about 120 appliances, we shall not have the 3,000 vehicles that are available for normal service. We are ensuring that every region has a number of those vehicles; it will then be up to the emergency control centres to decide where and how they are sent, so I leave that to their good judgment.
Lynne Jones: When MPs' salaries were reviewed, a thorough analysis was undertaken of the way in which our jobs had changed by contrast with comparative professions. I have read the Bain interim report and it is clear that no such analysis has been undertaken of the fundamental element of the firefighters' claim. We all want the strike to be called off, even at this late hour. The firefighters have moved. Is it not time that the employers were allowed to move from the 4 per cent. now, take it or leave it position?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me make it clear: the employers' resources have to cover all local authority workers—I know that my hon. Friend will be extremely concerned about all such workers in her constituency—who have just settled for a two-year deal of less than 4 per cent. a year. Would they not feel angry if 40 per cent. was given to the firefighters without an agreement? The nurses' agreement will soon take place. There will be all sorts of agreements and my hon. Friend will fight for each of them, but she is not paying for them. We have to find a solution.
Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the vexed question of written ministerial statements, yet again. Today, the Order Paper included notice of a ministerial statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who is in the Chamber this evening. The statement is brief. It states:
"My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced that he has placed copies of the Codes of Practice under sections 45 and 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the Libraries of both Houses."
900
That is not true The Library knows nothing of those codes of practice. That is not a satisfactory procedure for the Department and it is hardly in line with freedom of information. Is there anything that you can do to assist, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the ruling given by Mr. Speaker yesterday. Mr. Speaker pointed out that the statements
"have only to be printed in Hansard. That is the rule."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 646.]
The basis of the hon. Gentleman's question appears to be incorrect.
Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My argument is not that the statement was made incorrectly—it was available in the Library and will indeed be printed in Hansard; it is that it is an incorrect statement because it says that something has been placed in the Library but it has not. Given that the matter relates to freedom of information, that seems most unfortunate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the statement has been printed in Hansard, it should be available in the Library. If it is not available, that should be examined. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point has been heard. We are in the early days of these written statements and I hope that some of these little difficulties can be overcome quickly.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. In the course of the statement that we have just heard, the shadow Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made points of order. Will you advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is proper to make a point of order during a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accepted the point of order because it was obviously connected with the statement that was taking place at the time.

Sutton Coldfield Magistrates Court
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Ainger.]
7.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the House and to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the grave concerns felt in my constituency and throughout north Birmingham about the possible closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I record my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department and her officials for the courteous way in which they have dealt with me during the past two months. They met me some months ago to discuss how the matter could be resolved. The Minister also generously gave her time last week to meet a delegation from Birmingham, and she is responding to this debate. I understand that she is to be congratulated on winning an award today as the Minister to watch. I certainly congratulate her on that, and assure her that she will be watched most carefully in Sutton Coldfield and north Birmingham as she tries to conclude this matter.
With the permission of the House authorities, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope on Tuesday 3 December to table a petition signed by no fewer than 5,000 people from north Birmingham. That, too, underlines the gravity of the matter as viewed from north Birmingham. The signatures on the petition were collected extremely rapidly, and I pay tribute in particular to the Sutton Coldfield Observer, one of our two local newspapers, which recently won the national award of the best free newspaper of the year. I congratulate it on the staunch stand that it has taken in defence of this most important local interest.
In Birmingham the political establishment agrees on almost nothing, and there are divisions within the political groups on almost everything that one can imagine. It is true that there are no divisions among Conservative Members of Parliament in Birmingham, but that, alas, is because I am the only one who represents the Birmingham conurbation—at the moment. However, I am tonight supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), and I am most grateful to him. On this matter he is certainly my hon. Friend, and I will even forgive him for his rude article about my constituents in The Spectator. I should advise hon. Members with long memories that, as they may recall, The Spectator is a somewhat faded coffee-table publication with a good wine column towards the back.
All nine of the hard-working Sutton Coldfield councillors, and those throughout Birmingham city council, are unanimously opposed to the proposal to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. Such utter unanimity of view is unheard of. The council is the paying authority, hence its appeal to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I have read the many debates that have taken place on court closures, and I fully understand the Minister's position tonight. She cannot say very much, but I hope that she will be able to tell us a little about the process of the appeal, and in particular how long she anticipates that it will take before she and her officials will be able
902
to pronounce judgment, and whether any more written evidence for our case would be helpful to her Department.
Debates have been secured by the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), all of whom raised the same important matters in respect of their areas. Each case bears some similarity to the one that I am putting, but I believe that the case for keeping the Sutton Coldfield court open is much stronger than those that the House has previously heard.
The proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close the court in Sutton Coldfield is a dreadful mistake, and I hope that the debate will play a part in convincing the Minister of that view. Accompanied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, representatives of the local bench and Birmingham city council, and Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, I recently met the Minister, as I said, to outline the objections to the proposed closure. The meeting was useful and demonstrated the widespread cross-party support for the court and against the committee's proposal.
The current courthouse was built in 1956 and was refurbished and extended in the 1980s. It is adjacent to the police station and the many other offices and bodies that serve the infrastructure of a court location. Since the 1980s, almost nothing has been spent on routine redecoration or cyclical maintenance, so that today it is accepted that the court needs work to improve its appearance, but the basic fabric of the building is sound.
The committee has cited that chronic lack of investment as a reason for regarding the courthouse as unsuitable. Yet the committee is the body responsible for determining which buildings receive investment over the years. By consistently withholding money for maintenance, it has ensured that the building appears neglected. It is 11 years since it was repainted, yet the committee rejected out of hand an informal offer from the local magistrates to provide their labour to repaint areas of the court, if the committee would just provide the paint. It says something about the character and commitment of those in our local magistracy that they should have made that offer and sought to proceed in that way.
In the summer of this year, some £250,000 was spent on providing new cell accommodation at the rear of the existing courthouse. Those new cells, together with the new interview room facilities for solicitors and new kitchen facilities, greatly improve the utility of the existing courthouse. I have today accepted an invitation formally to open those enhancements to Sutton Coldfield's court facilities.
There is already a ramp and a lift providing access to the courthouse, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has allocated funds for the works necessary for building compliance. So the basic structure of the courthouse is sound, even though, as I have said, some redecoration is long overdue—and it has been withheld by those who now claim that the appearance of the building is a reason to close it.
It has been argued that because the courthouse is situated in Sutton Coldfield but serves around 100,000 people in the north Birmingham area, there is some

903
mismatch between those who form the bench and those to whom they dispense justice. However, the truth is that the bench is drawn from all parts of the community that it serves. The magistrates are drawn both from the leafiest parts of Sutton Coldfield and from the more deprived parts of the adjoining area. The bench is well balanced, and there is no evidence to support the contention that somehow the toffs of Sutton are dispensing justice to the poor of the wider area.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) —he hopes to catch your eye in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I are not presenting a partisan case, but a case for retaining that courthouse in north Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield magistrates court extends its administration far beyond Sutton Coldfield, taking in Erdington, Castle Vale and Kingstanding, making it in reality a court centre covering nearly a third of Britain's second city.
It is perfectly clear that for many years that courthouse has been a court centre based in Sutton Coldfield; it is not just Sutton Coldfield's court. Birmingham is the largest metropolitan council area in Britain. It is four times the size of most metropolitan borough councils, so it makes no sense to close down a court that currently handles a third of the city's work load.
There is no problem with recruiting magistrates to serve on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, and it is exceedingly uncommon for a case to be heard by only two magistrates, rather than the normal three. That contrasts markedly with the situation in the existing magistrates court in central Birmingham, where it has been a common occurrence for only two magistrates to sit. The existing courts in central Birmingham already constitute the largest courts centre in Europe.
Approximately half those currently serving as magistrates in Sutton Coldfield have said that if the courthouse were closed, they would not be willing to serve in central Birmingham. That would represent a loss of about 60 experienced magistrates. A loss on that scale will undoubtedly increase the frequency of cases for which only two magistrates are available. The loss of the court will have a profound effect on recruitment to the magistracy.
The five courts at Sutton Coldfield currently operate at around 88 per cent. of their theoretical capacity, compared with a target of 80 per cent. set by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. I believe that that shows that the arguments about the efficient use of resources are specious. Sutton Coldfield's courthouse deals efficiently with a large number of cases. Each year some 15,000 cases are heard in Sutton Coldfield. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that not only 15,000 defendants, but more than 15,000 witnesses, solicitors and people from all the other court agencies attend the courthouse. Any proposal to add to the number of people heading for central Birmingham runs contrary to the policies of the Government and Birmingham city council, which aim to reduce the number of journeys made into the already overcrowded city centre, but the potential to add to the traffic congestion is not the only issue.
904
One feature of the current justice system that the Government say they deem important is that
"Magistrates are drawn from the local community and it is a great strength of the justice system that members of the community in which defendants and victims live are engaged in its delivery."
I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's letter, entitled "Justice for All". It would be a tragedy if we lost that fundamental connection in north Birmingham.
The city of Birmingham is home to about 1 million people. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a single homogenous community. It contains many separate and distinct communities, one of which lives north of the M6 and is currently served by the Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will explain, his constituents do not look towards the centre of Birmingham, and there is a strong feeling throughout our communities—and much wider than that—that the court should remain in Sutton Coldfield.
The concept of local justice is one of the cornerstones of the magistracy, and it is threatened by proposals to close successful, efficiently run local courts. The specific proposal to build some super-courthouse in central Birmingham, on a site yet to be publicly identified, at a cost that therefore cannot be known, seems to fly in the face of both logic and the Minister's statement, which I quoted a moment ago. At our recent meeting with the Minister, Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, Mr. Aidan Cotter, made clear his desire to hold weekly sittings in Sutton Coldfield. That desire is based on his recognition that those attending his court would face much less inconvenience and distress if they did not have the added burden of travelling into the city centre.
The existing courthouse in central Birmingham is a grade 1 listed building. It is, I understand, incapable of being expanded to cope with the proposed closure of the Sutton Coldfield court, and is itself in need of works to improve its efficiency. What would the future of that building be were the proposals to proceed? It cannot house more courts, it is not well suited to the technological age in which we live, and it is proposed that its use as a courthouse should cease. Is it to stand mothballed—and at what recurring cost? I know that that is of some concern to Birmingham city council.
The proposal to close Sutton Coldfield's court has met with widespread opposition, not only from local magistrates, Crown Prosecution Service staff who work in Sutton, the police, the youth offending team, solicitors, social services and Birmingham city council, but from nearly 5,000 local residents who have signed the petition to the House that I mentioned earlier.
I urge the Minister to promote local justice and keep Sutton Coldfield's magistrates court open, to cut through the inadequate and often specious arguments of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee, to reject a private finance initiative proposal that is, by common consent, seriously flawed, to hear the unanimous voice of our communities across north Birmingham, to deploy wisdom and judgment in the exercise of her office today, and to throw out such an intellectually inadequate case, which, if accepted, would do such damage to the efficient and effective administration of justice in the north Birmingham area.
7.52 pm
Mr. Skôn Simon: I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister for their generosity with their time.
I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said pretty much everything that I would have wanted to say—and, I am sure, with far greater eloquence and insight. He mentioned the Minister's accolade of today. Unlike him—I fear that he was rudely snubbed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who is the editor of The Spectator, and not invited to witness the Minister's great occasion—I was fortunate to be on a table almost directly at her feet as she graciously accepted the first in what will no doubt be a long line of such awards over the years.
My primary purpose in attending the debate is simply to associate myself and my constituents with everything that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said. This is a truly unique example not just of consensus but of universal agreement across the board. My constituents in Erdington have little love or affection for his constituents in Sutton, whom even he described as toffs. Perhaps I should not describe them as he described them in the meeting the other day—it was an appellation that they would have liked, but which would do little to endear them to my constituents.
As far as I can ascertain, every Birmingham MP, every councillor in my constituency-and, I believe, in that of the hon. Gentleman—all the groups on Birmingham city council and all the thousands of petitioners whom he wishes to bring to the House in a couple of weeks, are unanimous in their opposition to the plan. I have not met a single human being in Birmingham who supports the closure of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. She has heard the arguments already and he has elucidated them with great verve. I will not go on, but merely wish to reiterate that there is a fundamental misconception in the proposals, which were obviously drafted by someone who does not know or understand the city. In the administration of the court system my constituency is classed as being in Birmingham whereas the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not, so the assumption was made that it would be more natural for my constituents and those in surrounding constituencies to look inwards towards the city centre rather than outwards towards Sutton Coldfield. As the representative of those people, and having grown up in those communities, I assure the House that that assumption is wrong. We do not look towards the centre. We would much prefer to go to court in Sutton Coldfield than to be taken to court in the city centre.
Another issue arose in the meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister kindly granted us. She said that local justice was about justice by one's peers. Of course, it is. If she gained the sense that the toffs in Sutton Coldfield adjudicate over the less toff-like people in Erdington, we want to dispel that impression. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, that is not the demographic case. Even if that absurd notion were true, it would still not deal with the point about local justice.
906
Local justice and judgment by one's peers must ultimately involve the notion that the local people in our communities—not the Lord Chancellor's Department or the West Midlands magistrates courts committee—should be able to decide by whom we are judged. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as my hon. Friend knows, we want to be judged by magistrates sitting on the bench in Sutton Coldfield, not in a super-court in the city centre.
7.58 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on the proposal by the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to close Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for their kind remarks. They are much appreciated. I am sorry that I cannot take them into account when deciding the future of the courthouse.
I listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. I welcomed the chance to meet them and representatives from their constituencies to discuss the issues and their concerns. They have made passionate speeches on behalf of their constituents and about their concern at the proposal of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he understood the current situation whereby the committee has made the proposal to shut Sutton Coldfield magistrates court. However, I cannot comment in detail at this stage on the points raised.
Hon. Members will know that magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, as set out in the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. Decisions to close magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority.
In the case of Sutton Coldfield magistrates court, West Midlands MCC made a determination on 19 August 2002 to close it and to transfer the work to a new courthouse in Birmingham. That decision was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders. The paying authority concerned, Birmingham city council, lodged an appeal with the Lord Chancellor's Department on 19 September. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, which is the local council. Consultees usually include the magistrates, staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, MPs and other professional users.
The role for Ministers is as an appellate authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. Ministers do not decide on court closures that are not subject to appeal. Birmingham city council has lodged an appeal and I will need to consider it on the merits of the case presented by each party. The decision will come to Ministers when the dialogue between West Midlands MCC, Birmingham city council and officials in the Department has ended and all parties to the appeal are satisfied that they have made their representations and that their case is complete. Given that the appeal process is ongoing, I cannot comment on specific issues relating to the proposed closure because Ministers are the sole appellate authority.

907
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about the time scale. I cannot give a certain answer. As I said, the dialogue has to be completed first. Once everyone has made their representations, officials will need to draw those together and make a recommendation. I may also need to ask other questions and seek further information when I receive that advice. For that reason, I do not want to give him misleading guidance about the time scale in which the decision will be made.
I am keen to ensure that I hear the fullest possible representations from everyone concerned before I make a decision. I also need to ensure that I hear the full views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee too. The meeting with hon. Members and their constituency representatives was useful and I listened carefully to the points raised today. In particular, it was interesting to hear their responses to many of the questions that I raised at the meeting on the issues discussed then. They are welcome to make further representations before the final decision is taken.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am listening carefully to the Minister's helpful comments. She says that it is part of the duty of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee to take into account the views of a wide range of stakeholders and people who have an interest. As part of her appellate role, will she establish to her satisfaction that it really did take into account the views of all the different stakeholders? Apart from those who have a direct interest in the decision, I cannot discover any stakeholders who have approved of it.
Yvette Cooper: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take into account the views of all stakeholders, and shall certainly seek information on whose views were sought and what they were.
I want to make a few general remarks about the issues that need to be taken into account when magistrates courts committees make such decisions and when appeals are made to Ministers. Much has been said about local justice. It is important that people are judged effectively by their peers. Magistrates who consider a case in a particular area should, where possible, live or work there too. We need to be realistic—local justice
908
cannot and does not mean having a courtroom on every street corner. Magistrates courts committees must balance many complex considerations when making decisions. Geographic access is one important factor to be taken into account. Others include disability access and facilities for witnesses and victims, the lack of which can hinder justice and access to it. For example, victims or witnesses may be intimidated if they do not have sufficiently separate facilities. MCCs must also ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for the entire area within their budget and provide value for money.
We are keen to look at closer working between the court service and MCCs on the use of courthouses, particularly on sharing facilities, where feasible, to ensure the better use of the estate and value for money. Sharing courthouses can often support local justice in areas where, without shared facilities, family courts or magistrates courts could be under pressure. Hon. Members may be aware of the way in which funding works for MCCs. Central Government provide 80 per cent. of their revenue grant and the local authority contributes 20 per cent. MCCs are given an annual allocation, but it is left to each one to determine how best to use the funds to provide services, including the effective and efficient management of courthouses in their area.
As I have set out, a series of issues need to be taken into account by MCCs when making decisions about the use of courthouses and allocations in their areas; Ministers need to consider a wide range of issues when those decisions come before them. As I hope that I have made clear, I shall consider seriously the points made by hon. Members this evening, as well as those they have made in meetings with me. I shall also consider the points made when I met the local coroner, the chairman of the bench and local councillors. I shall consider closely the views of the West Midlands magistrates courts committee and any other relevant points that are made. It is important that the right decision is made, and I hope that people will bear with me as I consider carefully their arguments. I shall keep in touch with them as the process is resolved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Further Education
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education and Skills. He had been intending to open this afternoon's debate and was thwarted, but I can promise him that there will be endless future occasions when we can discuss these issues, which I know are hugely important to him and to other Members.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to spend time on the Floor, albeit on the Westminster Hall Floor, talking about a part of the education and training service that is always grossly undervalued, and which is all too often neglected and ignored, as I am sure many other Members will agree. We in the Labour party have always recognised the importance of the further education sector, so it gives me enormous pride, huge satisfaction and a sense of humble honour to be here today as a Minister with overall responsibility for lifelong learning to set out our ambitions and well-funded plans for investment and reform in the sector.
I pay tribute to my many colleagues who have supported the development of the programme that we have announced this week. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always had lifelong learning at the centre of his concerns, and he made the start in ensuring that we put the FE sector back in its rightful place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) worked closely with us to develop the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced earlier this week at a conference of the Association of Colleges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley felt passionately about FE and wanted to be part of the programme that we were putting together for its future.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who cannot be with us today but has worked closely with me to ensure that we can put forward a firm set of proposals that are radical but give us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to progress in this important sector.
I first state why FE is so important to this Labour Government. In crude terms, more than 4 million students learn in their local FE colleges each year—a large number of people dependent on the services provided by more than 400 colleges. It often comes as a surprise to people to learn that more than half of 16 to 19-year-olds receive their full-time education in the FE sector. We hear much about school sixth forms, and they make a valuable contribution, but the FE sector actually educates more 16 to 19-year-olds than the
2WH
school sector. FE is also the sector that provides much of the vocational education and training to adults seeking work, where its role is crucial.
FE is a growing and very important provider of higher education. About 11 per cent. of our current HE students receive that education in an FE setting and over time, as we expand to reach our 50 per cent. target, with the focus very much on increasing the number of people undertaking vocational HE courses, the FE sector will play a growing role in higher education.
FE is the key part of the education framework that responds to employer demands for the development of skills in the work force. FE is the main provider of basic literacy and numeracy education for those who seek to acquire such basic skills during their adult years. FE provides that crucial second chance opportunity to all those learners who were failed by the system during their school years. FE provides the opportunity to extend one's horizons and enrich one's life by engaging in the joy of learning things one has never learned before, and probably did so for us all. That is why FE is so important.
FE is central to what the Government are about because it supports our twin objectives of ensuring that we promote economic prosperity and pursue social inclusion. FE helps us create the better skills base that is so important in driving our productivity agenda. Much of that enhanced skills base will, during the coming period, be delivered through FE in programmes like the modern apprenticeships programme, on which we hope to make further announcements in the not-too-distant future. The level 2 targets that we have set for adults will also largely be delivered by those working in FE, and those receiving their education and training in that sector. That is the way in which the skills base is built.
Anyone who spends time in any FE college will see the commitment in the sector towards promoting social inclusion and opportunity for all in our society. One needs only to consider the statistic that I often use—27 per cent. of students in FE come from 15 per cent. of the most deprived and disadvantaged wards in the country—to see how the work of the colleges is focused on those in greatest need. If I refer back to my previous ministerial position, when I had responsibility for people with disabilities, I can say that the provision of many education and training services for people with disabilities was most often provided by the FE sector throughout their lives. That was often supported by the voluntary sector, but FE plays a critical role in ensuring that there really is equality in education and training for those with disabilities. FE is central because it helps us meet those intertwined objectives of inclusion and prosperity.
FE has a good record. All too often there are criticisms, but I want to praise the record that it has established. More than any other part of the education sector, FE has responded well to our widening participation agenda. If we consider any statistic relating to the sort of progression achieved by people who have not been able in the past to stay in education or training and translate that into concrete achievements, we can see how well the sector has worked with disadvantaged people. The achievement rates in FE were up by 5 per cent. last year, which is something that we should celebrate, and the number of colleges that were achieving below 60 per cent. in achievement

3WH
rates fell from 36 per cent. to 14 per cent. between 1997–98 and 1999–2000. Even at the bottom of the sector there has been a steady improvement in the quality of colleges that were not previously achieving as well as we would have hoped.
I am proud to have been able to announce our first seven beacon colleges in our new programme for celebrating excellence through the awarding of learning and skills beacon status. We now have about 137 colleges that have centres of vocational excellence, which is another way in which we are developing a vocational capability to respond to the local and regional skills agenda, which is the important role that FE fulfils in so many local and regional communities.
It is a good record, but equally, as I said, there are issues that we need to address. That is why we set about thinking about how we could invest in and reform the sector. I want to touch on one or two of those issues.
Although quality is superb in some instances, it is still all too variable between and within colleges. All of us in the Department were concerned about that as the first tranche of inspections emerged under the new inspection regime that we established two or three years ago. It is fair to say that everyone greeted the birth of that regime with some suspicion, but I am pleased to say that it has bedded down and is now respected by all those in the sector. In their joint inspections, the adult learning inspectorate and Ofsted found that 15 per cent. of colleges were inadequate and required full re-inspection, 44 per cent. had some unsatisfactory provision and required some re-inspection, and 20 per cent. suffered from poor leadership. Despite the fact that the findings on work-based learning were even more worrying, that is not a good enough record if FE is to fulfil the role that we want of it.
At the end of October this year, the Learning and Skills Council found that 82 colleges were still in a financially weak position. A recent survey by the Confederation of British Industry showed that only 38 per cent. of members surveyed rated their local colleges as good or excellent providers of training and education. If FE is to play a role in raising skills and productivity levels among our work force, it must be well regarded by employers.
Mr. David Drew: I am sorry for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate, and I will have to go to a Select Committee sitting. I know that my hon. Friend follows the goings-on in Stroud with particular interest, and she will be pleased to hear that at long last we have a memorandum of agreement between Stroud college and three 11-to-18 schools, which is good way of working towards properly co-ordinated post-16 education. The college's real grouse is that it is trying to go after the less traditional students, but in so doing is unable to capitalise on the same income stream as if it were concentrating on 16 to 19-year-olds. I know that my hon. Friend is looking to introduce some changes, and I welcome the increased funding, but will she comment on the key issue of how colleges' funding streams could be improved by achieving greater parity?
Margaret Hodge: As my hon. Friend will know, the Learning and Skills Council is reviewing its funding
4WH
formula to achieve that parity as regards who is taught. It is undoubtedly true that a college receives more income for a full-time student than for a part-time adult student, and that often creates disparities. It is a difficult issue to deal with, but, with the Learning and Skills Council, we are attempting to secure better parity of funding, whatever age group is being taught.
The other issue of concern to us is the quality of the teaching force in the sector. Far too many people teaching both full-time and part-time still do not have the appropriate teaching qualifications, which should be a basic prerequisite of working with adults or 16 to 19-year-olds in whatever context. The information is not 100 per cent. accurate, but we think that the qualification rate is about 60 per cent. of full-timers and 43 per cent. of part-timers, so about 40 per cent. of full-timers and about 60 per cent. of part-timers are without qualifications.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Many people in FE colleges will say that the reason why there are so many unqualified part-time lecturers in the FE sector is that over the past five years the Government have not funded the sector well enough to recruit staff, to pay decent salaries and to get the situation in order. It is all very well to criticise Ofsted inspections, but where have the Government been with the funding?
Margaret Hodge: As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased funding, but we are now able to provide a massive injection through the current comprehensive spending review. These welcome resources, which came from both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will enable us to enhance that funding level. The reasons why there has not been investment in the professional development of those who teach in FE colleges are the generation of underfunding and the atmosphere of competition engendered by the previous Government. We are trying to replace that with co-operative, planned provision to enhance quality in the best interests of students.
Mr. David Chaytor: A new dawn is breaking for FE following the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in Birmingham on Tuesday. Does the Minister accept that one of the traditional strengths of FE colleges is their ability to bring in part-time tutors who are specialists in their fields to contribute to the teaching on vocational courses? It is completely unrealistic to assume that we should achieve or even desire 100 per cent. of teaching staff to be qualified teachers because many of them will be fully qualified in their own full-time occupation.
Margaret Hodge: I half accept what my hon. Friend is saying. It is not good enough to say to those who want to learn a particular trade or acquire a particular vocational qualification that they will be taught by somebody who has a specialism but cannot teach. We need to ensure that even those who come in as specialists in their vocational sphere have the opportunity to pursue some professional development courses, which will enable them to pick up some pedagogical skills to allow them to impart their specialism in an appropriate

5WH
way to their students. That is one of the developments that we will be able to fund out of the generous settlement that we are putting in place for 2003–06.
Mr. Chaytor: I accept completely what my hon. Friend has said. However, there is a difficulty if we apply too rigidly a requirement to have a teaching qualification to people who have very rare, specialist skills. At the end of the day, students ought to judge the quality of teaching in those circumstances.
Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should not rigidly require specialists to have those teaching skills. If he were to read the document—the light blue version of "Success for All: Reforming Further Education and Training"—that we published on Tuesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his speech, he would see that we expect everybody to have a teaching competence by 2010 except those who are starting in teaching, and that they should have the opportunity in their first couple of years to develop their teaching skills. We are not preventing people with technical and vocational skills coming in, but we are ensuring that once they come in they get the appropriate support to allow them to develop their teaching skills.
Mr. Dennis Turner: The settlement and the announcement that we heard on Tuesday will give the Government and the FE sector an opportunity to take on board all the questions that are being raised today. What is important is that the settlement is the best that I can recall. I became chairman of the all-party group on further and adult education in 1988, and today is the most momentous day in FE since then. The praise that the Minister is giving to FE today is most welcome, and we want to thank the Government for their response. We hope that the colleges will respond in the way in which she wishes.
Margaret Hodge: I am immensely grateful for those words. I should like to place on record a tribute to my hon. Friend. I did not realise that he has chaired the all-party group since 1988. During the time that I have been a member of it, he has shown a complete commitment to the sector and to the well-being of all those who work and learn within it.
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with 10 per cent. of what the Minister just said—the 10 per cent. that included accolades for my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
Is it not a gross discourtesy to the House that such an important announcement about FE was made at a conference? It is significant that such a piece of news, which is the first of its kind since I came to Parliament—more than 20 years ago—has been announced somewhere other than the House. That is in addition to the fact that the whole issue was snatched from the Select Committee.
I shall make a serious point on what the Minister was saying about the qualifications of practical people with professional skills. One great criticism is that it is too easy to be taught the theory of plumbing or of anything
6WH
else in an FE college without the practice. Practice—hands-on work—is being driven out because that is the expensive bit.
Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he welcomes the opportunity this afternoon for us to have a proper three-hour debate on FE. It is a delight to be able to debate the sector, but it might have been better to do so in the Chamber.
Of course we want good practical, vocational training in FE to build the qualifications and skills that we require. However, he will share memories with me of being at the butt of people who were incredibly good practitioners but not good teachers; both capabilities are needed to impart practical knowledge to students for them to develop the skill to do the job. We are therefore attempting to achieve a complementarity of skills, and we recognise that both are of equal importance.
I shall talk about our wonderful settlement because I am really excited by it. With a strong investment strategy, we are tackling issues in FE radically to raise the game, raise standards, improve participation and raise the status and importance of the sector. There is substantial investment coupled with serious reform. It has been one of the most exciting exercises in which I have been engaged since I have been a Minister. I am proud that we have been able to put a 19 per cent. real-terms increase into the sector over three years. That is substantial money for which the sector has been waiting a long time. I know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he was warmly welcomed at the Association of Colleges conference on Tuesday. We are putting in an extra £1.2 billion into FE.
I am proud that we are able to announce some stability for the sector with the three-year funding deals, which will be translated from us to the Learning and Skills Council and to every individual college. I am also proud that we have been able to announce a substantial increase in capital investment in the sector. When we first came into office, no capital stream of funding had been left for us by the previous Government. We have increased that funding over time, and in this spending review settlement an extra 60 per cent. over the period will be going into capital—more than £400 million a year by the 2005–06 financial year.
The other thing about which I know that the sector's management and staff will be delighted is that we have consolidated into the base unit funding the teachers' pay initiative— the TPI— and standards funds payments, which were introduced in the previous spending review. That will enable flexibility at college level to spend according to the priorities of the college.
The final element of the strategy to which I shall draw attention is the significant investment that we are making in teaching and learning. That is a new way in which we are trying to raise the quality of the experience for students. The investment is substantial and it is coupled with a radical proposal for the funding of colleges. Colleges will negotiate contracts with their local learning and skills councils. The terms and parameters of the contract will be determined in consultations with the councils, colleges and other partners over the next few months.
We expect contracts to cover issues such as participation—getting more people through the system—improving on success outcomes, engagement

7WH
with employers and the qualifications and training of staff. These sorts of issues will feed into the terms of the contract, which will then be decided by a local learning and skills council and an individual college.
Dr. John Pugh: The document envisages that, generally speaking, local learning and skills councils will come to satisfactory arrangements, but occasionally things will go badly wrong. Quite unusually, it states that the Learning and Skills Council will have the ultimate sanction of withdrawing funding from a provider where things do go badly wrong. Do the Government have any procedure in mind for decommissioning colleges? In those circumstances, there would be a college, but no funding. That differs from the usual strategy of the Government, which is to put in a different sort of management.
Margaret Hodge: It might be helpful if I knew exactly what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. I think that he was referring to private providers and circumstances in which we could withdraw from contracts.
If I explain the process in which we will engage, things will become clearer. Once a college has agreed a contract, it will get the consolidated moneys plus a 2 per cent. real-terms increase in funding. If at the end of the first year of operating the college does not meet the targets that were set for it, it will go into the second year without a further 2.5 per cent. increase. If the college does meet the targets, it will receive a further 2.5 per cent. real-terms increase in funding. If the college massively exceeds the target and is excellent, it will get an even higher increase in funding. That process continues into the third year. At the end of the third year, unit funding for the very best colleges could be 7 per cent. per unit greater than unit funding for colleges that have not performed satisfactorily.
We will not leave colleges that do not perform satisfactorily to flounder. Where necessary, there will be intervention from the Learning and Skills Council, supported by moneys that it will retain—in the standards fund, in particular—for improving quality and responding to area inspections.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister may have anticipated my question. She helpfully explained the concept of reinforcing success by making additional funding available against targets. Can she confirm that in cases of difficulty—for example, if there is a failing college, or even a college with a lower level of difficulty—there will at least be the possibility through the local learning and skills council of accessing what might be termed remedial funding to put the situation right? It is no good just writing off a college that has got into difficulties.
Margaret Hodge: There will be access to funding through a standards fund retained by both the central Learning and Skills Council and the local learning and skills councils. It will be a much-diminished fund because we are going to give some of it out to colleges in their unit funding.
8WH
If necessary, we will go ahead with closing and cutting out poor provision. Indeed, we have already decided to close North Derbyshire tertiary college. The quality of the teaching and learning was such that we felt that the interests of learners in that area would best be met by the closure of the college and by provision being taken over by neighbouring colleges. We are determined to cut out poor provision and to put at the heart of what we do the interests of the learner and of local employers who require skills to be taught in their locality. The new contracts are a new way of delivering public service reform, and I believe that the rest of government will be watching how successfully we develop the process in the FE sector.
Before I speak briefly about other elements of our reform programme, I want to say that we are extremely conscious of the burden of bureaucracy that affects far too many FE colleges. We are grateful to Sir George Sweeney for the work that he has done on tackling bureaucracy in the FE sector. I believe that he gave a speech yesterday to the Association of Colleges. He has published his report and findings on the first exercise in cutting unnecessary red tape from processes and funding regimes under which FE exists. However, that is a first stage. We are determined to take further steps on aspects such as the inspection, audit and information regimes to ascertain whether we can further cut red tape so that all those who are engaged in teaching and learning in a college can focus on the most important thing, which is raising standards and quality for the students.
I shall pick out a few features of our reform programme to inform Members of our exciting agenda. Much of what we do will depend on area reviews that are carried out by local learning and skills councils of the provision in their locality. From next spring, the area reviews will focus on the 14-to-19 agenda that we have set ourselves. The reviews may result in structural change in the locality, but we do not have a blueprint of how provision should be delivered. It will differ according to local needs and circumstances, the strengths and weaknesses of local providers and whether the area is rural or urban. We want every college to focus on and play to its strengths.
One reason that standards have not been as high as they could have been is that the general FE colleges have tried to do too much, from working with disaffected 14-year-olds right through to delivering HE courses to more able students. If the quality of what is offered in the FE sector is to be raised, colleges must play to their strengths.
We believe that over time that will result in a more distinct 16-to-19 provision, sometimes in separate 16-to-19 colleges—sixth form colleges—but sometimes in distinct centres set up as part of a general FE college. Much of the change in the configuration of local colleges will be supported by other policies, such as the development of the Connexions service, which will be universal in England from April 2003, and the rolling out of the education maintenance allowances, which will be available by 2004. That is one feature of the investment programme.
I wish to speak briefly about how we are trying to get a much better take on ensuring that the training and education supplied in a locality really meet employers' needs. The link between the skill needs in a locality and

9WH
the providers' delivery of education and training has not been strong enough in the past. Part of any improvement will come out of the skills strategy and delivery plan that we are publishing next June, part of it will come out of the review of adult learning, which will also be published next year, and we expect the developing sectors and skills councils to play a role in ensuring that we offer the appropriate training.
We want the colleges and the learning and skills councils to work far more closely with the regional development agencies, and within the framework for regional employment skills action plans that those agencies have developed. Part of that link into employment will come through the centres of vocational excellence that we are developing. We are delighted to announce in the document that 400 centres of vocational excellence will be up and running by 2006.
We will review the qualifications framework to ensure that it meets employers' needs. We have a strong commitment to expanding the modern apprenticeship programme to meet the skills deficit, which has such an impact on productivity in the UK.
The subject of pedagogy in further education has never been tackled before. Much of our thinking has evolved from the success of the literacy and numeracy strategies at primary level. They have shown us that if best practice is developed in teaching and learning strategies, if materials are provided and there is training and support for teachers, the quality, and hence the outcome for students, can be raised.
To build on that, we have established a new standards unit within the Department which will be staffed largely by secondees from the sector with particular specialisms. We are not creating a new centre of expertise but building on what is there and trying to spread it.
The standards unit will be well resourced, with £100 million by 2005–06. It will focus on curriculum areas, taking one at a time and developing materials, pedagogy and training programmes for people working in colleges. In the first year, we hope to cover four curriculum areas and we will look at business studies, science, construction and entry to employment. We shall cover a further four curriculum areas next year and seven in the third year of this spending review.
Linked to those matters is the need to invest in staff. We have already discussed how the qualification level of those working in further education is not sufficient to ensure that people have the competences that they require to impart good teaching. We have set ourselves ambitious targets: by 2010 only new entrants will not be qualified. The interim target for 2006 is for 90 per cent. of full-time and 60 per cent. of part-time lecturers and teachers working in the FE sector to have a teaching qualification, which will be met partly through the expenditure of moneys being devolved to colleges through the standards funds and the teachers' pay initiative, hence the importance of the contract. It is through the contract that we will deliver our policies at college level.
I am delighted that we are almost at the point of announcing the successful bidder for our leadership college, which we hope will be up and running by April next year. It will run courses to grow new leadership and to support existing ones at all levels of management, to
10WH
enhance the strategic capacity and management of colleges. That will be underpinned by the quality framework, which is part of our success for all strategy. Floor targets will be introduced so that every college knows that it must achieve certain learner-out success rates and, as we always do in such instances, we shall attempt to develop better-valued measures than we can at present and use them in establishing floor targets.
Inspection framework will continue to play an important role. The provider reviews that the Learning and Skills Council undertakes will also have a role. We want colleges themselves to undertake regular surveys on the views of their students and on the quality of teaching and learning. That is an important ingredient in determining the quality of what is offered in a college.
There will be more beacon colleges if, as we expect, more colleges excel in what they do, and we intend to introduce a new scheme of awards for all staff built on the teaching awards scheme, in order to value teaching and learning in the FE sector.
We can deliver this whole exciting package only based on partnership between the Department and the Learning and Skills Council. We must be in the driving seat, but both partners must work with colleges, the inspectorates, staff, trade unions and others to achieve our ambitions.
We will know that we have succeeded only when we have increased the number of people who participate in learning in FE colleges, when we begin to raise the success outcomes, when our ambitions for raising quality have been achieved, and when our determination to strengthen the engagement of colleges with the demands of employers has been realised. Everyone must play their part, and it is down to all of us as partners in this endeavour to work with this exciting reform and strong investment agenda to deliver much better prospects for those who depend on further education.
3.10 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: It is always a pleasure to debate further education, even though it is now public knowledge that this slot was originally assigned to higher education and has been transferred to further education because the Government are not yet in a position to announce their plans for financing higher education. However, the Government's difficulty is our opportunity. Further education is not a second best to higher education.
The Minister has set out her case at some length; she had a lot to talk about, much of which we would agree with. It increasingly seems to me, however, that she is the Jekyll and Hyde of the Labour education team. In the first part of her remarks, in which she set out the case for FE, I would have gone no further than saying "Ditto", because she gave an eloquent and proper account of the important role of FE, which, as she rightly said, had not been adequately highlighted in the past.
Last night, those of us, including the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who had the opportunity to go to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education dinner, saw FE at its best, both in the tremendous people involved and in the wonderful

11WH
cabaret performed by young people doing their own thing, doing it well and to a high level of professionalism. That cheered us all up.
I agreed with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), that we should no longer speak about FE as if it were the Cinderella sector. I hope that no one in this Chamber believes that to be the case.
The Mr. Hyde side of the Minister's character was demonstrated when, after those honeyed words of encouragement, she reverted to her earlier habit of discussing inadequacies. That habit has not always commended itself to the sector.
Although none of us, including Opposition Members, must be uncritical, I believe that anyone considering the FE sector dispassionately would see how much it has achieved, given the resources available and the material with which it sometimes works. The value added from the FE sector is high. Discussing failing colleges and those colleges that do not meet their targets, even if the thresholds of those targets are set high, is not always the best way of encouraging co-operation or a positive response.
Another aspect of the Minister's Mr. Hyde character is an aversion to delicate and difficult issues. I sat back and allowed her parliamentary colleagues to make certain points, with some firmness, about the skills agenda, and about who is available to teach in FE. I believe that that was but a sample of the sort of withering fire that she will receive from colleagues and Opposition Members if she pursues certain lines of argument on funding for higher education. This is not a matter where easy, pat solutions can be achieved without a great deal of distress. I do not wish to trespass further on the generosity of the Chamber by saying more about that.
Before a Government Member is tempted to intervene to suggest that I am being churlish, I must point out that I do not intend to be churlish about the positive aspects of announcements that have been made this week. In particular, if only because I am attracted by the colour of the cover, I commend to the House the Government's new document "Success for All". The Secretary of State's introduction sets out a template by which the success or otherwise of the policies to be adopted in the next few years will be judged. He says:
"The sector must ensure that 14 to 19-year-old learners have greater choice and higher standards with a wide range of academic and vocational programmes providing clear opportunities to progress to higher education and skilled employment. It must also ensure that adult learners have greater access to excellent provision for basic skills, training for work and learning for personal development and that employers have a productive engagement with a transformed and responsive network of providers committed to meeting regional and sub-regional skills needs. This is our challenge to you."
That is pretty unexceptionable. I would not have put in some of the adjectives and I would not have implied that the challenge was just to the providers and did not include the Secretary of State. However, he is more or less along the right lines in what he is looking at in the FE sector.
I said that I intended to be reasonably generous in relation to this week's announcement. There is, if not a standing instruction, a prevalent habit of Opposition
12WH
education spokespersons to say that any Government announcement of additional funds should be accompanied by a health warning. I give that warning to the Committee.
There is a lot of detail and small print to look at. There are, for example, transfers which the hon. Lady explained from the standards fund and from the teaching policy initiative into mainstream funding. Most of us on the Opposition Benches have been in favour of mainstream funding and not cutting money up into penny packets over the years. If that is a triumph, we will claim it. But there are one or two areas of specific concern, which again feature in the discussions that some of us have had over the past day or two. For example, the 1 per cent. uplift in national insurance contributions could, on a quick calculation, cost the sector at least £10 million and probably more next year. There is the whole question of paying for pensions, which is a great difficulty throughout the public sector and is a potential contingent liability, although I believe that the Government are minded to pay some attention to that matter.
Nevertheless, there is extra money for the sector. We welcome that. I do not wish to pretend otherwise. Indeed, one of the reasons why I welcome it is because I can reasonably claim to have had a longstanding enthusiasm for and commitment to further education. I have that because I believe passionately that it can reach the parts of the system that others would not claim to reach. It involves, strikingly, twice as many students as the whole of the higher education sector. For example, membership of the National Union of Students among further education colleges is greater than in higher education. We often forget that. Not all of the students are full-time. It delivers more A-levels than the school system.
The FE sector has a huge range. At one end there is special needs provision, which I am pleased the Minister touched upon. There is adult basic skills provision, where I have a family involvement. Then there is conventional level 2 and level 3 qualifications, in both general academic education and vocational activities. It goes all the way through to degree-level work and even post-graduate professional development and skills updating. It is an interesting thought that possibly alongside the Open university, what might be termed the "further education university" of this country has a larger number of higher education participants than any other university in this country. It does everything, and has a great range.
A general caveat is that eyebrows were beginning to lift on this side with some concern that in the move to try to create specialism, what could be termed the "GP function" of further education might be overlooked. I am not against centres of vocational excellence or a concentration of resources where they are available, but we never want to reach a situation in which people are turned away because there is no local provision. That is one of the great strengths of further education. It is possible to argue that there is a complementarity about having those different levels of provision together, which I suspect Government Members argued in relation to the comprehensive principle. It is possible to be too tidy minded about the issue.

13WH
On the skills agenda, in a famous lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in 1884 concern was expressed about the skills gap that had developed between the United Kingdom and Germany. It is entirely appropriate to reexamine some of the apparent distinctions. The German vocational system has great strengths that are not always pedagogic, but come from the commitment to the binary system and employers' active engagement. That is the best underpinning of the system and its importance. I would very much welcome that same climate of opinion in the UK, if we could create it.
If we are honest, which we should be in any debate in Westminster Hall, social progress in this country is not the exclusive preserve of any one party or Government. We make haste slowly, to some extent, by building on each other's achievements and successes. If the Minister is honest, she will concede that, even now, we have probably not got as far as we should in relation to skills. The process is one of trying to readdress the problem of the skills gap. The Minister has some recent and powerful allies. I gather from press reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was recently quoted as having noticed that it is very difficult to get skilled trades people in southern England and that they are much more expensive than in Scotland where there is a comparative labour surplus. Most employers could have told him that, and probably do when he asks them.
I said that we are not discussing higher education this afternoon, but with great respect to the Minister, the Government's arbitrary adoption of the target of a 50 per cent. higher education participation must not be at the expense of the appropriate vocational education provision. The essential need of employers to whom I talk is for skills. They do not want stupid people or those who cannot adapt. I am worried that there may be some diversion of effort from that area.
I noticed that no less distinguished a person than the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills was not wholly complimentary about the Government's record on further education. I would settle for saying that it is patchy, at best. During the early 1990s, when I had ministerial responsibilities for education, we made resources available for a massive increase in participation, which, amazingly, we achieved. Since then, Ministers of the current Administration have done their best to rubbish that achievement and have gone on about franchises. However, the fact is that there were real increases in participation, most of which was of high quality and successful.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: The increase in participation came with an abrupt cut in distance learning education in 1997, leaving many of those who wanted to participate in it with no future indication of funding whatever.
Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to say that by the time that that happened, I was not the Minister. I am aware that it was distressing, but since that day, participation rates have not risen again. I was just coming on to that point. Participation has not improved throughout the six-year period of the Labour Administration. A target to increase numbers by 700,000 over two years has not materialised, but I do not blame the further education sector or even the past financial package; we must move on to deal with the stagnation.
14WH
The Minister said little about the state of industrial relations in the colleges or the professional development of college staff. I hate industrial disputes, which often achieve little. The Opposition should not capitalise frequently on such occurrences, but the Committee must note that until recently NATFHE was in dispute not so much with the employers as with the Government.
Margaret Hodge: With the employers.
Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister not recall that employers lobbied hard for a bigger envelope in order to pay their staff more appropriately? They were having considerable difficulty in securing that from the Government. I am pleased that that, too, is suspended, at least for the time being.
I shall move on to the first of my main concerns. According to figures provided by the Association of Colleges, the disparity on entering the profession between the pay of an FE lecturer and a school teacher—let alone a computer specialist in the private sector—is roughly 18 per cent., which also applies at the top of the scale. The FE scale is much longer than the teachers' scale. It is a large and significant disparity, not a minor adjustment.
We should recall the comments of the Association of Colleges, which has tried, like myself, not to be churlish about this week's announcement. It said:
"Today's announcement goes some way to creating equality. The Association of Colleges still wants the gap closed completely."
That is a fair statement of its position and of its worry that it may still be difficult, even with the package that the Secretary of State and the Minister have mentioned. Enrolment has been a problem, particularly in the adult learners sector, which has relatively poor resourcing in comparison with the 16-to-19 sector. Problems will remain, even when the package has worked its way through.
I shall touch briefly on other concerns. One is the degree of interference by the Government. The rot started with the original remit letter from the Government to the Learning and Skills Council. I recall that 76 indents were put out to the LSC. I can just imagine saying to my secretary, "Please take 76 urgent letters." It is much better to set out three or four priorities and concentrate on them. That should bring about the possibility of achieving and measuring success. Too many targets can be dangerous, leading to confusion of achievement with the target—perhaps an occasional aim of the Government. We need to know exactly what we want in respect of enrolment and quality, but we do not want a huge burden of bureaucracy. The Minister is now bent, with the assistance of Sir George Sweeney, on repairing some of the bureaucracy that she herself created for colleges.
Another factor is that there are so many players in the field. There are colleges and their boards, governors and councils, who clearly have their own views on how they should be run. They are inevitably second-guessed by the local learning and skills councils, which are of uneven quality, although mine in Northamptonshire is particularly good. Plans are then subject to further moderation by the Learning and Skills Council itself.

15WH
On top of that are the regional development agencies, with whom the councils are now enjoined to work even more closely.
There are a whole plethora of bodies and targets in this field, and there is a danger that that could get in the way of teaching. There is also a concern about the mutuality, or stakeholding, in the process. Of course, it might occasionally be necessary to take tough remedial measures, but the basic approach should be to encourage, and to try to share a way through problems, rather than to wield the big stick.
Another area of concern is the inspection regime. As the Minister rightly said, concerns were expressed about that in the past. Some complexities are the direct result of Government structuring, but it is fair to say that, on the whole, the regime has worked reasonably satisfactorily. However, I would not like her to feel that there are absolutely no problems. I have heard concerns from one of my colleges about the nature of an inspection that took place during the revision process, which was quite untypical of the normal teaching activity in the college.
I need to repeat that, in making any criticisms of the FE sector—which should not be immune from criticism—we must take account of the value added that it has achieved and of the historic legacy of the sector. We are all familiar with going into classes of children of 16 who had left school with nothing better than a D grade, decided that they want to do something such as catering, found it interesting, and suddenly reinvested in education because they needed basic skills, such as the ability to calculate and measure quantities. That is great, and the sad thing—I think Ministers are beginning to learn this lesson—for FE and higher education is that that is not always being dealt with at school level. It should be dealt with there as far as possible, before it becomes a problem later.
I am also a little concerned about the inspection of adult training, which does not get enough attention. Perhaps we should look at it on another occasion. The Minister touched only briefly on the advanced modern apprenticeships. She might want to increase them now, but their numbers have been going down. If we are to get the skills needed, we must secure an increase in numbers.
That brings me naturally to the qualification framework. The Minister mentioned restructuring. It will be interesting to see whether the model that emerges is specialist A-level provision or, as she implied, specialist provision for 16 to 19-year-olds, which could of course include vocational skills and vocational A-levels, and would be distinct from adult provision. In certain cases that might be appropriate, although the Minister will be aware of all the demarcation lines that that would draw. One player that I did not mention was the local education authority, its role as the school provider and maintainer, and how that is to be broken. Whether there will be joint governance and what the lines of accountability should be, for example, could become real issues in my constituency.
I wonder whether we have the right handle on vocational qualifications. In the same way that this debate might be taken, as I suggested, as subsidiary to an HE debate that has not taken place, I am worried that
16WH
people looking at vocational A-levels might say that they are almost the same as other A-levels, but not quite what people wanting to go on to higher education should have. That kind of class distinction would not be helpful.
We should also bear in mind the implications for the FE sector of an international baccalaureate, if that is what Ministers want to go towards, which offers something quite different and might or might not be able to be incorporated in that sector. In case there is any misconception, I am a strong supporter of moving towards a framework of imparting and validating teaching skills in further education. There are constraints, as hon. Members have mentioned, but it must be right to move towards that in a sensible and planned way.
I am surprised by one little skeleton in the closet that the Minister chose not to mention, which is the fiasco over individual learning accounts. That has caused a problem for individual students, for providers and the sector as a whole, and it has not gone away yet. I had correspondence this week concerning a business that was owed £186,000 in relation to the delivery of training to 4,000 students. The business had provided proof of the delivery of that training to the Department as long ago as October 2001. The business cannot receive payment and does not know whether the Department has yet paid the ILA provider, because the Department will not confirm that.
There is excess expenditure of the order of £70million. A large number of accounts are still open, and we are now told that the Government will make no announcement of their proposals for a replacement scheme until June 2003. Moreover, it is still not clear when the proposals will be implemented after that announcement. We will have at least a two-year hiatus in provision for supporting individual skills. I cannot help feeling that the Chancellor has told the Department that it has overspent by £70 million and that the Budget will mark time until that is clawed back. Then, and only then, will the Department be allowed to begin a new scheme. Unfortunately, skills are required in the meanwhile, and they are not being delivered to the ordinary people who need them.
I do not want to close on a purely negative note. Ministers may well be learning lessons about the central importance of the further education sector. That sector does not need, and has never benefited from, an authoritarian approach. There is a huge amount of initiative and enterprise approaches—in the widest sense of the word—available in the sector, in its staff and colleges. That needs monitoring, encouragement and the appropriate finance from Ministers. Above all, even more than higher education, the sector holds the keys to skills and competitiveness for the United Kingdom as a whole. We should not forget that, because individuals' lives have been changed by what they have done in FE, even when they had never done anything like that before, through a dedicated staff, that is not particularly well paid or well recognised.
FE has created opportunities for people of all abilities at all levels to shine. It is worth while for the country, but it is hugely worth while for the individual as well. To adopt that as a positive approach is the best way of securing what in the words of the Government's

17WH
document—Governments are good at words—is appropriately described as "success for all", which we would all wish to see achieved.
3.39 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. As hon. Members will know, disappointingly the debate programme for this afternoon, which was allocated to the Select Committee on Education and Skills to devote to higher education, was taken from us at short notice and taken over by the Government. I fully understand their reasons, but I have to point out to the Minister and members of the Select Committee that we are delighted to debate further education, for which it has been a good week. Moreover, we are making a point concerning the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. The debate was changed—it has not been replaced—at 10 o'clock in the morning and replaced by a Government debate. We have lost that debating time and I have had no assurance from the Government through the usual channels that we shall ever get it back.
Will the Minister use her good offices to ensure that we get a replacement debate? By that I do not mean a debate when the Government have at last responded to the Select Committee's report on higher education and higher education finance—we should get that anyway—but a replacement debate for this lost time, which has been lost to the Public Accounts Committee or any other Select Committee that bid for it. This morning, I was in the Liaison Sub-Committee in which different Select Committees were bidding for time for debates—bidding for time that is scarce and precious. Will the Minister use her good offices to get us a replacement debate, and not just one on higher education?
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I should like to associate the Opposition with the request to the Minister and the Government to replace the debate as soon as is conveniently possible.
Mr. Sheerman: As Chairman of the Select Committee, I find it slightly irritating when the Government miss attempts by some hon. Members— there are not many of us— to assert a little bit more power and status for the legislature. I echo others when I say that the document is important and contains the most important messages to the FE sector in my time in Parliament. I do not see why the Minister or the Secretary of State should not have made a proper statement to the House. The document was available in the Vote Office, but that is not the same as a proper statement. The Government are in effect saying that FE is a Cinderella by not giving it due time with a full statement on the Floor of the House. You may think that I am getting old and pernickety, Mr. Amess, but I had to make that point, firmly.
We have become accustomed to Green Papers and White Papers, but this interesting document has not been explained to me—it is neither fish nor fowl. It is certainly a blue paper, and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) likes the colour. Is it a thought piece by the new Secretary of State? If it is, he has thought very rapidly. What is it? Is it an action plan? Will everything in it come about? It is not a consultation
18WH
document because we have had the consultation document. I am holding my breath to find out its official status.
Margaret Hodge: Neither rabid blue nor pale blue has ever been my colour. When I was told that a fantastic designer who supports our endeavours in the Department for Education and Skills had selected the blue cover, I wondered whether we had got the best designer. The document is a policy statement that takes forward the allocation of resources from the comprehensive spending review and explains how the money will be spent.
Mr. Sheerman: Good. We have it on the record. Thank you for allowing me to extract that from the Minister, Mr. Amess.
The document is, of course, good news for the further education sector. I shall not speak for long on this important subject, because many other hon. Members want to speak, some of whom have worked in or spent time in FE for much longer than I have. When I worked for a living a long time ago, I was in higher education, so the FE experts will be waiting to get in.
What is missing from the document is a sufficient spelling out of the vision of what we want FE to supply over the coming years. I shall give the Minister and hon. Members a flavour of my thinking. Given the backdrop of the very much delayed White Paper on higher education, a malicious little thought pops up when one listens to this good news on FE. The Secretary of State informs us—some of us had an inkling of it—that 40 per cent. of HE is carried out in FE. It is the Government's target that 50 per cent. of the cohort enter higher education. That is an enormously ambitious target, and there is no doubt that FE will have to play a large part in that expansion. Some of us suspect that it might be a cheap way of rapidly expanding HE numbers—perhaps inevitably and rightly, in view of the scarce resources that we shall be able to devote to HE. Whatever the case, FE will play an increasing role in delivering higher education for local students. That is important.
The whole area of HE and FE is starting to be transformed. I do not know how many mergers are taking place between universities and FE colleges, but I know that only last week Huddersfield university in my constituency announced a merger with Doncaster college. Some time previously, there was an announcement that Bradford university and Bradford college would be seeking a merger. Such decisions will become much more common. The boundaries between HE and FE will change dramatically. At the same time, as was said earlier, there is secure funding in providing A-level courses for 16 to 19-year-olds but less secure funding for many other courses.
A worrying factor constantly comes up when we consider the grand perspective of the future of FE. When Select Committee members travel around the country visiting schools and colleges—for example, we were in Birmingham for a week in September—we find that the skills that our colleges provide are not quite matched to the skills that are needed out there. One highly valued member of the Committee has a hobby horse: he is always reminding me that we are not training enough electricians and plumbers. That is probably

19WH
true, but there is a more serious element at the heart of the matter. I recently spoke to the Minister responsible for science, Lord Sainsbury, and his real concern is that we are failing to train enough technicians to work across the piece—in the health service, in universities and in the private sector. We are failing to produce that level of people—a serious potential skills deficit to which we are not responding. As FE is pushed into the HE world, or the 16-to-19 or A-level world, we must seriously address the fact that we have to get absolutely right, as a matter of urgency, the skills that make the economy motor day in, day out.
I seem to be bashing the Government a bit, but only in the lightest way. If I ever get cross with them, they will know about it. However, I was disappointed when the Minister's colleague wrote to me about individual learning accounts. After the hard work that my Committee, and many others, had put into investigating that serious collapse of a Government policy, we wanted to know when it would be replaced. We think that it is a wonderful idea. The Committee was unanimous across the parties that it is a wonderful scheme to reach out to people who were not receiving learning before. All sorts of people and age groups are entering lifelong learning and acquiring skills through individual learning accounts.
We conducted an investigation a long time ago and were keen for the ILA to be replaced. From the investigation and ministerial responses to it, we got the feeling that soon we would see ILA mark 2. A Minister who has now moved to the Treasury intimated that soon a smaller-scale replacement for the ILA would be introduced. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I received a letter from the Minister responsible saying that there would be a groundbreaking national skills strategy but that the Government could not get that together until June so it was tidier to pull it in with the ILA.
I sometimes feel that if we locked up a group of people who are well informed on the subject for a wet weekend in a country house and supplied them with sandwiches and coffee, we could come up with a national skills strategy. We do not need that, however, because we have the Learning and Skills Council, an enormous Department with some 5,750 people, and Ofsted which is almost half that size. Do we have national training organisations? Some, not all, have been abolished. Skills sector councils are being introduced, but they are not fully formed. It is a bit of a mess, and I am not sure that this is the groundbreaking skills strategy and delivery plan that we need. We must accept that we have a pretty good picture of the skills deficiencies in this country and move rapidly—before June 2003—to do something about them, because the FE sector will be right on the front line of delivering those skills.
I feel slight irritation because there are so many initiatives, such as the abolition of national training organisations. I meet people all the time who say that they still work for an NTO but do not know whether they have a job. Others tell me, "If you want a million pounds, just think up an idea for a schools sector council and you'll get it." The opportunities are indeed fabulous, but they are not joined up.
20WH
I come from an era when Governments talked about person-power planning, which is totally unfashionable now. We must, however, have an element of assessing and auditing the skills that the nation needs and how they should be delivered. With that, I shall end my rapping of Government knuckles.
There are lots of good things to say about the document, especially if it is translated into action. The hon. Member for Daventry was absolutely right: as any sensible politicians should, we must consider the announcements carefully and see whether the money is delivered. I used to be shadow Minister, and remember that I could not count the number of times that the Conservative Government launched the initiative of 1,000 extra policemen—they did so time and again. When Roy Hattersley—now Lord Hattersley—was my boss in home affairs, it was said that the Labour party never knowingly underlaunched and Roy Hattersley never knowingly underlunched. That was before he became a vegetarian.
We shall be watching carefully. The amount of money given by the Secretary of State and the Minister must come through to the sharp end of the sector without too many strings attached. The document states that the Government want to cut bureaucracy, which is absolutely right. However, I do not approve of money for nothing, and there is always a bureaucratic level embedded in things such as this.
I have many good friends in the FE sector, including those in the Association of Colleges and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—those people who make the FE sector work—and some of them think that Christmas has come early. Indeed, it has; this is wonderful news, for which they have been lobbying a long time. However, the Committee expects to see delivery of a higher quality service for the money and resources, and we shall be watching very carefully to ensure that the service flows through to the people who matter the most: the students who come into the colleges to receive skills training. It is not good enough at the moment. I applaud the Minister for taking on the colleges and saying, "Come on. Ofsted is saying that half of you are not performing well. You have to perform to standards, and you will not get extra money until you do." That is good news.
When I visit colleges and universities—let us concentrate on colleges—or talk to learning and skills council people and the many people who run the organisations that make education happen, I sometimes worry about the quality of management. It is often taken for granted, as are resources. One can walk through the door of an FE college and meet the principal and their tiny group of back-up staff who are responsible for delivering sophisticated budgets and programmes. Indeed, Huddersfield, a town with a university, has a very large FE college. The college has more students and offers a greater variety of courses than the university but has a very thin management capability. When I walk across to the university and meet the vice-chancellor, I realise that management support for the running of a university in this country is also thin. The management depth is not always there. Sometimes we ask people to deliver with a very thin capability.

21WH
The Select Committee visited six or seven universities in the United States. We were very impressed by the high quality and depth of the management support. Most of the people have MBAs. The universities have very sophisticated management types who ensure delivery of their management. I hope that the Government do not take it for granted that that will happen. Management must be considered, and resources must flow into it as well as into teaching. I say that a little nervously because people always criticise so-called bureaucracy, but good management is not wasteful bureaucracy.
I want to finish—I have taken too much time—on a hobby horse of mine. At York university last Thursday evening, I spoke at the annual conference of UVAC. Many people might suppose that that was a new domestic appliance; in fact, it is the University Vocational Awards Council. I was profoundly impressed by the people there who viewed the whole of our educational system—11 to 14, 14 to 19, higher education—as a seamless relationship. They want a commitment from the Government to a continuous process. They want us to think of education not only in FE terms but as a seamless transition.
We have not heard enough about the 14 to 19 Green Paper since its publication. If such education is to achieve parity of esteem and become a respected vocational strand, we must give it much more attention and resources. We must take on the people who divide the debate and who say that more means worse. They sicken me. I am sometimes tempted to go on the "Today" programme to discuss the matter. Three months ago, the Institute of Directors put out an awful so-called policy document—I believe that it was written by Ruth Lea—which says that we need fewer people entering higher education and more plumbers and electricians. What an absurd hypothesis.
Yes, of course we need more skilled tradesmen, technicians and all of those valuable people who make our country run, as I said earlier, but for goodness' sake, 60 per cent. of the population do not go on to higher education. There is a lot of capacity for people to upskill and improve their skills, but I am still dedicated to making the higher education system available to every talent that can benefit from it. I know that the 50 per cent. that is the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills could be questioned as a round figure. When the Select Committee questioned Sir Michael Bishard, the former permanent secretary, on whether 50 per cent. was based on ruthless analysis of international competition, was based on research or was a big round fat sexy number, he smiled and assented to the last of those. Let us not be hung up on 50 per cent., but ensure that the figure is what delivers to every person in this country who could benefit from higher education.
I want to say in passing, as I warned him that I would, that the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), rather surprised and saddened me yesterday when, in a question to the Prime Minister, he slated the fact that some universities had courses on aromatherapy and golf course management. I celebrate the diversity of courses. Media studies, rather than being a nonsense course as some critics outside the House call it, provides excellent training for the burgeoning business sector, and people who study it get well-paid
22WH
jobs. I deprecate people who, when faced with a range of competitive courses offering vocational education at FE and HE level, think that they are in some way inferior. I checked what was being taught at Oxford, which still includes Byzantine studies. I do not know whether anyone can get a job with Byzantine studies, but there are all kinds of odd things on offer.
Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: I will not, because I want to finish.
I have rapped a few knuckles. I welcome this week's announcement on the FE sector. I believe that "Success for All" is a very good starting point for the revolution in FE that I hope will take place during the next five years.
4.2 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). He would very much like to be here but cannot be. I have no intention of trying to rival his experience, knowledge or eloquence.
I have read "Success for All" from cover to cover, and most of my remarks will be on the Government's strategy. My starting point is that we preside over an historic skills shortage, which is crippling industry—the construction industry, the rail industry and manufacturing industry generally. It is frustrating customers. Quite apart from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have serious difficulty at the moment in finding a plasterer in the north-west for a hole in my ceiling. Everyone is aware of the shortage, and its extent is horrifying. We have moved on from a situation where there are not enough people in training; there are now not enough people to provide the training.
In the past, arrangements were come to in local areas where employment was largely provided by local companies, whereby technical colleges and FE colleges would liaise with local and national industry to match skills and employment. Arrangements would be made almost naturally that made sense to commerce and students. I am thinking back to the 1960s and 1970s, when there was not the same emphasis on the skills shortage. What seems to have happened is that industry has gradually withdrawn from its training role and absolved itself of that. That was partly because of the recession, when training had to be cut first, and partly because some industries found the attraction of employing unskilled, mobile labour or exporting labour greater than that of providing a training budget. Industry is less identified with its local area than ever and, to that extent, footloose.
We have been through a phase in which a craftsman has become increasingly a curiosity. That trend is not worsened by, but is parallel with, a drive for more university entrants. I do not subscribe to the view expressed at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday that there is anything particularly wrong with rugby studies and aromatherapy. In fact, I can see quite a good case for combining those subjects, if possible. However, there has been a cultural change against manual and technical work and we must record it. Manual and technical work is no longer held in the same esteem. Once, a good percentage of Labour Members would

23WH
have been capable of earning their living with their hands and their technical skills, if they were not MPs. I do not know whether any Labour Members are currently able to do that or to demonstrate that they can, rather than just say that they can.
We must record a genuine cultural change: what people do with words has become rather more important than their practical abilities and what they do with their hands. It seems that the wordsmiths and the toilers have fought to get a reward. When it comes to further education, we must make a serious point about the dignity and value of craftsmanship and problem-solving abilities. Each and every one of us counts on those abilities at some point in our life. A good number of individuals can count on such abilities for employability, and the economy definitely and expressly requires such skills.
I know that I am preaching to the converted. Hon. Members are nodding. The key point that I am trying to address is what the Government plan to do about the situation. The Government know that further education has somewhat lost its way. They know that the funding level of further education has not been what it should be; they may not acknowledge that publicly, but I am sure that they do tacitly. They have come forward with a solution: "Success for All". I do not want to be unkind about that document because it has many very good features. It is, in parts, a little repetitive and it contains some unnecessary, patronising platitudes. I wish to some extent that the document had been drawn up with a slight sense of irony.
I have plucked some statements from the document. It states that the Government are going to put teaching, training and learning
"at the heart of what we do".
That is encouraging. The Government want
"every college…to be clear about its own educational and training mission".
Well, so they should. They think that we need to motivate talented pupils so that they progress to higher education. That is scarcely earth-shattering news. I also recall that it is important that teachers and trainers should be qualified to teach and train. That is all very well, but what the Government are offering as a positive recipe is, in a nutshell, a reinvention of the wheel. Since craftsmanship has declined slightly, the reinvention of the wheel is obviously not being done with the expertise that it might be.
Let me point out certain specifics. Years ago industry training boards existed. Then they disappeared. Now, in "Success for All", we have brand-new sector skills councils. Years ago local education authority careers advisers went into schools and talked to staff and careers masters. Now we have something new: Connexions personal advisers. They sound very similar. Years ago LEA advisers and Her Majesty's inspectors spread practice throughout the sector. Now we have LSCs, aided and abetted by Ministers, doing more or less the same thing.
Years ago further education colleges specialised in what they did best. They did not go in for the gratuitous hunting out of extra places and courses just to put bums on seats and funding in the budget. Now the
24WH
Government will encourage further education colleges to specialise in what they do best. We all remember that, years ago, LEAs used to construct strategically relevant plans for technical and further education in cities and counties. Now LSCs will do precisely the same thing. So there is nothing specifically and wonderfully new about the outline proposals.
The drive to get rid of bureaucracy is encouraging. I understand that Sir George Sweeney and his committee are eradicating bureaucracy throughout the country. I checked with my own further education establishments and they are only marginally aware of his existence. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned a number of quangos that are adding to the bureaucracy or, at any rate, employ a good number of bureaucrats. The document states helpfully that if the LSC and the LSDA collaborate sufficiently with the LEAs, the SSCs, the SSDAs, the RDAs, the HEFCE, the HEI and the SPCEF within a meaningful FRESA—which I understand only vaguely—there will be more CoVEs and use of Ufi ICT, which should please QCA, ALP and most of FE. All of those acronyms—apart from being my attempt to win the Hansard competition for the largest number of acronyms in a sentence—are to be found in the document. I am sceptical about the Government's instinct to discourage bureaucracy. I see little evidence so far that they have actually succeeded in doing so.
What the Government have added in terms of bureaucracy is an additional three-year development plan, although one might describe it as a contract. I do not have any hang-ups about that, and I suggest that the Minister and the Government have made progress in suggesting that a development plan is something that is agreed on a local basis with an LSC. That is far better than the Government's simply thrusting something on them, or setting targets that mean nothing to them. My anxiety is that if the targets are not interpreted and implemented sensitively enough, good performance may not be rewarded. There may instead simply be mystification all round.
The Government have laid out some of the targets in "Success for All" in terms of student numbers. I am sure that any LSC would be aware that increasing student numbers per se is not a good thing if the courses that they are pursuing are not meaningful and useful.
Employer engagement is another matter that colleges will be rated on. However, that will vary across the country depending on the situation of the local employers. In areas that are depressed, where employers have their backs against the wall and have real difficulties in making ends meet, there will be limited scope to engage them. I would not want to see any college suffer because it was in an economically deprived area.
Staff calibre is another factor that colleges will be rated on. Presumably, colleges that uprate the quality of their staff will be better rewarded than colleges that do not. It seems self-evident to me that in the south-east, that will be more of a problem. People who are highly qualified in technical skills will find it easier to go elsewhere than the local FE college, and for better money. It seems to me that any plan put across by the LSC should be sensitively interpreted, as it determines funding.

25WH
My worry—I hope that the Minister will take it seriously—is that the targets for colleges could end up being highly specific, and almost penal in some respects. The targets in the introductory section of "Success for All", which the Government actually set for themselves, are described as tough, but they are completely and utterly unquantified. They simply refer to more people at a certain level, or say that they hope to increase numbers. The document does not state by how much. There is something rather unfair about the Government's setting nebulous, rather indefinite goals for themselves while setting severe goals for the colleges, upon which funding hinges.
Equally imprecise are the financial commitments. The Minister is certainly very welcome to respond by clarifying what may be a misunderstanding on my part. Several hon. Members have already raised points about the salary gap, which is a big issue for all FE colleges, sixth form colleges and the like. One would look in the document for something that would bridge that gap and state the intention to employ people at the same rates at LEA 11–18 schools. The document says that the Government would hope to, and that they would like to. It says that the money might be there to achieve it, but it does not actually guarantee it.
I do not doubt that there is additional money. There has been a 3.5 per cent. increase in real terms. However, I want to make a slightly semantic point. As I understand it—hon. Members may correct me—that 3.5 per cent. has come from the merging of two funds that are already received by the colleges. That is a very curious definition of an increase. There is an additional 2 per cent. of funding coming as well, but that is conditional on agreeing a plan with an LSC. Clearly, if a plan is not agreed, or it is not a satisfactory plan, or there is a very demanding LSC, that funding may not be there.
I applaud and respect the Government for providing an extra 60 per cent. for capital spending, but the document says elsewhere that the Treasury expects colleges to seek additional sources of money, either through a private finance initiative or borrowing from elsewhere. If that 60 per cent. is handed out as capital funding on a match basis, the Government may simply be giving colleges an opportunity to acquire further debts. More detail is required.
Finally on the financial side, there is an entirely praiseworthy Government initiative on the integration of the 14-to-19 curriculum in schools and that in further education. Pupils move happily between both types of establishment and will continue to do so. However, it is not clear—perhaps the Minister will make it clear—how, in the long term, that funding will be arranged. Will it come predominantly from the local authority, or will it be part of the LSC budget relating to the further education college? Will it be split between the two? Will it come via a special grant, on a continuous basis?
I applaud many of the initiatives. The emphasis on e-learning is good. I welcome modern apprenticeships and appreciate the emphasis on relating adult learning to employability, which is quite important. However, I note certain omissions. There is very little about the civic education of people who go through further education. In the old technical colleges, there used to be a traditional vein of liberal education, whereby someone
26WH
who had a technical education was not excluded from an understanding of the wider aspects of society. We all recognise that as important.
The Government are bothered about the problem, but the Department is overlooked by the Treasury and therefore handicapped. The Government need to accept that, attractive and detailed in certain respects as the brochures are, the further education colleges will, given the history of further education funding, view them with scepticism and want to examine the fine detail. I did not attend the conference that other hon. Members did, but in my local further education colleges the champagne is still very much on ice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The Minister will take only a short while to sum up the debate, but five hon. Members are still trying to catch my eye. It would be appreciated if hon. Members would bear that in mind.
4.17 pm
Valerie Davey: I am pleased to take part in this debate on an important policy statement, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education will speak to "Success for All". Unlike the Opposition spokesperson, I pay credit to the Minister's consistency, because as Chair of the then Select Committee on Education and Employment she presented to the House the earlier further education report that is echoed in many aspects of today's report.
The recommendations of the earlier report have largely been fulfilled. There are many important echoes. It states:
"The further education sector supports the nation's economic competitiveness and social well-being."
That is about social justice and economic development.
That Committee, with its long experience of work and a long time spent visiting colleges, came up with the conclusion, which we knew all along, that further money was needed, and in the core sector. That is now being responded to. There was a need for further capital investment, which is being responded to.
There was the important claim that, whatever we did for the colleges, we also had to do something for 16-plus students. The educational maintenance allowances being rolled out throughout the country are one of the finest things that the Department and the Government have done for young people in education.
Let us return to the current report. I cannot believe that the Minister has not consciously and subconsciously taken on board many of its themes in the Department and seen them through. It was an excellent report, and it makes me proud to have been a member of that Committee. For those of us who have treasured our role on Select Committees over the years, we believe that it was a job well done when we see how that work has been translated in due time into a policy statement and into pounds in the pockets of colleges and students. I thank the Minister for her work and, importantly, for the new report.

27WH
I pay tribute to the report through the voice of Brian Styles, the principal of the City of Bristol college, whom I rang for an immediate response to the document. Before I tell the Committee what he said, I shall say a little about the college, which is the third largest in the country. If some members of the Committee do not recognise it, they may remember Brunel college of technology, South Bristol college, or Sandwell college of further and higher education and the nursery nurses' college in Bristol. Brian Styles has smoothly and adeptly brought together those colleges as the City of Bristol college, which now provides excellent education for 35,000 students from different parts of the region, Britain and overseas. Its work in linking with schools, commerce and industry, and three universities is an example to many others.
Brian Styles' first comment on the report was that it is a great step forward in funding, but that almost equally important are the great resources that the Government are giving to colleges in recognition of their importance and the variety of their work. The report is recognition of their contribution to the economic and social values in this country and a ringing endorsement, although I am sure that he, I and everyone else present want to see the detail and to know how it will be implemented. Interestingly, Brian Styles then focused on the importance that the document gives to the 14-to-19 agenda.
Not for nothing has Brian Styles created the City of Bristol college. He is concerned about every aspect of education in the city. He is well aware of the lack of attendance of some of the senior members of the college, and of their need for a more flexible agenda and to link into what the college can offer. He provides some 1,000 youngsters from school with half a day every week, which means that 1,000 youngsters receive that advantage without any additional funding to the college. That is a possible way of linking them to further education in future. He was concerned that the schools, especially those whose youngsters are not achieving the A stars at GCSE level, are putting so much effort into the target of 30 per cent. or more achievement that they may not recognise that one of their targets should be to let young people achieve and go on to further education, with or without GCSEs. He, and others in Westminster Hall today, would echo the statement of the need to recognise that many young people learn through their hands and doing. They need skilled help to further their education through courses that may not even be vocational GCSEs, but general national vocational qualifications, which the college enthusiastically offers. The variety of stimulation that those young people need is a huge part of that principal's agenda, despite the fact that many of his students are also taking higher education courses, gaining degrees and going on to university. The curriculum issue—the 14-to-19 agenda—is very much upfront at the college.
The principal welcomed the money that he will now be able to pay. He said that in the past he had been able to take people from business and industry who, at a certain stage of their career, wanted to use their skills and experience to become FE lecturers, and not just for one day a week. He has been prohibited from doing so
28WH
recently, but he is looking forward to again being able to employ in FE people who have had a career in business and industry.
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): Does my hon. Friend agree that in the main FE colleges want to raise their game? What the Government have done recently will allow them to do that. Oaklands college in my constituency is training plumbers and bricklayers, which is what we need.
Valerie Davey: That is a good point, well—and often—made by my hon. Friend.
The City of Bristol college produces some good people with crafts and skills and recently it has received two accolades. The college has won two major national awards—the further education Oscars—one for innovation in language teaching. I hope that the Department will soon extend its policy on language teaching in schools and I remind Ministers how important that role is for further education.
The college was given the accolade because of its dynamic languages staff, who offer a wide range of options, including Mandarin Chinese, modern Greek, Russian and Punjabi. As some of my hon. Friends know, the bee in my bonnet is that young people who come to this country whose mother tongue is not English, but who grow up to excel in it, are asked to take French and German when they go to secondary school or into further education, rather than studying their own mother tongue. How good it would be if they were able to pursue their Arabic, Persian, Punjabi or Gujerati, to give themselves credits, to have pride in their own language and to enrich this country and its future trade.
The second Oscar was for engineering training, which shows the balance of values at the college. The prestige of a beacon engineering award was mainly to recognise the college's superb engineering skills department centre.
I want to highlight the insight involved in acquiring a new building on a city centre site near the harbourside, where there is some prestigious development, and in making it a showcase for its work. Young people are flooding there to do computer courses and hairdressing and to acquire a range of skills. The college restaurant is in a lovely open area where elderly people and youngsters in the community come to eat. It has recently been open for art exhibitions for the homeless, and for Studio Upstairs, which takes people recovering from alcohol and drug abuse and from mental illness. It is a superb facility for the city.
I want to place on the record my well-known enthusiasm for further education and to pay a personal tribute on behalf of the people of Bristol to Brian Styles, who retires at the end of the year. As principal, he has taken forward the work of FE with great enthusiasm and provided the city with something that it can be proud of, from which many people of all ages have been able to benefit.
I endorse the blue paper "Success for All". The City of Bristol college has led many people to success. I wish the Minister success in fully implementing all that has been set out.
4.29 pm
Mr. John Horam (Orpington): I thank the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee for at least giving birth to the debate, even though the child that was delivered was the result of the Government's force majeure, and not entirely the one that he had in mind. I am delighted that further education is the subject of the debate. I, like the hon. Gentleman, deplore instances such as this when the Government hijack Select Committee time. As Committee Chairmen—I am Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee—and Back Benchers know, the most effective criticism of Government policy comes from the work of Select Committees but their reports must be debated either in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber. It is a pity when the Government take that time unilaterally and late in the day.
Orpington college in my constituency is a remarkable further education college. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has since the summer returned to his responsibilities for further education on the shadow Front Bench. He visited Orpington college and shares my view that it is excellent. Proof of that excellence is its A-level pass marks, which took it into the top 10 in the country. Its vocational course results are also well above average.
Orpington college had a successful Ofsted inspection this year and recently it received a charter mark for its excellent work, which I was honoured to be asked to present. When I was charter mark Minister in the last Government, charter marks were handed out by the Prime Minister of the day to all public servants who had done outstanding work on their own behalf or on behalf of institutions in health, education and so on. It is a pity that that practice has been dropped. I hope that the Minister will make that point to his Cabinet Office colleagues.
As the Minister conceded, further education colleges do excellent work, especially in reaching out to their surrounding communities. The education college in my constituency is active in that respect, providing adult literacy and computer courses and helping the large traveller community in Orpington. I agree with the Minister that further education colleges do valuable work for communities and Orpington college works hard in that respect.
It is remarkable that such good work is done with such slender resources, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said. Teachers in FE colleges are less well paid than the equivalent teachers in schools. The resources available to further education colleges are significantly less—to the tune of nearly 40 per cent.—than those available to schools. They do not get the free capital investment in infrastructure that schools automatically expect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, they are remarkable value for money in terms of public expenditure.
I am pleased to welcome the Government's statement on further funding for FE colleges and warmly welcome the "light blue paper". After some controversy about the origin of the light blue colour, the Minister tried to get away with pretending that it was some sort of design choice. I like to think of it as a political statement in the sense that in several sectors—especially health and education—the Government are drifting inexorably
30WH
under the reality of events towards a more blue view of things. I hope that that will continue, although some of the Minister's more red-blooded colleagues seem to object to it, certainly in the case of health.
I draw the Minister's attention briefly to three matters. First, she admitted that the process of acquiring funds for further education colleges was excessively bureaucratic and could defeat some of the purposes on which they had set their heart.
I notice in the light blue paper the encouraging statement that
"current targeted funds for pay and for staff training will be consolidated into core funding to reduce bureaucracy and devolve decision-making to the front line."
That is an important statement, which I totally welcome. I hope that it will be translated into action.
A curious anomaly is that the starter home initiative for key workers extends only to school teachers; it does not extend to teachers in FE colleges.
Margaret Hodge: It does now.
Mr. Horam: I am very glad to hear that, because that information has not percolated through to all in FE colleges. There is still an apprehension that in that respect, teachers are getting a better deal than FE teachers. I am glad that the Minister says that that is not the case.
Mr. Pollard: The advice given on those matters is that the local authority can define who its key workers are. In my area, we have included almost everyone, because anyone can be a key worker—if we cannot get dustbin emptiers, they are key workers.
Mr. Horam: I received a negative ministerial answer on that earlier in the year, so there has obviously been a U-turn. I have that answer in front of me, and it says that the provision was to be for school teachers only, not FE teachers. I am very glad that there has been that U-turn and that FE teachers will be considered for help with housing, because that is important in areas such as mine, Bromley.
Finally, on something that is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but which I hope that she will draw to the attention of her colleagues or even the Mayor of London, students can get discounts on buses and tubes but not railways. When there has to be quite a lot of travelling around, and people come from quite long distances, in an area such as Bromley, not getting travel discounts across the board can be a disincentive.
The most important of the points that I have made is that on core funding, and the ability to use funding across the board, rather than its being sectioned off into silos and not transferable. That is critical. However, bearing in mind the points that I have made, I welcome what the Government appear to be doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, Governments are good on words. Let us see that, in this case, they are also good on action.
4.37 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the fact that we are having this debate today, regardless of the circumstances of its gestation. I associate myself with

31WH
the important remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), that we must ensure that the Committee's report on higher education gets its fair share of parliamentary time.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who made an excellent opening statement summarising the contents of the blue paper. For everyone involved in further education, this is an extremely important day, as was Tuesday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his speech. I also pay tribute to my close colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), for his commitment to the further education sector during his time as a Minister. His role has been important, and he has succeeded in encouraging many people in the sector, persuading them that the tide was turning and, as I said earlier, a new dawn breaking.
I know that the Government do not want to talk about a graduate tax and top-up fees at the moment, but I intend to do that and make no apologies for it. If the Government had not taken the bold decision to reform the student support system for higher education in 1998, there would not now be £1.2 billion extra for further education between next year and 2005–06. The corollary of that is that if the Government do not take the next, necessary, bold step of reforming student support in HE in January, beyond 2005–06 there will be no new money for FE.
Mr. Pollard: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent early-day motion on top-up fees—I know that we are not talking about those—has attracted about 80 signatures already?
Mr. Chaytor: I am aware of that, and I must say that I think the Labour Members who have signed that motion are misguided in their judgment. I hope that during the next few weeks we shall have a lively debate, trying to prove to my colleagues that they have got the wrong end of the stick.
That brings me to my important opening point. I hope that the Government will feel that it is important to encourage the widest possible debate in Parliament before the publication in January of the paper—whatever its colour—on HE. It would be wrong simply to publish the Government's intentions without having prepared the ground in Parliament.
I want to make a few observations on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can testify that, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, it went down extremely well with those attending the AOC conference earlier in the week. The Secretary of State gave a great boost to morale in the FE sector. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Daventry somewhat blew our cover by admitting that we were only at the conference dinner, not there for the whole time. Nevertheless, it was an important moment for education.
I particularly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State allocated £1.2 billion and stated that there will be year-on-year increases that will
32WH
serve substantially to narrow the gap between the FE sector and the schools sector. However, it is not clear exactly what that substantial narrowing is. In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his spending review, in which FE was allocated a 1 per cent. a year increase and the schools sector—specifically the education standard spending assessment—was given a 3.5 per cent. increase. Afterwards—she may or may not recall this—I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister in the Tea Room. I asked her how, if we are committed as a Government to convergence of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, it can be the case that spending on FE is increasing by 1 per cent. and the education SSA for schools is increasing by 3.5 per cent. To some extent we were given the answer this week in the speech on the blue paper, but it is not yet completely clear. We need to know exactly how far the funding gap will be substantially narrowed.
We need also to know not only what the headline totals are, but what will happen to the funding methodology. Convergence of 16-to-19 funding—which is important not only for the pay of FE teachers and lecturers, but for the general resource base of colleges—will be achieved only if the funding methodology is changed. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something in her closing remarks, or in the near future, about how the LSC is making the transition from the former Further Education Funding Council's methodology to a new common unified funding methodology that applies equally to sixth forms in schools and to colleges.
I welcome many of the specifics in the speech and the blue paper. Earlier we spoke briefly about the importance of the professional development of further education staff. That is an important priority, albeit with the proviso that there is occasionally a need to bring in people who have a high level of expertise but will never have formal teaching qualifications.
I welcome the honesty of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the conference. In announcing the totals for the first year, he immediately said that it was not new money but a readjustment of existing budgets. That must be the first time for many years that a Minister has been so honest to such an important audience. I also welcome the honesty about the future role of the learning and skills councils and his acceptance of the criticism that has been levelled over the past two years at the amount of bureaucracy in the LSCs and the degree of expertise in them. It is a crucial priority for the Government to keep an eye on the relationship between the LSCs and the colleges and to consider staffing expertise in the LSCs. If they are now to have responsibility for the strategic area reviews, and for the support of and intervention into the 10 per cent. of colleges that we assume will not go through the thresholds and will continue to struggle, a considerable injection of new further education expertise into local LSCs will be required.
I welcome the recognition of the bureaucracy that is involved. I was not aware of the bureaucracy taskforce. I hope that its report will not be too long and does not destroy too many trees. I noted in the blue paper that the Secretary of State is due to respond to the bureaucracy taskforce's report in November 2002, and it is important that that response is in the public domain to allow us all to take a view on the extent to which the Government are reducing bureaucracy in FE.

33WH
I particularly welcome the focus on teaching and learning, and the establishment of the standards unit in the Department for Education and Skills. On the establishment of the standards unit, page 31 of the blue paper states:
"It will be important to learn as we go."
I could not decide whether that is refreshing honesty or the understatement of the century because for a number of years there has not been the slightest degree of understanding about the FE sector within the Department. One of the most important achievements by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), which is being continued by the current Secretary of State, is the standards unit, which will start to second people who know what happens in FE colleges to work in the Department. Such units have worked very effectively in primary, secondary and pre-school education, and the unit will be a great boost to the future development of teaching and learning in FE.
Having generally welcomed all the things that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said and published in the blue paper, I shall flag up some points that I hope will be given further consideration. On modern apprenticeships and work-based learning, over the past 12 months there has been considerable public debate—about 12 months ago there was a high level of public debate—including interviews on "Today" and exchanges of letters between the chair and chief executive of the LSC and Ministers about the quality of teaching and learning within FE colleges. The figures are indisputable. The reports from the first new inspections, albeit carried out on a different basis from the former Further Education Funding Council's inspections, identified some serious concerns.
Equally, during the past few months we have had the report from the chief of the adult learning inspectorate. His report on inspections of work-based learning showed an almost identical proportion of work-based learning providers who were subject to re-inspection. There has been no debate about the severe limitations in the quality of much of our work-based learning, which is partly because institutions still largely dominate our understanding of education. The academic-vocational divide, which still plagues our education service, is partly responsible for work-based learning being seen as less prestigious and for people not knowing what goes on and not wanting to talk about it—people want endlessly to talk about anything to do with A-levels.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to read seriously the report of the chief inspector of the adult learning inspectorate, and give equal attention to the quality of work-based learning providers as she has done to quality in FE colleges. There is an interesting point in the blue paper about the work of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority on the unitisation of the curriculum. I have always thought that there is a strange sense of priority whereby we have accepted for many years in the university sector that the curriculum would be unitised, but increasingly most, if not all, of our universities operate some form of credit accumulation and transfer system, which is better developed in some universities than others.
Having established a system in the universities sector, we started to examine A-levels. As we know, we have had significant curriculum change in A-levels over the
34WH
past few years. We now have Curriculum 2000 whereby the curriculum has been unitised on a six-unit structure. The argument for unitising the curriculum and for establishing credit accumulation and transfer procedures is that it helps to motivate students. The irony is that we started with the most highly motivated students in the universities and worked downwards to the next most highly motivated students taking 0-levels. We ignored completely the needs of the least motivated students who drop out of school from 13 or 14 and onwards, some of who go on to FE colleges. We should have done it the other way around. There is a powerful argument for unitising the curriculum and developing credit accumulation and transfer systems within schools and FE colleges. I hope that that will become a stronger theme in the development of the 14-to-19 curriculum.
The blue paper says explicitly that there are no plans to go back to national pay scales. I regret that. I understand exactly what has been attempted in devolving responsibility for pay and conditions to individual colleges since 1993, but I believe that it has been a disaster. Obviously, I welcome what the Government have done to rebuild morale in the sector. Industrial relations are certainly completely different from what they were five years ago. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, the FE colleges remain the only area of the public services that do not have national scales for pay and conditions. That is an anomaly.
Mr. Pollard: Would my hon. Friend say how we would recruit in my area, where the cost of housing is three or four times what it is in other parts of the country, if we went to a national pay scale?
Mr. Chaytor: Employers in the south-east would recruit in exactly the same way that other public sector employers recruit for schools, the national health service and the fire service. There must be a recognised top-up for areas that have higher housing costs, but that does not undermine the argument for national pay scales.
That is one of the ways that the attempt to create a quasi market in the FE service has gone horribly wrong. It serves no continuing purpose to have pay and conditions devolved to individual colleges, and as long as we allow it there will be what can best be described as turbulence within the FE sector and completely unnecessary moving around of staff from one college to another in an attempt to get a better deal. I flag that up as something that might be revisited in the blue paper of three or four years hence.
On the national skills strategy, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in his earlier remarks about ILAs. In his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, he said that members of the Select Committee had been unanimous in the desire to see ILA mark 2 come back quickly. I have had a brief discussion with him before about the matter, in which I said that I disagreed. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, has done absolutely the right thing in deferring a decision on individual learning accounts and in ruling them out in the development of a national strategy. It may well be that the national strategy could be written after a couple of days and an away-day. Nevertheless, we have set June as the target, and we must work to it.

35WH
The ILA was a wonderful idea, but it was not thought through properly. The people who were charged with planning it did not have practical experience of how such things worked. It was not their fault; that was the job that they were given. At the end of the day, the concept of an ILA was ditched, and it worked instead as a simple fee remission system. I am all in favour of such a system, but I see no point in dressing it up as something that it is not. We must now consider the best way to use the money that was earmarked for ILAs. I wish to flag up one way in which the Government might think about that.
Two years ago, I introduced a Bill to promote paid educational leave. My hon. Friend the Minister may recall it, as I have referred to it on several occasions. There is a national campaign for paid educational leave. Virtually every group of professional workers has paid educational leave as a right. The only people who cannot get it are those who need it most: the unskilled and semi-skilled workers at the bottom of the pile. Many European countries have established a system of leave for educational training with, for example, a minimum number of days of entitlement.
The Cabinet Office taskforce on work force development established the principle of paid educational leave in pilot areas. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided some funding in the previous Budget for those pilot schemes. I know that the LSC's report on work force development has been published recently, or is due shortly, and I do not know what that says about paid educational leave. It certainly seems to me that, when examining how to deal with the legacy of individual learning accounts, transferring that money into a national scheme for paid educational leave targeted at low-paid workers would be of enormous benefit, and would help to transform the skills gap in this country.
Finally, on page 20 of the blue paper, the word "coherence" appears. It is the first time in 10 years that I have seen the word in any document about FE. That is the good news. The bad news is that it does not appear again, but I hope that it will. I welcome many of the statements in the paper about the need for a little more planning, co-operation and collaboration. The key mechanism for achieving that is the establishment of strategic area reviews.
I notice that the first review will start from 1 April 2003. I do not know whether the person who chose that date had an eye on history, but it will be exactly 10 years since the implementation of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the incorporation of FE colleges. That led to a series of champagne breakfasts in some colleges celebrating their incorporation and, further, to the ending of the careers of many good people, the break-up of the health of many good people who had worked in FE and the jailing of some others. I hope that we can put the period of the quasi enterprise culture in the FE sector behind us and look forward to more collaboration, more partnership and more planning. I hope also that strategic area reviews can be given some teeth. There is no question but that there is still far too much useless competition and unnecessary
36WH
duplication in the sector. I hope as well that in the blue paper of 2005–06, the word "coherence" will appear many more times than in this one.
4.56 pm
David Wright (Telford): I have a confession to make: I did not realise that this afternoon's debate was taking place until this lunchtime, so I am grateful that you have called me, Mr. Amess, to contribute to a very important debate.
I was sitting in the Tea Room eating a rather large plate of bacon and eggs, and my mind drifted back to a day in the summer when I visited Telford college of arts and technology and had an excellent tour given by the college principal, Mr. Doug Boynton, and a look at the fantastic new building created on the college's site in Wellington. I remember a commitment that I gave Doug Boynton over a cup of tea and some biscuits, which I consumed with vigour, that I would come and speak on FE issues, if I had the opportunity. I therefore hotfooted it to Westminster Hall this afternoon, and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute.
As hon. Members can tell from my opening remarks, I am always one to give into temptation, and there is a temptation on occasions such as this to talk about one's own college or FE institution. I shall now do that, if hon. Members will bear with me for a few moments.
The Telford college of arts and technology is a general FE college covering Telford and east Shropshire. It has a student population in excess of 16,000, with 1,200 full-time students. One of the college's great principles is that it is committed to widening participation, engaging people who would not normally participate in FE. Indeed, more than 50 per cent. of its enrolments are from the most deprived areas of Telford. I am proud of that. It is extremely important to give people from deprived communities opportunities to move into further and higher education, and I think that the Government have done a tremendous amount to ensure that that is possible and can continue.
We have heard a little this afternoon about the provision of training on employers' premises and the importance of ensuring that employers are signed up to high-quality training packages and skill development. I am pleased to say that more than 40 per cent. of the learning provided and delivered by Telford college of arts and technology is delivered on employers' premises and in community centres throughout Telford. It is important to reflect on that.
Many people living in deprived communities find it difficult to access FE colleges because of transport problems and other family difficulties. It is therefore important that we take learning out of the formal buildings of FE institutions and into community centres and other settings. In doing so, it is important that we do not devalue the quality of that education. We must ensure that those who attend community-based learning feel that they are receiving a high-quality product. That is incredibly important, as much so in Telford as in a number of other communities.
It is important to remember that Telford college of arts and technology received more accolades and awards for its provision than any other college in the United Kingdom, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about it. The college is one of the

37WH
largest employers in the town, employing about 600 people, who have a large amount of spending power in the local economy. We should reflect on that when we discuss the way in which we manage FE provision in future. It provides not only education and skills for local people but job opportunities, and it ensures spending power in local economies.
It is important to reflect on some of the difficulties that FE colleges have encountered over recent years. Successive Governments have failed to address the most important aspect relating to the quality and sustainability of FE, which is core funding. It is good to hear the Minister talk about changing the climate of core funding, and about other developments such as how core funding will be handled in future. I hope that when she replies she will give us further commitment to a long-term approach to the issue.
Historically, colleges have been funded at about £1,000 per student less than a school sixth-form college, which is not sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, schools have a guarantee that their funding will not decrease, but FE colleges have no commensurate guarantee. I hope that that will be considered in the next few years. The settlement on which my hon. Friend the Minister has focused relates to a limited period. I hope also that in future we can ensure that further guarantees exist for long-term investment in core funding for FE institutions.
The second of a range of difficulties for FE colleges is pay. Pay increases have had to be funded for about 10 years by efficiency gains. No fully funded award has come from government in the past 10 years. In this week's announcement, we have taken major steps forward on pay, which I am pleased to see the trade unions have acknowledged. We must continue to make further commitments on pay for college lecturers. FE lecturers have historically received some £3,000 a year less than schoolteachers; they have shorter holidays, they teach more hours and they have a longer working week. I hope that we can bring some of the flexibilities to which the Minister referred to bear on the important role of FE lecturers while rewarding them properly.
The third difficulty is bureaucracy. We have heard much about that this afternoon. The principals that I have talked to, including Doug Boynton, suggested to me that the sector has been literally strangled by bureaucracy over the years. Multitudes of agencies, various funding streams and an enormous number of audit trails have been involved. In many cases, those contribute little to the education of people on the front line.
I am very much aware that FE colleges are constantly bidding for resources—Doug Boynton suggested that he spends most of his time putting together bids for resources for different pockets and parcels of money. It is therefore good to hear that we are to begin to mainstream more resources into the FE sector to reduce time spent by lecturers and principals on finding and bidding for resources, and increase time spent on the front line of teaching.
Finally on difficulties, I shall mention curriculum and assessment. We have a post-16 curriculum that involves too much formal assessment. Examining boards are often creaking under strain and disillusioned students are weary of taking exam after exam. People often come
38WH
into Telford college of arts and technology with a very low skills base, so the college has to put them on an examination treadmill early on in their FE experience. We need to change that perspective to be more flexible in how we teach people in an FE setting and suit courses to them.
Reference was made to the expense of practical vocational training. A friend of mine who is an FE college lecturer in plumbing told me that he has to demonstrate some plumbing techniques using toilet rolls because he has insufficient resources to enable him to provide the physical fabric that he needs in order to teach. That is not appropriate now.
Having outlined a number of challenges for the future, I shall conclude my remarks. It is important to get the FE sector right, because it links to a wider agenda in which I am very interested, which is urban renewal. If we are to improve people's quality of life, especially in areas such as Telford, it is important to give them opportunities to acquire skills and to enhance their earning power, thus enabling them to contribute successfully to their local communities. It is also important in a town such as Telford to ensure that the skills base allows us to link our FE activity to industrial and manufacturing renewal. Given the Minister's opening remarks, I feel that that is now a core element of the Government's strategy. I am keen to hear what she has to say about urban renewal when she concludes the debate.
5.6 pm
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Before I speak, I declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I am a member of the governing body of my local city college.
In light of the speech made by the Secretary of State at the Association of Colleges annual conference in Birmingham, I welcome the statement that the AOC made on Tuesday, following its meeting with the trade unions national joint forum, in which it announced that it was suspending its strike action and resuming pay negotiations. That is what we want to see—a constructive way forward for the whole sector—and I congratulate the AOC. I also congratulate the Secretary of State on having taken a positive approach in moving forward through negotiations and discussions with the sector.
The further education sector has predominantly been seen as a Cinderella sector, which, since its incorporation in 1992, has jumped from one crisis to another. It has always been made to chase after different pots of funding, with different types of awards attributed to it. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that his Government made wonderful progress in directing funding towards it. The demand-led element has always been liable to be cut overnight, with no provision made for students or staff. That is the ongoing scenario that the FE sector has had to deal with.
The FE sector has made a tremendous contribution to the communities and environments of which it is a part. Local colleges have played a significant role in economic regeneration and social inclusion in their areas. They have started to build and to integrate communities—as my hon. Friend the Member for

39WH
Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said, not only in terms of available subjects but by providing mother tongue teaching. We have colleges in Birmingham that have delivered excellent results for children in Urdu, Punjabi, Gujerati and Hindi. For people living in those communities, that enhances their ability to understand who and what they are. Once they have attained self-confidence in understanding the heritage and culture of their parents, they can far better integrate into the main stream of society and move forward. The colleges provide the bedrock of support for that. "Success for All" outlines the way that the Government want to move forward. I commend the fact that we are looking at a rise of £1.2 billion by 2005–06. I also commend the fact that three-year plans are coming into being to allow colleges to move their budgets forward on a cyclical basis rather than jumping from one crisis to another.
I also welcome the capital funding for projects in colleges. Most colleges, particularly in Birmingham, have been in their buildings for 50 to 60 years. Most were not designed for the present day and the kind of classes that have to be run, particularly for information and communications technology, drama and other arts-based projects. Core craft skills such as plumbing, electrical installation, bricklaying and block paving need to be developed. Those skills are especially important in Birmingham, which is currently undergoing the largest development that it has seen for some time. We have to ship people into Birmingham to provide courses in basic skills such as bricklaying, pipefitting, plumbing and electrical installation. Those are the core skills that we have been proud of in the West Midlands for a long time. We need a strategic view on how we deliver that training. We need to deliver it in the colleges of excellence, particularly in view of the bid that Birmingham has now put together.
I further congratulate the colleges in Birmingham and the learning and skills councils. They have moved forward and stopped competing and fighting one another for the resources that have been available. They have got together and looked at a new construction college for the whole of Birmingham to teach all those who so desperately need to acquire the skills that are in such short supply in Birmingham.
I gather that time is running out. I need to leave some time for the Minister and for the Opposition spokesman to wind up. I want to concentrate on bureaucracy, which has been mentioned by the Minister. I welcome Sir George Sweeney's review. Colleges currently have to go through about 42 audits a year. They include the Ofsted inspections, area reviews, learning and skills councils audits and student records, financial audits, system audits, quality audits, Learndirect inspections, Learndirect audits, franchise audits, new deal reviews and audits, modern apprenticeship reviews, audits and inspections, European social fund audits and LSC provider reviews.
I agree with the Minister that for far too long we have had no accountability in further education. I also believe that there is a strong case for cross-agency integration on some of these audits and inspections. We need to cut down some of this bureaucracy. That is what the colleges want. Colleges currently have to pay in the
40WH
region of 400 person days in audits per year to deal with it. That is a tremendous amount to take away from the chalk face in the classroom. We should concentrate our resources on the people who matter. Those are the people who come through the door and who want that education.

I wanted briefly to discuss accreditation reform, on which Alan Birks, John Rudd and his colleagues at Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations presented a paper to the AOC conference in Birmingham. The proposals seek to determine how they can reform accreditations to create structures of delivery from mathematics and engineering to technology and construction. I would certainly be interested if the Minister and her Department took up some of the findings of that paper.
The authors want to examine the possibility of a matrix of entry levels ranging from entry and foundation courses to immediate and advanced courses, and to consider at least 14 learning areas to develop the diplomas throughout the range of qualifications available to the sector. We must also begin to consider integrating that into higher education, which is important to all of us, as has been said. The FE sector can play a vital role in delivering some of the agenda for the Government and in reaching a target of 50 per cent. in higher education.
I take a slightly different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is no longer in his place, on the role that he gave the FE sector. I believe that the FE sector can play a significant role in providing higher education. It fulfils that role quite well at the moment but needs to strengthen its formal links with higher education to provide a wider variety of services.
The paper also suggested the provision of a national qualifications framework, which, I believe, the QCA, the ACCAC, the CCAA, the CEA, the SQA and the QEAA are all considering. I must find out what all those abbreviations mean. At least the intention exists to consider how that can be achieved. Perhaps some of those institutions could start to work with other agencies, rather than considering the different ways of assessing the sector, in order to break down the bureaucracy that they themselves created.
Finally, the FE sector has provided a lifeline to those people who may not have had the best chances throughout their school life and who may have missed out on the opportunity to make something of their lives. When I finished school, I sat City and Guilds examinations at my local technical college and I got my ordinary national certificate. I then got an apprenticeship.
5.18 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.38 pm
On resuming—
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. In light of the unusually long delay for the Division, and the confusion about a second vote, I have taken advice and it is in order to allow 12 more minutes for the end of the debate.
Mr. Mahmood: Thank you, Mr. Amess.

41WH
As I was saying before we hastily departed, I left school with CSEs as they were then; we now call them GCSEs. Luckily, I went to my local careers office and was able to go on an Engineering Industry Training Board training programme—a first year, off-the-job training programme—which landed me in what was Garatts Green technical college. It is now part of the city college of which I am a governor.
Having gone through the City and Guilds process and completed my apprenticeship, I progressed to a management course within a company that existed at the time. Unfortunately, it had to be wound up in 1986 due to the engineering recession, and I had to diverge from the industry.
We had such training colleges at that time, particularly technical colleges, and we need to consider moving back to technical colleges to provide the level of skills training that people need to provide services for future generations. I am talking about the electrical, building and bricklaying trades, and even something as common as block paving. I believe that people from eastern Europe had to be brought in to do block paving somewhere in Nelson, even though that skill can be taught in colleges in six weeks.
5.40 pm
Margaret Hodge: I am delighted that many hon. Members have had an opportunity to praise colleges in their constituency. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Telford (David Wright), and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam).
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) fulfils a role that is increasingly important in the further education sector, in that he chairs his local corporation. That is becoming more burdensome because of the complexity of the audit and inspection requirements that fall on colleges, as he demonstrated, so I am happy to share in the celebration of excellence in local colleges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke about the fact that we were debating further education this afternoon. I have heard his views outside the Chamber and here, and we will reflect on them. I will have discussions with those who organise business in the House to ensure that there is proper debate on all issues that are of concern to the Select Committee. Those who know me well know how important I believe the proper airing of Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall is to accountability.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who spoke for the Opposition, said—I hope that I do not misquote him—that the AOC was not completely happy with what we had done. I should therefore like to place on the record what was said by David Gibson, the AOC chief executive—a man with whom I have not always agreed, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Mr. Gibson said:
"This funding package represents the best deal the college sector has ever had. It will reverse the financial cuts of the 1990s and place colleges on a firm financial basis for years to come."
That is a pretty ringing endorsement from someone who in the past has not always felt able to share our objectives and funding patterns.
42WH
A number of hon. Members asked whether the funding package would move us towards closing the gap. We were conscious, in putting together the funding for our invest and reform package, that we should go as far as we could to meet our manifesto commitment to increase the funding for the further education sector to the equivalent of that for schools. We have taken huge steps in that regard.
We cannot specify a figure. The reason is that, although we accept that the funding gap rate was about 10.5 per cent. before the existing package, and we know that the Learning and Skills Council will use the additional money to enable us to close the gap further, the LSC is committed to other objectives, such as our manifesto objective to sustain the funding for sixth forms. It must have regard to those complementary objectives in distributing the resources. However, I am sure that that funding will go a considerable way—much further than I expected in July—to close the funding gap, and that will be reflected in pay rates for staff in colleges. It really is a good package and although we cannot specify the figures I am pleased to place it before hon. Members today.

A number of hon. Members spoke about bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr read through a list of audits that he has to go through. I recently presented our new Secretary of State with a list, four and a half pages long, of requirements for audit, inspection and information that FE colleges face. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will take this exercise seriously. The different audit, inspection and information requirements are ridiculous and we have to make the system more sensible. We have taken the first steps towards cutting bureaucracy.
Mr. Pollard: On the subject of bureaucracy, is my hon. Friend aware that my local college—Oaklands college—is currently being blighted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is calling in a planning application? It wants to list a concrete and glass building because of its method of construction, not because of its intrinsic value. Will my hon. Friend use her not inconsiderable powers of persuasion and tell the Secretary of State not to do it?
Margaret Hodge: I dread to tread in other people's territory, but I hear what my hon. Friend is saying.
As I say, we have taken the first steps. Three-year funding will lead to a cut in bureaucracy. The fact that we are consolidating a number of separate funds into the basic unit funding for further education will further ensure that we can cut bureaucracy. The LSC announced at the AOC conference the ending of the automatic audit of the individual student record. We are committed to implementing all the recommendations of Sir George Sweeney's bureaucracy task force. That taskforce is now looking at work-based learning providers. A lot is happening in this area, and a lot is left to do.
I want to pick up on some issues that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Daventry said that participation had not increased. I should like to place it on the record that that is not true. While we were getting rid of the way in which the previous Government

43WH
counted the numbers—they increased their figures for students in further education by including, for example, competence in pulling of pints of beer as a qualification—the numbers remained static for some time. However, we have turned that around. In 2000–01, the LSC funding for full-time further education students went up by 4.8 per cent. on the previous year.
Mr. Boswell rose—
Margaret Hodge: I want to continue because I want to respond to points that other hon. Members have raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield raised the issue of boundaries between further education and higher education, saying that they were increasingly blurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr raised the same issue. I often talk about trying to square the circle, getting all our institutions—schools, colleges and universities—to focus on what they do best, but also blurring the boundaries between those institutions so that an individual student can progress and achieve his or her potential by following an appropriate route. Students should not be bound by institutional boundaries. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield made, and I also take his point about the importance of management in further education. We intend to tackle the latter issue with great vigour during the reform period.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) raised the issue of acronyms, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr. Their points reminded me of the story of why I am called the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, which I will tell quickly. At first, the Prime Minister called me the Minister for Higher Education. When I returned to my office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) rang me and said that I had to have "lifelong learning" in my title, to which I replied, "Don't worry, I'll call myself the
44WH
Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning". Then I realised that the acronym for that was HELL. I am very aware of acronyms, which is why the title was turned around.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West spoke about the importance of ensuring that we recognise the distance travelled by an individual when assessing the quality of our further education institutions, which is crucial. It is a very difficult exercise, and I often tell further education college principals that what matters to individuals is the qualifications that they can present in the workplace. We must never run away from that ambition, but distance travelled is important. The role that further education can play in the 14-to-19 agenda is crucial.
I can assure the hon. Member for Orpington that the paper might be light blue but there is real clear red water between Opposition Members and us. That is reflected in the extent of the investment package that we are discussing. I do not think that further education has ever enjoyed such a large investment package, which will create huge opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned unitisation, which is very important. I assure him that we are examining work-based learning with intensity and vigour equal to that with which we examine further education. That subject, however, was not part of our debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West discussed the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. She and I worked together on that, and it was one of the best bits of work that we did while we were together on the Committee. The report was extremely thorough and although I have not gone back to it, it is heartening to see that much that we thought was important has been translated into plans and reality on the ground. We are proud of that. Collaboration, not competition, will inform our way forward.
It being nine minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he has taken to review the security of his Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on his Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80765]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department is constantly reviewing the security of our IT networks in line with our Government Secure Intranet accreditation, and taking the latest security advice into consideration.

  Within my Department and its Agencies there have been (a) 1,167 digital attacks in October and (b) 5,857 during 2002.

  None of these resulted in compromise, loss or damage to any information held on the systems.

DEFENCE

  Brigadier Gordon Kerr
  Mr. Kevin McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the basis for his policy on Brigadier Gordon Kerr's giving evidence and otherwise co-operating with the inquiry undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner into collusion in Northern Ireland; [80127]

  (2) what his policy is on allowing Brigadier Gordon Kerr to give evidence and otherwise to co-operate with the inquiry undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner into collusion in Northern Ireland. [80128]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Stevens Inquiry is an independent police investigation, with which the Ministry of Defence is fully co-operating. Issues relating to interviews with individuals in connection with this or any other criminal investigation are for the investigating authorities and the individuals themselves.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are deployed in Afghanistan; and how many of these are reserves. [80975]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 18 November 2002, three hundred and thirty two personnel were deployed in Afghanistan, including thirty-nine reservists.

  Army (Non-British Citizens)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the British Army is comprised of soldiers who are not British citizens. [81096]
  210W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The number of soldiers, both trained and untrained, in the British Army as at 1 October 2002 was 111,670; of these 3,580 were non-British personnel. This represents 3.2 per cent. of the total strength. These figures exclude Gurkhas, Full Time Reserve Personnel (FTRS), Royal Irish Home Service and Mobilised Reservists.

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technologies are available to assist the accuracy of the plastic baton round; what he estimates the comparative advantages of LI8A1(a) optical sight, (b) laser sights and (c) other options are; and what the estimated costs are of supplying each. [80623]

  Mr. Ingram
  We believe the L21A1 baton round, fired from the LI04 gun and using the LI 8 optical sight to have state of the art accuracy over its designed range. Such accuracy is critical in reducing the risk of serious injury. The L18A1 optical sight met the accuracy requirement for the baton round and is an intuitive sight to use. It is not possible to cost a laser sight for L21 without examining all the issues of the visibility of a laser spot when viewed through a visor at relevant ranges, against representative targets and in varying lighting conditions. Laser sights can cost between £50 and £1,000 dependent on specification.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what post-development studies have been carried out on the medical effects of the use of the L21A1 baton round; [80626]

  (2) what progress has been made in the medical study of the effect of ricocheting L21A1 plastic baton rounds; and if he will place the results in the Library. [80622]

  Mr. Ingram
  An instrumented, technical trial of L21A1 in a typical operational environment has been conducted. This has involved ricochets from street furniture, kerbs, door frames and riot debris as well as inside buildings. The results from the instrumentation are currently being processed and any necessary reruns will be conducted. Once these results are available the medical implications of the ricochets will be assessed. The Sub-Committee, Defence Scientific Advisory Council will be invited to make a statement and it is my intention to place the statement in the Library of the House.

  The L21A1 performance after one year in service was given in my answer on 30 October 22002, Official Report, column 800W. The assessment of the use of L21A1 at ranges from 1m to 20m was reported in the Home Office's answer of 6 November 2002, Official Report, column 312W.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours of additional training is required to enable personnel to discharge a baton gun to be fired in situations other than public disorder; what the minimum distance is that a baton round may be discharged at a human target; what level of authorisation is required for this use of the baton gun; and what the reporting requirements are. [80627]
  211W
  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel undergo a three-day urban operations package as part of their operational training for use of the baton gun for situations other than public disorder. The circumstances under which members of the Armed Forces may discharge baton rounds at a human target, are set out in the guidance on the Rules of Engagement for the use of baton rounds, which has been previously placed in the Library of the House on 23 October Official Report, column 351W. The tactical use of a baton gun is controlled by either an officer or non-commisioned officer, although ultimate authority is vested in the individual baton gunner who is authorised to use the weapon as and when deemed necessary. If a baton round is fired, a baton log report, giving details of the incident, is completed and forwarded through the chain of command.

  Business Information Systems
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the money announced in the Spending Review for modernising business information systems across defence. [80969]

  Last five chiefs of Defence Staff

  Period of office

  Admiral Sir Michael Boyce GCB OBE ADC

  16.02.01-

  General Sir Charles Guthrie GCB LVO OBE ADC Gen

  02.04.97–15.02.01

  Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge GCB

  15.03.94–01.04.97

  Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Peter Harding GCB DSc FRAeS CBIM

  01.01.93–13.03.94

  Field Marshal Sir Richard Vincent CBE KCB DSO

  02.04.91–13.12.92

  Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir David Craig GCB OBE DSc MA FRAeS

  10.12.88–01.04.91

  First Sea Lords after 1972

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Michael Pollock GCB MVO DSC ADC

  13.03.71–02.03.74

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Edward Ashmore GCB DSC ADC

  02.03.74–01.03.77

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Terence Lewin GCB DSC ADC

  01.03.77–06.07.79

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Leach GCB ADC

  06.07.79–01.12.82

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Fieldhouse GCB GBE ADC

  01.12.82–02.08.85

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir William Staveley GCB ADC

  02.08.85–25.05.89

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Julian Oswald GCB ADC

  25.05.89–02.03.93

  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Benjamin Bathurst GCB ADC

  02.03.93–10.07.95

  Admiral Sir Jock Slater GCB LVO ADC

  10.07.95–08.10.98

  Admiral Sir Michael Boyce GCB OBE ADC

  08.10.98–16.01.01

  Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh GCB ADC

  16.01.01–17.09.02

  Admiral Sir Alan West KCB DSC ADC

  17.09.02-

  Civilian Firefighters
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian firefighters are(a) employed and (b) resident in Army barracks in (i) Great Britain and (ii) Northern Ireland. [80616]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 64 civilian fire fighters stationed at army establishments in Great Britain and 35 in Northern Ireland. Of those personnel there are three individuals, all officers, resident in service messes, two in Northern Ireland and one in Great Britain.

  Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy were sent the last Continuous Attitude Survey and encouraged to answer; what proportion of the service members in each service this represents; how
  212W
  Mr. Ingram
  The 2002 Spending Review provided the Ministry of Defence with an additional £578 million for modernising business information, logistics and support systems across defence. This will help to ensure the delivery of our ambitious efficiency target, freeing resources to strengthen the front line.

  The allocation of these resources will be decided through the MOD's annual planning process which will be completed early next year, and will inform the Defence White Paper which it is planned to publish next summer.

  Chiefs of Defence Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the periods of office for the last five(a) Chiefs of Defence Staff, and (b) First Sea Lords after 1972. [82366]

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

  his Department ensures that the sample group asked and who reply are representative of the services as a whole; what the differential response rate is in each service by rank; and if he will make a statement. [81106]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The number of personnel that were sent the last Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) for each Service is as follows: Naval Service 2,000; Army 4,006 and RAF 2,000. The proportion of personnel this represented for each Service was 5.3 per cent., 3.9 per cent. and 4.1 per cent. respectively, based on Trained Strength figures for United Kingdom regulars as at 1 September 2002.

  In the Naval Service the distribution of the CAS is now carried out through the chain of command rather than directly to the individuals and personnel are encouraged to answer by the offer of participation in a prize draw. The sample groups are entirely random and the sample is sufficient to produce statistically significant results across all ranks.
  213W
  In the Army the Adjutant General writes a personal letter to all unit Commanding Officers asking them to encourage individuals to respond to the survey. The selection criterion works on a rolling basis using the last two digits of Service numbers. The overall population of respondents is large enough to have statistical confidence that the results can be extrapolated against the wider military population.

  For the Royal Air Force a letter from the Chief of Staff Air Member for Personnel accompanies each survey encouraging individuals to take part and emphasising the importance placed on the survey. The survey is a rank-stratified random sample. This means that while the number of personnel at each rank to whom the form is issued is determined in advance, taking into account previous response rates, the individuals who actually receive the form are chosen at random, using the last three digits of their Service number. This results in a total sample that is fairly representative of RAF personnel in rank, branch/trade, gender and ethnic group.

  The response rates as a percentage for each Service by rank are shown below:

  Naval Service

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Lt Commander and above

  69

  Junior Officers

  67

  Senior Ratings ie. WOs, CPOs and POs

  55

  Junior Ratings ie. Able Rates and Leading Rates1

  37

  Note

  1 For the Naval Service the above level of detail is all that can be provided in the time available.

  Army

  Rank

  Per cent.

  2Lt/Lt

  56

  Capt

  64

  Lt Col

  71

  Brig

  40

  L/Cpl

  40

  Sgt

  53

  WO2

  62

  2Lt/Lt

  56

  Maj

  84

  Col

  65

  Re

  29

  Cpl

  47

  SSgt

  68

  WO1

  68

  RAF

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Pit Off + Fg Off

  60

  Flt Lt

  75

  Sqn Ldr

  74

  Wg Cdr

  82

  Gp Capt

  70

  SAC = LAC

  47

  Jnr Tech

  55

  Cpl

  55

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and mandate of UK defence attachés posted overseas. [81107]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The principal role of defence attaches is to further the United Kingdom's defence diplomacy aims in the host country. There are six core attaché functions:

  Support to defence diplomacy

  Provision of operational military advice and assistance

  Provision of politico-military advice

  Support to defence intelligence

  Support to defence exports

  Representation and administrative support

  Attachés deploy to post with a Chief of Defence Staff Directive they are his, and the three single service chiefs', representative in country. Depending on location, they may also receive a Directive from chief defence intelligence and/or the single service(s).

  Attachés are appointed to the staff of the ambassador/high commissioner whose instructions and policies they are to follow. Under the direction of the ambassador/high commissioner, they undertake any duties that advance the interests of the United Kingdom.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been employed by the Defence Logistics Organisation in each year since its creation. [80967]

  Mr. Ingram
  The requested information is shown in the table.

  UK regular forces and permanent UK-based civilian staff in the Defence Logistics Organisation

  Year

  Services

  Civilian

  Total

  April 2000

  8,429

  30,303

  38,732

  April 2001

  7,406

  25,219

  32,625

  April 2002

  7,628

  22,644

  30,272

  Notes:

  1. Figures are full-time equivalent i.e. part-time staff are counted as a proportion of full-time hours worked.

  2. The DLO was created in April 2000. Since then, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (1 April 2001) and the Army Base Repair Organisation (1 April 2002) have become trading funds. The Strengths of Defence Aviation Repair Agency as at 1 April 2001 (4,418 civilians and 721 service personnel) and ABRO as at 1 April 2002 (2,019) are reflected in the losses in the above table.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what computer systems he plans to procure for the Defence Logistics Organisation. [80970]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistic Organisation (DLO) intends to procure a number of computer systems in support of its role to decide, provide for, and deliver effective and integrated logistic support and information services to the front line and across the Department at best value for Defence. These include the Defence Electronic Commerce Service (DECS), Management of Materiel in Transit (MMiT) computer system, the Bulk Fuel Inventory Solution (BFIS), the Postal and Courier Electronic Records (PACER)
  215W
  system. Other requirements may be generated by the wider end-to-end review of logistics processes including the DLO, front-line commands and industry.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures he intends to follow so that the programme for the development of his Department's three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge will be largely self-funding. [82057]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is currently examining the procurement options available for the delivery of project 'MOD Estate London (MoDEL), which will offer best value.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a further announcement about consultation and approval procedures in respect of his Department's three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge conditionally identified for development on 29 October; and what timescale and timetable he expects these projects to follow. [82058]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence currently has a two gate approvals process for projects of this magnitude. The Business Case for the first gate (Initial Gate) should be prepared by the end of this year. The Business Case for the second gate (Main Gate) should be prepared towards the latter half of 2003.

  The current programme for the project details that implementation of the proposals is scheduled to take place between 2004–09.

  Consultation with all stakeholders with an interest in the Defence Estate within Greater London, and a specific interest in project MoDEL, has already begun. This consultation will continue throughout the Department's approvals process and the project's implementation.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which areas of each of the three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge will be developed as announced by his Department on 29 October; and what the balance sheet value was at 31 March of(a) the land and (b) the buildings on each site. [82060]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is currently working with the relevant Local Authorities and other stakeholders to develop our proposals and to identify where on each of the Core Sites future development will take place.

  The Balance Sheet value at the 1 April 2002 for the three Core Sites is as follows:

  £

  Core sites

  Land value

  Building value

  RAF Northolt

  70,000,000

  28,281,400

  RAF Uxbridge

  55,000,000

  22,863,973

  Woolwich station

  120,925,000

  2—

  1 Provisional figure only, actual not currently available

  2 Not currently available.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was responsible for the security of Devonport 216W
  Dockyard on Friday 15 November; if he will make a statement on a breach of security involving Trident nuclear submarines at Devonport Dockyard on 15 November; what consequential action his Department intends to take; what the state of alert was at Devonport on that day; what the state of security of the nuclear submarines was on that day; and what Royal Navy and other personnel were on the vessel on that day. [82278]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Naval Base Commander has overall responsibility for security of Devonport Naval Base. Devonport Management Ltd (DML), the owners of Devonport Dockyard and the nuclear licensed site, are responsible for the security of HMS VANGUARD and the refitting/refuelling facility where she is currently undergoing refit. The Naval Base and DML work closely together on security matters.

  On the evening of 15 November two anti nuclear protesters gained access to HMS VANGUARD. The submarine, which has no weapons onboard, did not sustain any damage and safety was not compromised. A full inquiry into the incident is being conducted by a team comprising the Head of Security for the Defence Logistics Organisation, a senior MOD Police Officer and a MOD security specialist.

  The state of alert at Devonport, and all UK military establishments, on 15 November was "Bikini Black Special". Some additional security measures had also been put in place at Devonport in preparation for an anti nuclear demonstration that was expected to take place during the weekend of 16/17 November. VANGUARD'S security status is classified as 'Non Vital Property'. This reflects that there are no weapons on board and also the extensive work the submarine and her reactor are undergoing during refit. At the time of the incident twelve contractors were working within the submarine and three Royal Navy personnel from the submarine were on duty but not onboard.

  Farmers (Thailand)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation he has received regarding the Minute between the UK and Thailand Government signed on 19 October concerning those clauses that will help Thai farmers to export to the United Kingdom and Europe. [81205]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. The Joint Minute signed between Thailand and the United Kingdom on 19 October contains no clauses referring to Thai agricultural goods. It states the Government's intention to continue to offer advice and training in areas such as peace support operations and to share our experience of initiatives such as the Strategic Defence Review. It also refers to the modernisation of the Royal Thai Armed Forces and our support of BAE SYSTEMS legitimate efforts to supply a range of defence equipment. I will place a copy of the Joint Minute in the Library of the House.

  Fijian Soldiers
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make it easier for Fijian soldiers serving in British regiments to travel freely while on leave. [80698]
  217W
  Mr. Ingram
  Fijian personnel serving in the British Army may travel on leave within the United Kingdom without restriction. Those who wish to travel abroad during their leave periods, other than to their country of origin, are subject to the same visa and entry requirements as other Fijian nationals travelling abroad. Visa and entry requirements are constantly changing and may only be guaranteed by the embassy, consulate or high commission of the country an individual wishes to enter.

  There are no specific plans, at present, to make any changes in this regard.

  Fire Tenders (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Department first used the term Yellow Goddess to describe a liveries military fire tender in Northern Ireland; and what other colours are available for fire tenders employed on overseas postings. [80618]

  Mr. Ingram
  The term Yellow Goddess was first used in 2002 to describe the livery of the fire tenders deployed to Northern Ireland and manned by the army. All fire tenders used by the Defence Fire Service on bases in the United Kingdom and overseas are red.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what powers the Government have authorised the employment of members of Her Majesty's armed forces for fire fighting duties; and if he will make a statement. [81722]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The involvement of the armed forces followed a request from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to assist with the provision of emergency fire and rescue cover in the event of a firemen's strike. A Defence Council Order for this purpose was signed under the Emergency Powers Act 1964.

  The order permits troops to be used on non-military tasks which constitute urgent work of national importance, ensuring that instructions given to troops are lawful and subject to the provisions of the Service Discipline Acts.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to train defence personnel in the use of civilian fire equipment; and what estimates have been made of the time required to train personnel to an equivalent standard(a) to their current capacity to handle Green Goddesses, (b) to that of retained firefighters and (c) to that of full-time firefighters. [81958]

  Mr. Ingram
  In view of the additional challenges presented by the eight-day strike threatened by the Fire Brigades Union to begin on 22 November, a number of red fire engines have been made available from the National Fire College and the Scottish training college.

  These will be deployed in a role similar to that of the Green Goddesses, while exploiting the advantages they offer in this role. Two days conversion training for existing Green Goddess crews began on 18 November to enable their deployment, should it be necessary, on 22 November. It would take on average a minimum of
  218W
  five weeks to train crews to the standard of retained firefighters and 12 weeks to that of full-time firefighters. Training times would, however, be dependent upon factors such as the numbers to be trained, the availability of personnel (instructors and trainees) and equipment and the time required to resource the training locations.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) soldiers, (b) sailors and (c) airmen are (i) deployed on firefighting activities, (ii) trained to use civilian fire equipment and (iii) currently training to use civilian fire equipment. [82011]

  Mr. Ingram
  Approximately 2,700 Royal Navy personnel, 7,400 Army personnel and 2,200 Royal Air force personnel (some 12,300 personnel in total) are currently available for firefighting duties during Fire Brigade Union strike periods. In addition, 6,700 personnel are employed in support roles. Of the 12,300 personnel, 2,134 are trained in specialist roles to use civilian-type fire equipment (rescue equipment/cutting gear, chemical protection suits etc). They make up the flexible response Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams and Regional Equipment Support Teams. The total is broken down by service as follows:

  Total

  Army

  1,533

  Navy

  236

  RAF

  365

  As at 19 November, 240 personnel were undergoing conversion training from Green Goddesses to red fire appliances. Once trained, they will be able to operate the red fire appliances in a role similar to that of the Green Goddesses.

  Gurkha Welfare Trust
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance his Department gives to the Gurkha Welfare Trust; and if he will make a statement. [82225]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Gurkha Welfare Trust (GWT) is a registered charity independent of the Ministry of Defence. It was established in 1969 to provide financial, medical and community aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkhas and their families when they leave the British Army. The Department recognises the valuable work of the Trust and makes an annual grant in order to pay for the administrative costs of its field arm, the Gurkha Welfare Scheme (GWS). This year the Grant was £710,417. Our Defence Attache in Kathmandu heads the GWS. It spends over £6 million each year in Nepal and our contribution enables nearly all the money raised by the Trust through charitable donations and public appeals to be used for welfare purposes. This includes the payment of welfare pensions to Gurkhas who, in common with many other soldiers recruited to British colours for wartime service, were discharged before completing the requisite period of employment to qualify for a Service pension. The GWS provides, even in the most remote areas of Nepal, primary health care, first aid and emergency treatment, doctors' clinics and elementary dentistry, all free of charge. It is also involved in community projects and the
  219W
  award of one-off hardship payments in respect of individual catastrophes. No genuine case of hardship is ever turned away and its work not only benefits our ex-Servicemen, but is also of value to the infrastructure of Nepal as a whole.

  L104A1 Anti-riot Gun
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the means are of assessing a candidate applying for a competency qualification to fire the L104A1 anti-riot gun; what the minimum number of rounds is a candidate must fire to complete the training course; how many rounds must be fired in test conditions; what the pass score is; what the percentage rate of successful candidates is; and how many hours' training is required before a candidate is ready to take the test. [80625]

  Mr. Ingram
  All soldiers are, by virtue of their training and experience, considered capable of being trained as a baton gunner. Individuals do not apply to take the L104A1 competency qualification, rather, assessments are made by commanders who then choose who should be trained as a baton gunner. To complete the L21 training course, a minimum of 20 rounds must be fired of which five rounds must be fired under test conditions achieving a grouping of 200mm. There is no score pass or percentage pass rate as such, as training is continued until the standard has been achieved. In addition to the basics of small arms training, it takes a further five hours to train a soldier to safely handle and fire a baton gun.

  Medical Down-Grading
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's forces are medically down-graded. [80794]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of trained UK regular personnel in the armed forces who were medically down-graded in October 2002 are given in the following table:

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  Navy

  221

  2,467

  2,688

  Army

  908

  9,694

  10,602

  RAF

  536

  3,297

  3,833

  Notes:

  1. These figures exclude FTRS, Gurkhas, R Irish (Home Service) and reservists who have been mobilised for duty.

  2. The Army figures are based on the Pulheems Efficiency Standard, and are all those who are not marked as being fit everywhere.

  3. The RAF figures are based on the Medical Employment Standard, and are all those who have a 3, 4 or 5 against their ground work capability.

  4. The Navy figures are based on their Medical Category and are all those who do not have a P code of P2.

  5. As the services have different methods of determining who is medically down-graded the figures are not comparable across the three services.

  MOD Properties
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for other parts of his Department's estate in London 220W
  of the proposed development announced by his Department on 29 October of its three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge. [82059]

  Dr. Moonie
  At the Public Launch of Project "MoD Estate London" (MoDEL) on 29 October, I announced that the Ministry of Defence, in consultation with the US Visiting Forces (USVF), are proposing to vacate 11 sites within, or close to, Greater London.

  The proposed sites are:

  Sites occupied by MOD

  Inglis Barracks, Mill Hill

  RAF Bentley Priory

  Royal Military Academy Woolwich

  Victoria House Woolwich

  Ha Ha Road Woolwich

  Sites Occupied by the USVF

  RAF Daws Hill

  RAF Eastcote

  RAF West Ruislip

  Blenheim Crescent

  Loudwater

  Edison House

  Additionally, the sites the MOD is proposing to retain and develop as Core Sites are RAF Northolt and Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich. Further, it has been proposed that RAF Uxbridge could be developed as a Core Site for the United States Visiting Forces (USVF). If the USVF do not participate in the project then the MOD would still vacate RAF Uxbridge.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations on compensation he has received from nuclear test veterans since June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [80125]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has received seven representations in the form of letters from nuclear test veterans concerning compensation since 1 June 2001. The Veterans Agency has received 37 new applications for War Pensions associated with participation in nuclear tests since 1 June 2001.

  The Ministry of Defence has every confidence in the independent studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund which showed that for the veterans as a group their participation in the nuclear test programme has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.

  Operation Sandcastle
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will break down the expenditure on Operation Sandcastle under headings. [81325]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: According to records held by the Ministry of Defence we estimate that costs of Operation Sandcastle, at 1991–92 prices, were as follows.
  221W

  £

  Labour costs (civilian and military)

  140,005.52

  Information Technology Equipment (Equipment and Support Costs)

  139,872.88

  Travel and Subsistence Costs (includes car hire, mileage allowance and miscellaneous expenses)

  85,060.51

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff worked on Operation Sandcastle; what their grades were, and for how long each member of staff worked. [81328]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: According to records held by the Ministry of Defence the number of days worked by investigator by rank (based on an eight hour day) on Operation Sandcastle were as follows:

  Days

  Lieutenant Colonel

  46.92

  Major

  7.33

  Captain

  179.63

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  177.53

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  170.66

  Staff Sergeant

  815.39

  Sergeant

  984.43

  Corporal

  748.58

  Lance Corporal

  187.74

  Private

  83.60

  Those records also indicate that civilian staff worked for 19.22 hours in support of the operation.

  Perisher Submarine
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Perisher submarine training exercises have taken place in each of the past five years. [82214]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Perisher submarine training courses which have taken place in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  Courses

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  2

  2000

  1

  2001

  1

  2002

  2

  Picket Lines
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances members of the armed forces can cross trade union picket lines. [82155]

  Mr. Ingram
  Access to property or equipment beyond trade union picket lines is a civil matter and would consequently be an issue for the civil authorities, not the military. No circumstances are envisaged where the armed forces would be called upon to cross picket lines
  222W

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people employed in his Department are aged over 50. [81688]

  Dr. Moonie
  The available information is given in the table, showing the position as at September 2002.

  50 and Under

  Over 50

  Percentage over 50

  Ministry of Defence

  51,154

  25,805

  33.5

  Trading Funds

  9,079

  2,981

  24.7

  Total

  60,233

  28,786

  32.3

  Source:

  SA Civilian

  Reservists
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that embodied regular reservists are given the same promotion opportunities as their regular army counterparts. [80697]

  Dr. Moonie
  On permanent service, Reserve officers and soldiers are subject to the normal rules for promotion applicable to Active List officers and regular soldiers at that time. If when called out on permanent service a Reservist receives substantive promotion to a higher rank, they will retain that higher rank when released from permanent service.

  For training or when employed on Full Time Reserve Service a Reservist may, according to the current rules for Active List officers and regular soldiers, be granted acting rank appropriate to any appointment which they are required to fill while so called out.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the Borough of Gosport as planning authority about the long-term use of the site of the Royal hospital Haslar. [80798]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence's plans to withdraw from the Royal hospital Haslar site, following the 1998 decision, are tied to the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust's development of its Queen Alexandra hospital site at Cosham. It would be premature for the MOD to enter into formal discussions with Gosport borough council until the timescale for the completion of that development is more definite, but informal discussions take place periodically with the Leader of the Council to apprise him of progress, and MOD officials met Council officers on one occasion in 1999 prior to a review of MOD estates in the Gosport and Portsmouth area and after the decision to close Haslar as a MOD site had been taken. At that stage, the local authority—which will ultimately be responsible for determining the future of the site—was reviewing its plans for the local area.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the Royal Navy is. [82735]
  223W
  Dr. Moonie
  The strength of the Royal Navy is announced in Defence Analytical Services Agency TSP4, "Strength of the UK armed forces quarterly press release as at 1 October 2002" which is published today. As of 1 October 2002 the total strength of the Naval Service—full time trained and untrained personnel—was 42,330.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships are(a) on operations and (b) in port. [81011]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 18 November there were 77 Royal Navy ships and submarines in the operational Fleet. This includes all vessels which are operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training. As at 18 November, 21 Royal Navy ships and submarines were undergoing deep maintenance

  Secondments
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the senior officials who have left his Department since April 2000 to take up posts in the private sector, stating in each case the name, position previously held, date of leaving, and the company and position taken up. [82387]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Cabinet Office rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants ("the Business Appointment Rules"), all Ministry of Defence non-industrial civilians and officers in the Armed Forces are required, within two years of leaving the Department, to apply for permission before taking up employment with an organisation connected with their official duties. Some of these applications are speculative and not all lead to external appointments being taken up. The rules require only senior officials whose applications are approved by the Prime Minister to confirm to their former department that they have taken up a new appointment on leaving the MOD. Details of such appointments are published in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Service Establishments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times establishment targets for the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF have changed since 1998; and what the rationale was for the change each time. [81109]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The full time trained requirement for the Armed Forces is published quarterly by the Defence Analytical Services Agency.

  In each Service, however, the requirement for trained manpower is a live and dynamic figure which can change frequently. Causes for such changes include alterations to force structures, evolving doctrine, the introduction of new equipment and technology, changes to the
  224W
  operating environment and the introduction of routine efficiencies. Consequently establishment target figures have been revised many times before and since 1998.

  In the Royal Navy to provide a degree of smoothing for planning purposes, a Headmark Requirement for future years is calculated quarterly (issued three times per annum prior to 2001).

  The Army now reviews its future manpower requirement annually.

  The RAF, for strategic manpower planning purposes, normally captures forecast establishments twice a year.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capabilities or facilities he intends to procure with the new capital announced in the Spending Review; and if he will list the five capabilities that he intends to spend the most money on. [80968]

  Mr. Ingram
  The 2002 Spending Review provided £1 billion for extra investment in enhanced military capabilities to implement the conclusions of the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review. The allocation of this will be determined through the Ministry of Defence's annual planning process which will be completed early next year and will inform the Defence White Paper which it is planned to publish next summer.

  My right hon. Friend The Secretary of State for Defence has announced that we will be investing in a range of capabilities including by accelerating the Watchkeeper UAV programme and upgrading our E-3D AWACS aircraft. We are evaluating additional enhancements to our target acquisition and strike capabilities to operate 24 hours a day, in all weathers, and to enable rapid retargeting. We are also acquiring technology to meet the threats from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons that we may face in the future.

  Stores Management System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in developing the defence stores management system; and how much has been spent on the project to date. [80966]

  Mr. Ingram
  The original objectives of the Defence Stores Management Solution (DSMS) were to manage the single service inventories as a single defence inventory, to build a single system to replace the existing Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force systems, and to provide a deployed inventory management capability. The project had not secured full main gate approval by the time that the project was suspended on grounds of affordability at the time. The requirement, including the continuing need for a deployed inventory management capability, will be addressed as part of a wider end-to-end review of the logistic process, involving the DLO, front-line commands and industry which should complete by mid 2003. Expenditure on DSMS to date totals £140 million and estimated net savings of £650 million over a 10 year period were anticipated from its implementation.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the definition of affordable housing; and what plans he has to alter that definition. [80528]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no formal definitions of affordable housing within housing policy. For the purposes of securing affordable housing through the planning system, affordable housing encompasses low-cost market and subsidised housing (irrespective of tenure, ownership—whether exclusive or shared—or financial arrangements) that will be available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market. Local authorities are expected to define through their local plans what they consider to be affordable in the plan area in terms of the relationship between local income levels and house prices or rents for different types of households.

  The research report, "Delivering Affordable Housing through Planning Policy", published by DTLR in February 2002, noted that local authorities were not consistent in defining affordable housing, with a tendency in the south to equate affordable housing with social rented housing, and not to consider the full range of alternatives. The report concluded that local authorities should ensure their consideration of affordable housing, including the wider definition given to it by national planning guidance. There are no plans to make the definition less flexible.

  Affordable Housing (Chesham and Amersham)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many units of affordable housing have been built in the Chesham and Amersham constituency in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [81171]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Chesham and Amersham constituency is within Chiltern district council, which has reported the following levels of house-building activity by both registered social landlords and the authority itself:

  New dwellings completed within Chiltern district council area by registered social landlords (RSLs):

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  4

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  31

  2001–02

  55

  Note:

  No completions of dwellings by the local authority itself were reported.

  Source:

  Data to 2000–01: LA and RSL new-build from ODPM P2 (monthly) housing activity returns.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) Government agencies and (b) regional bodies have compulsory purchase powers. [81696]
  226W
  Mr. McNulty
  The following list sets out the principal Government agencies and regional bodies which operate in England and which have their own compulsory purchase powers. In addition some Ministers have compulsory purchase powers which they exercise through departmental agencies: for example, orders for trunk roads are made by the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Government agencies

  Housing Corporation

  Housing Action Trusts

  Environment Agency

  NHS organisations Countryside Agency

  English Nature

  Civil Aviation Authority

  UK Atomic Energy Authority

  Coal Authority

  British Waterways Board

  The Broads Authority

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage)

  Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships)

  Regional bodies

  Regional Development Agencies

  Council Rents (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average increase in council rents in the Greater London area has been in each of the last three years. [81671]

  Mr. McNulty
  Average council rents in Greater London for the past few years are as shown in the table. The annual change in the average council rents is also provided in the table

  Financial year

  Average weekly rent £

  Change in weekly rent £

  Percentage change in weekly rent

  1998–99

  55.27

  1999–2000

  58.00

  + 2.73

  + 4.9

  2000–01

  60.44

  + 2.44

  + 4.2

  2001–02

  62.36

  + 1.92

  +3.2

  2002–03

  (provisional)

  64.29

  +1.93

  +3.1

  Hare Krishna Temple (Hertfordshire)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Hare Krishna Temple at Letchmore Heath, Hertfordshire concerning their application for planning permission to extend the temple. [82358]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received no representations about this planning application

  Housing Policy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of Government funds allocated for housing is specified for the sound proofing of ageing
  227W
  council and housing association properties; and what proportion of this money will be allocated to the Housing Corporation for use by registered social landlords. [80587]

  Mr. McNulty
  Although we have not allocated funds specifically for sound proofing of ageing council or housing association properties, we have set a target requiring social landlords to bring their housing up to the decent home standard, one component of which is adequate insulation against external noise.

  Local authorities can meet this target either through their own resources and through the Major Repairs Allowance and Single Capital Pot; or by setting up a high performance Arms Length Housing Management Organisation (ALMO); or through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme; or by transferring their stock to one or more housing associations.

  Repairs to housing association stock to bring it up to the decent home standard may be funded through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  Thames Gateway Initiative
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recognition the Government give to the Thames Gateway initiative; and what financial and other support the Government provide. [80754]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in July announcing plans for a step change in our policies for building successful, thriving communities. As part of that statement, the Thames Gateway was identified as a key area for economic and housing growth. My right hon. Friend, Lord Rooker, chairs the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, whose membership includes Ministers from five Government Departments. The partnership is now looking at new means of delivering the rapid regeneration and development of the Gateway.

  There are no dedicated resources for the Thames Gateway, but development and regeneration is being supported by investment from various Government funding streams (for example, housing and transport). My right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be announcing around the turn of the year how he will be allocating resources identified for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Spending Review 2002.

  Urban White Paper
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many funding commitments have been launched by his Department and across the Government following the publication of the Urban White Paper in November 2000; which(a) require bidding and (b) are linked to a set funding formula; and what the total amount available for each commitment is. [81570]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has one funding commitment which flows directly from the Urban White Paper and which meets both criteria of requiring bidding and of being linked to a set funding formula.
  228W
  The future rough sleeping strategy was included in the wider programme set out in "More than a Roof" (March 2002) with a total budget of £125 million in 2002–03. £10 million of this has been allocated to local authorities by "formula" and the rest is subject to a "bidding" process. Some goes direct to voluntary sector organisations funding existing or new services, agreed as part of a local strategy.

  In the time available it has not been possible to provide information in the form requested on funding commitments launched by other Government Departments, but I will write shortly to the hon. Member.

CULTURE, MEDIA, SPORT

  Athletics Funding
  Mr. Nick Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the oral answer by the Minister of Sport on 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 350–51 whether every sporting governing body which received funding before the Sydney Olympics and the Manchester Commonwealth Games will receive the same funding, adjusted for inflation, in (a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [82115]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government has committed to maintain funding for UK Sport's World Class Performance Programme (the programme that supports our Olympic athletes) at the same level in the run up to the Athens Olympics as it was in the run up to the Sydney Olympics. The level of funding provided to individual governing bodies of sport, however, is determined by the individual Sports Councils and no guarantees of funding are provided.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her oral answer of 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 350–51 to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and Ryedale, whether the commitment to maintain world performance funding applies to (a) those athletes who were in receipt of funding before the Sydney Olympics, and (b) athletes who will take part in the Athens and Beijing Olympics. [82281]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government has committed to maintain funding for UK Sport's World Class Performance Programme (the programme that supports our Olympic athletes) at the same level in the run up to the Athens Olympics as it was in the run up to the Sydney Olympics. This commitment was to support the Programme, overall, and not to individual athletes. Decisions on individual athletes who receive funding will continue to be determined by the governing bodies and performance directors in consultation with UK Sport.

  BBC
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what consultations took place before the decision was taken to lift the restriction
  229W
  on the number of digital channels operated by BBC Worldwide through UKTV; and what the outcome was; [80430]

  (2)what publicity was given to the decision to lift the restriction on the number of digital channels operated by BBC Worldwide through UKTV; [80437]

  (3)when the restriction on the number of digital channels operated by BBC Worldwide through UKTV was lifted; and for what reason. [80426]

  Dr. Howells
  The restriction to the number of channels that UKTV can launch under the first and second joint ventures, which were approved in 1997, has not been lifted, but the third and fourth joint ventures, which were approved in 2000, are not subject to a restriction. As BBC commercial service approvals, the joint ventures were not subject to consultation, nor were they publicised

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the digital channels operated by BBC Worldwide, through UKTV, which have been given approval by her Department. [80427]

  Dr. Howells
  BBC Worldwide's joint ventures with Flextech have been subject to my right hon. Friend's approval, but the commercial channels launched by UKTV under the terms of those joint ventures are not.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to ensure that digital channels operated by BBC Worldwide through UKTV do not unfairly compete with existing commercial channels. [80428]

  Dr. Howells
  It is a condition of the joint ventures under which UKTV channels operate that they must abide fully by the BBC's fair trading commitment, the commercial policy guidelines and all the requirements of EU and UK competition law. They are also subject to external audit by independent fair trading auditors and to the UK and EU competition authorities.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to ensure that the BBC's programmes do not adversely affect existing commercial(a) radio and (b) television channels. [80432]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC's licence fee funded services are distinct from the BBC's commercial services. The market impact of any new BBC licence fee funded service is one of the factors the Secretary of State must consider in her assessment of a proposal. This is not the case for BBC commercial services. However, BBC commercial services must comply with EU and UK competition law, as well as the BBC's Fair Trading Commitment and the Commercial Policy Guidelines.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the future financing of the BBC. [80433]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans to change the current financing arrangements for the BBC, but funding will be looked at as part of the process of reviewing the BBC's Charter, which expires in 2006
  230W
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the relationship between BBC Worldwide and Flextech has been scrutinised by the BBC's external auditors. [80438]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes. The relationship between BBC Worldwide and Flextech is subject to scrutiny by the BBC's external auditors.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures she is taking to ensure that the BBC abides by the Fair Trading Commitment; [80439]

  (2) whether OFCOM will have responsibility for ensuring that the BBC abides by its Fair Trading Commitment; and if she will make a statement. [80440]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC's Fair Trading Commitment is an internal compliance document and, therefore, will continue to be regulated by the BBC Board of Governors. OFCOM will have concurrent powers (with OFT) to apply competition law to broadcasting and related activities. This applies to the BBC, as to other broadcasting organisations.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library a copy of the documents issued in November 2000 that gave permission for the BBC to extend its range of new channels with Telewest under the UKTV joint venture. [81827]

  Dr. Howells
  Approvals given for BBC Worldwide's commercial activities contain commercially sensitive information and therefore cannot be placed in the Library. The restriction to the number of channels that UKTV can launch under the first and second joint ventures, which were approved in 1997, has not been lifted but the third and fourth joint ventures, which were approved in 2000, are not subject to a restriction.

  Bletchley Park
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for the future of the Code Breaker Museum at Bletchley Park [81823]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no plans. Bletchley Park and its contents are the responsibility of the Bletchley Park Trust, which is implementing plans that will ensure the long-term preservation of key heritage elements of the site and serve as a fitting memorial to the men and women involved in the vital code-breaking work there during the second world war.

  Elite Sport Funding
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the funding for elite sportsmen and sportswomen will be in cash terms under her three-year future funding plans in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [82116]

  Mr. Caborn
  The data required is not readily available. I will write to the hon Member with detailed information as soon as possible

  History Channel
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has satisfied herself that UK History is distinctive from the History channel and will not compete unfairly with it. [80429]

  Dr. Howells
  Unlike the BBC's licence fee funded channels, there is no requirement that BBC Worldwide's commercial channels are distinctive. As a commercial channel, UK History can compete on a commercial basis in the same way as any channel, subject to all the requirements of EU and UK Competition Law, as well as the BBC's Fair Trading Commitment and Commercial Policy Guidelines

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the approval given in 2000 to UKTV for the UK History channel. [80436]

  Dr. Howells
  No. Approvals given for BBC Worldwide's commercial activities contain commercially sensitive information and, therefore, are not published.

  Independent Production Quotas
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when the independent production quotas for television will apply across all media including the internet; and when the independent production quota of 25 per cent. will be increased to 40 per cent. across all media. [80726]

  (2) what plans there are to increase the independent production quota for broadcasting from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent.; and what plans there are to extend the 25 per cent. independent production quota in (a) radio and (b) web sites. [81824]

  Dr. Howells
  The ITC are considering the independent productions quota as part of their review of the television programme supply market. We will consider any recommendations the review makes in this area. It is not our intention to apply the independent producers quota to web sites. We have received representations suggesting that BBC radio commits itself to an independent production quota similar to the one which currently exists for television services. The Department's officials are considering this issue with the BBC and others.

  Millennium Stadium
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the continuing viability of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. [82109]

  Mr. Caborn
  No assessment has been made by this Department. Any ongoing liability of the Millennium Stadium is a matter for its operators and falls within the remit of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Museum of Moving Image
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to(a) reopen the Museum of Moving Image; and (b) open a new Museum of Film and Television in London. [81825]
  232W
  Dr. Howells
  The British Film Institute (BFI), which is responsible for the Museum of the Moving Image (MOMI), has no plans to re-open it. However, the BFI is developing plans to open a new Film Centre on the South Bank which will incorporate not only the collections of MOMI, but also the existing National Film Theatre, National Film and Television library and the BFI's head office.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many planning applications affecting school playing fields were(a) referred to Sport England and (b) objected to by Sport England in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [82364]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England in their role as statutory consultee for planning applications affecting playing fields received 314 applications in respect of playing fields within educational ownership for the year 1999—2000, 428 for the year 2000—01, and 551 for the year 2001—02. Data is not available to show Sport England's response action to planning applications for playing fields in educational ownership.

  Planning applications affecting playing fields can often involve a change of use that benefits sport rather than in resulting in the outright sale of playing fields or their development It should also be noted that where planning permission is granted this does not necessarily mean that the proposed development or change of use went ahead. Data is not collected centrally on whether planning applications are actually implemented.

  Seconded Civil Servants
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work has been(a) researched and (b) implemented jointly by her Department and (i) the Broadcasting Standards Commission and (ii) London Arts through the use of seconded senior civil servants. [81568]

  Dr. Howells
  No work has been researched and jointly implemented by my Department and the Broadcasting Standards Commission or London Arts through the use of seconded senior civil servants. Neither organisation conducts research.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were given custodial sentences following a failure to pay a fine for TV licence evasion in each of the last 20 years. [80442]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is available only from 1992 onwards. The number of people in England and Wales received into prison for non-payment of fines for television licence fee evasion, in each year since 1992, was as follows.
  233W

  Year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number

  570

  861

  770

  774

  355

  245

  156

  83

  36

  31

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether a television licence is required for a personal computer capable of receiving television broadcasts. [80488]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system and for determining the licensing requirements in specific circumstances. I cannot, therefore, comment in detail on how those requirements would apply in particular cases. However, the requirement to have a licence relates to the installation or use (actual or intended) of the apparatus in question and not simply its capability. A television licence is required for the installation or use of a television receiver. A television receiver is equipment installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services, as defined by section 2(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990. A personal computer which is capable of receiving television programme services, and which is installed or used for such purposes, is therefore a television receiver, and its installation or use as such requires a television licence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Israel
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government about the use of US manufactured military equipment containing components manufactured in the UK and sold to Israel; and if he will make a statement. [82226]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Paddy Tipping) of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 650–2W, informed Parliament about the issuing of export licences for the export of Head Up Display Units (HUDs) to the USA for incorporation into F-16s, some of which were for re-export to Israel. While considering these applications we had discussions with US Administration to make sure of our understanding of US export control policy and practice. The US Government maintains a strong and effective export licensing system.

  Kenya
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made by(a) the UK Government, (b) the Commonwealth and (c) the European Union to provide observers for the Kenyan elections on 27th December. [80543]
  234W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Government of Kenya has invited international observers. The European Union Election Observer Mission will be the cornerstone of the international observation effort. It will deploy 20 long term observers from 24 November and 50 short term observers a week before polling. The UK has nominated a list of nationals willing to participate in the Mission.

  The Commonwealth Secretariat has been invited to send a team of observers as well. A team of Commonwealth officials has been in Kenya making a needs assessment.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the situation in(a) Rwanda and (b) the Great Lakes region. [80888]

  Mr. Rammell
  a) Since the genocide and civil war in 1994, the Rwandan Government and people have been rebuilding their country and lives. The Government has embarked on a programme of recovery through national reconciliation and poverty reduction. It has made significant progress but continues to face many challenges, including the delivery of a tradition-based judicial process (gacaca), the demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants, and democratisation.

  b) The situation in the Great Lakes is dominated by the conflicts in DRC and Burundi. In the DRC the 30 July Pretoria Agreement was a welcome development, resulting in the withdrawal of all Rwandan forces by 5 October. The Government of DRC must now honour its Pretoria commitments to deal with the anti-Rwandan militia operating in DRC, and reach agreement with the rebel groups (MLC and RCD-Goma) on a transitional Government. talks resumed on 15 November. It is hoped this will end the conflict conclusively and result in the withdrawal of the remaining Zimbabwean and Uganda forces soon.

  In Burundi recent talks produced a ceasefire between the Government of Burundi and some, but not all, of the rebels. We are giving our full support to South African and Tanzanian mediation efforts, which are seeking a comprehensive agreement. Uganda's President Museveni is convening a regional summit soon.

  UK Ambassador (Washington)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Sir David Manning will take up his position as the new UK ambassador to Washington; and when Sir Christopher Meyer is due to retire. [82113]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Sir David Manning will take up his position as British Ambassador to Washington in summer 2003. Sir Christopher Meyer will retire at the end of February 2003.

HEALTH

  Child Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve the interdependence and effectiveness of advocacy and support services for children in residential care and their preparation for independent living when they leave residential care. [80471]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Children (Leaving Care) Act commenced in October 2001. This imposed a duty on local authorities to provide a personal adviser to each young person leaving care from their 16th birthday. This adviser must work with the young person to draw up a "pathway plan" setting out the support that they must have to prepare them for independent living. Part of the adviser's role will be to represent the views of young people and to advocate on their behalf with the agencies whose services will be necessary to prepare them for adulthood. Guidance to the Act also requires local authorities to make provision so that young people may have access to independent advocacy if they need to complain about how services have been provided for them.

  The Adoption and Children Act 2002, when commenced, will place a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of advocacy for looked after children.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to help sufferers of arthritis. [80890]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework for older people does not specifically focus on arthritis but through improvements in general hospital care, and especially through the new single assessment process, older people's health care needs will be properly targeted, so ensuring that the services that are provided are most appropriate to their needs.

  People with arthritis will benefit from the expert patients programme, which will see the national health service provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has begun in selected primary care trust sites, with activity to take place both on a generic and a disease-specific basis.

  The Medical Research Council, which is the main Government research agency, funded major research projects into arthritis. Also, in the past year, two new classes of drugs, Cox II inhibitors and anti-TNF therapy, have been made available to arthritis patients, following reviews by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). In addition, NICE is reviewing the drug Anakinra for its clinical and cost effectiveness in treating rheumatoid arthritis.

  Bed Occupancy (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average bed occupancy rate was at NHS units in Chesham and Amersham in each of the last six years since 1 May 1996; [81200]
  236W
  (2)if he will make a statement on progress on cancelled operations and appointments at NHS units in the Chesham and Amersham constituency in the last 12 months; [81194]

  (3)how many acute beds there were in (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996; and how many he expects there to be in the next 12 months. [81198]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 November2002]: Information is not collected centrally, or by Thames Valley health authority, at constituency level. Information on bed numbers and occupancy together with details of cancelled operations for the three Buckinghamshire acute trusts has been placed in the Library.

  On the progress made on cancelled operations and appointments, I am advised by Thames Valley Strategic health authority that the acute trust providing care for Chesham and Amersham constituents, South Buckinghamshire national health service trust, has performed well. In terms of cancelled operations, information for Quarter 1 of 2002–03 shows no last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons.

  Cardiology
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to date is of the introduction of the Cardiology NUF; and what estimates have been made of future cost implications. [80953]

  Ms Blears
  The national service framework for coronary heart disease is a programme for improving services for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of national health service services, which enables an accurate global figure for the cost of tackling a particular disease to be calculated. The great majority of spending on services for coronary heart disease is contained within primary care trust unified allocations. It is for primary care trusts, in partnership with NHS trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Dentists
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of the population in the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust area is registered with dentists in the national health service; [80802]

  (2) what dental facilities are available within the national health service in the Gosport area; [80800]

  (3) how many patients can be given dental care at the national health service treatment centre in Fareham; [80803]

  (4) how many dentists are accepting new adult patients within the national health service in the Borough of Gosport. [80801]
  237W
  Ms Blears
  Approximately 40 per cent. of the population in the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (PCT) area were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist at 30 September 2002. This percentage will exclude patients who have not been to their GDS dentists within the past 15 months, as registrations last for 15 months after the end of the month of attendance, and patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services.

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority has advised me that NHS services available within the borough of Gosport include:
  Nine practices, with a total of 20 dentists.
  Two surgeries (Rowner and Gosport), with three dentists working between them, serving people with special needs, including those patients needing mental health services, and children with high caries (high decay).
  Community facilities.

  It is not possible to quantify the annual activity of the Fareham NHS Treatment Centre. However, the treatment centre can treat 40 patients per day. The centre does not deal with routine dental treatment. Patients attend the centre for emergency treatment or, if they are in the process of having a course of treatments, they would attend the centre specifically for that treatment.

  The Strategic Health Authority has advised me that currently no NHS dentists within Gosport are accepting new adult patients. Patients wishing to register with a CDS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients by contacting NHS Direct.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the payment to dentists under the national health service relates to the time involved and costs incurred by the dentist. [80730]

  Mr. Lammy
  Dentists' fees are set out in the Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR) which was set in consultation with the profession. The SDR was designed to deliver, after expenses, a target annual net income (TANI) for dental practitioners with an average commitment to the national health service. The TANI was reviewed annually by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body on Remuneration (DDRB) who made recommendations on any increase as appropriate.

  Since 1994, based on evidence submitted by the Government and the profession including evidence submitted jointly on practice expenses, the DDRB have made pay recommendations based on percentage increases to the gross fees to cover both income and expenses rather than setting a TANI. Since 1999 the Government have accepted the Review Body's recommendations without staging. The current average net income of dental practitioners is considered to be in line with comparable professions.

  Discussions with representatives of the dental profession take place regularly, where joint work is undertaken to review any particular fee items that appear to have fallen out of line with current practices.

  Fertility Rates
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department makes a regular assessment of the fertility rate of young males. [81050]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not make a regular assessment of the fertility rate of young males.

  The Department of Health, with the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Health and Safety Executive and the European Chemical Industry Council, is funding a programme of four epidemiological studies to investigate trends in male reproductive health, and the possible influences of occupational, environmental or other exposure to chemicals. Two of these studies will provide extensive information on semen quality in men in the United Kingdom. We expect the programme of studies to be completed by the end of this year and the results of the research will be published in due course.

  Health Professions Council
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposed fee increases for the Health Professions Council; and if he will make a statement. [82106]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received a number of items of correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members concerning the Health Professions' Council's proposed fee level.

  The principle of United Kingdom healthcare regulation is based on the concept of independent self-regulation and it is for the HPC to determine the appropriate fee to be charged for registration taking account of the functions it is required to undertake and the views of those consulted. When considering whether to approve the proposed fees, the Privy Council will take account of these relevant issues.

  HFEA Report
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the annual report of the HFEA for 2002 will be published. [80693]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority intends to publish its 2002 annual report in early December.

  IVF/DI Data
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the IVF/DI data for 2002 will be available. [80694]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is considering the content and date of publication of the data as part of its overall business plan for 2003–04.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average hours of junior doctors were in 1997; and what they were at the latest date for which figures are available. [80143]
  239W
  Mr. Hutton
  Data on junior doctors' working hours is not collected in a way that enables an average to be calculated. Available data shows the proportion of junior doctors who work above or below set thresholds.

  Initial indications from monitoring carried out in September 2002 showed 86 per cent. working on average less than 56 hours a week, with at least 23 per cent, of these working less than 48 hours a week.

  This compares favourably with the monitoring carried out in March 1997 which indicated that only 78 per cent. of junior doctors were working on average less than 56 hours a week.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation his Department undertook before publishing the draft Mental Health Bill. [82703]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proposals in the draft Mental Health Bill have been the subject of a long process of consultation by the Government, starting with the Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983" published in November 1999. Since then there have been informal discussions with key stakeholders and letters have been received, for example following the publication of the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" published in December 2000.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has assessed the work of the Mental Health Institute. [81506]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) is only in the first year of its establishment, there are plans in place and funds set aside to commission an evaluation of NIMHE's activities, in collaboration with the research & development Directorate at the Department. It is anticipated that the work will be commissioned in 2003.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for in-patient treatment in the mid Essex hospital services national health service area. [82061]

  Mr. Lammy
  There were 9,703 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services national health service trust at the end of September 2002.

  Source: KHO7 return.

  NHS Administration (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were employed to carry out the administration for NHS services for residents of(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in 1997; how many are employed now; and if he will make a statement; [81197]

  (2) what the total running costs of NHS organisations serving (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b)Buckinghamshire were in 1997; what the totals are now; and if he will make a statement. [81196]
  240W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Information is not collected centrally, or by Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority, at constituency level.

  Information available centrally on the number of administrative staff in the former Buckinghamshire health authority area is shown in the table. 2001 is the most recent year for which information is currently available

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) and general and personal medical services: Administrative staff within the Buckinghamshire health authority area as at 30 September each year

  Whole time equivalents

  1997

  2001

  All administrative staff

  2,120

  2,560

  Health and community health services

  1,560

  1,880

  General and personal medical services

  560

  690

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Sources:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics.

  A direct comparison of running costs for NHS organisations within the former Buckinghamshire health authority area, between 1997 and now, is not possible because of the considerable organisational change that has taken place in the intervening years.

  Allocations to the Buckinghamshire Health Authority in 1997–98 were £265,389,000 and in 2002–03, £493,959,000.

  NHS Bank
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing the NHS Bank; and how much money it has lent. [82282]

  Mr. Milburn
  The NHS Bank has been operating in `shadow' form this year overseen by the Department's director of finance and investment and four strategic health authority chief executives. The future management arrangements are still under consideration.

  The shadow NHS Bank has made available a total of 100 million to three strategic health authority areas. Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire, 45 million, Surrey and Sussex, 30 million, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, 25 million. The terms, conditions and amounts for individual health service bodies is still to be finalised by the strategic health authorities and are subject to delivery of agreed recovery plans

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust and its predecessor, Warrington Hospital NHS Trust, spent on public relations in each of the last five years. [82056]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the public relations costs for North Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust and its predecessor organisation in each of the last five years.
  241W

  Year

  Warrington hospital NHS trust £000

  Halton hospital NHS trust £000

  North Cheshire hospitals NHS trust £000

  1998–99

  21,580

  In house

  —

  1999–00

  22,010

  In house

  —

  2000–01

  24,344

  17,076

  —

  2001–02

  —

  —

  24,462

  2002–03

  —

  —

  29,100

  Nursing and Residential Care Charges
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the level of capital limits with respect to the cost of(a) nursing home care and (b) residential care. [82105]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is currently consulting on proposals to increase the capital limits used in the financial assessment for residential accommodation, including care homes providing nursing care, to 12,000 and 19,500 with effect from 7 April 2003.

  Overseas Visitors Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what systems are in place to(a) identify and (b) collect payment from illegal immigrants and others who use the national health service and are subject to the charges to overseas visitors regulations 1989, as amended; [80955]

  (2) if he will set out the total amount collected by the NHS under the NHS charges to overseas visitors regulations in each of the last three years for which records exist; and if he will make a statement. [80956]

  Ms Blears
  The National Health Service is first and foremost for the benefit of people who live in the United Kingdom. A person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK but who requires NHS hospital treatment is subject to the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended [in 1991 (SI No: 438), 1994 (SI No: 1535), 2000 (SI No: 602), 2000 (SI No: 909)].

  These regulations place a duty on NHS trusts to establish the residential status of all patients. Where an NHS trust identifies a person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK and is not otherwise exempt from charge then the regulations provide for the making and recovery of a charge by the trust for most types of hospital treatment.

  The amounts collected from NHS charged patients are not separately identifiable in trust accounts and are not collected centrally.

  Patient Prospectus Initiative
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Department in conjunction with the strategic health authorities are overseeing with regard to the delivery of the patient prospectus initiative. [80136]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department is working closely with strategic health authorities' communication functions to maintain a progress overview of distribution. While it is for individual primary care trusts to organise local 242W
  delivery arrangements, the Department is continuing to act in a facilitative role and to identify local support needs through StHAs.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department estimates has been spent by each primary care trust on the patient prospectus initiative. [80403]

  Mr. Lammy
  The responsibility for funding and compiling the prospectus leaflets was placed with primary care trusts (PCTs), who were encouraged to select the most appropriate and efficient local means of managing all aspects of prospectus production. The Department does not collect centrally the cost to each PCT of the patient prospectus initiative.

  Physiotherapy/Chiropody
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the action he has taken to protect titles for physiotherapists and chiropodists. [81572]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Professions Order provides a register which will be divided into parts in respect of which there will be designated titles

  Under transitional arrangements a person who has not previously been registered may qualify for registration on the basis of safe and effective practice for a specified period or by satisfying the Health Professions Council (HPC) that additional experience and training give him the requisite standard of proficiency to be registered. To benefit from the transitional arrangements a person must apply within two years of the opening of the relevant part of the register. The HPC expect to open the new register in April 2003. Once the register is open no one can use the designated title lawfully unless he is registered or benefits from transitional arrangements

  Poultry
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many samples of poultry, by category, had a water content of(a) 0–10 per cent., (b) 11–20 per cent., (c) 21–30 per cent, (d) 31–40 per cent., and (e) 41 per cent. and more in each of the last 10 years. [81584]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has undertaken two surveys investigating added water in poultry and poultry products. The survey reported in October 2000, in the Food Survey Information Sheet 8/00, focused on added water in whole chicken and chicken parts, including half, quarter, boneless and skinless breast, thigh, drumstick and wing, sold mainly in the retail sector. The second survey reported in December 2001, in the Food Survey Information Sheet 20/01, investigated added water, chicken content and hydrolysed protein in frozen chicken breast products supplied to the catering trade. Copies of the two survey information sheets have been place in the Library

  The water content found in the poultry samples analysed in the two surveys is summarised in Tables 1 and 2
  243W

  Table 1: Information Sheet No. 08/00 October 2000

  Poultry category Number of samples found with added water (percentage of those sampled)

  Percentage water content of chicken

  Whole chicken1

  Boneless and skinless chicken breast2

  Chicken thigh3

  No added water

  37 (49%)

  72 (72%)

  36 (88%)

  0–10

  25 (33%)

  416 (26%)

  55 (12%)

  11–20

  14 (18%)

  4 (4%)

  0

  21–30

  0

  1 (1%)

  0

  34–40

  0

  6 (6%)

  0

  41+

  0

  0

  0

  1 76 total samples

  2 99 total samples

  3 41 total samples

  4 9 (9 per cent.) of these breast samples had not more than 2 per cent. water

  5 All of the thigh samples had not more than 2 per cent. water

  Table 2: Information Sheet No. 20/01 December 2001

  Percentage water content in chicken

  Frozen, skinless chicken breasts products1 Number of samples found with added water (percentage of those sampled)

  No water added

  1(1%)

  0–10

  4 (6%)

  11–20

  8 (12%)

  21–30

  35 (51%)

  31–40

  16 (24%)

  41+

  4 (6%)

  1 68 total samples

  Prescribing
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on anticipatory prescribing following the observations made by the Commission for Health Improvement following publication of their report 'Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust at Gosport War Memorial Hospital'. [80113]

  Ms Blears
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) expressed serious concerns about anticipatory prescribing of medicines to older people on two wards in Gosport War Memorial hospital in 1998. During the course of its investigation in 2002, the CHI welcomed the introduction and adherence to policies regarding the administration, review and recording of medicines. Anticipatory prescribing was no longer evident on these wards

  The decision when and how much to prescribe is a matter for the clinical judgement of the doctor caring for the patient

  Pre-Payment Prescriptions
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the time taken to issue pre-payment certificates for NHS prescription charges is; and if he will make a statement. [80608]

  (2) when the issuing of pre-payment certificates for NHS prescription charges was centralised in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. [80609]

  (3) what estimate he has made of when the issuing of pre-payment certificates for prescription charges will meet the contract delivery target; and what that target is. [80610]
  244W
  (4) for what reason the telephone number for inquiries about slow processing of pre-payment certificates now centralised in Newcastle-upon-Tyne was not included in the information sent to existing users. [80611]

  (5) where the call centre that handles inquiries about delays in processing pre-payment certificates for prescription charges is physically based. [80612]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) became responsible for the issue of pre-payment certificates (PPCs) in respect of applications received on or after 1 October. Applications sent before 1 October should have been dealt with by health authorities and the PPA telephone number for inquiries should therefore have been irrelevant to people who applied for PPCs before that date. A number of health authorities did, however, send applications received before 1 October to the PPA. Rather than return them and thus add further to the time taken to issue certificates, the PPA decided that they would issue the certificates themselves

  The target for issuing pre-payment certificates ordered by telephone is 14 days and that target is being met. The target for issuing PPCs by post is 21 calendar days of the application being received (as shown on the application form) and that target is being met. On 19 November applications received by post on 1 November were being processed. Applications made by phone are generally being processed within seven days. These targets will be kept under review

  The call centre that handles telephone requests for PPCs and inquiries is based in Nottingham. A further inquiry line is based in Newcastle

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial cost of(a) retaining services at the Royal Hospital Haslar and (b) bringing such services together on the Queen Alexandra Hospital site in Cosham. [80729]

  Ms Blears
  A review of the private finance initiative scheme to develop the Queen Alexandra Hospital site was undertaken in July 2002. I am advised by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic health authority that the review clarified that the revenue consequences of the development of the Queen Alexandra Hospital site amounted to £44 million per annum.

  The strategic health authority has also advised me that the review also considered the "do minimum option", which included the assumption that the Royal Hospital Haslar was retained. The revenue consequences of this option amounted to £43.2 million per annum. However, the overall conclusion of the review was that this option, including the retention of Haslar, was no more financially advantageous than the preferred development of the Queen Alexandra Hospital site. Moreover, the "do minimum" option failed to deliver the strategic service changes and clinical benefits required.
  245W
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of a Diagnostic and Treatment Centre at the Royal hospital Haslar. [80799]

  Ms Blears
  The first phase of the diagnosis and treatment centre at Royal hospital Haslar has been implemented and is progressing well. The second phase of the project is due for completion in December 2002 and at present, is on course to meet this target

  Sex Selection
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors underlay his recent decision to ask the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to consult on the subject of sex selection for non-medical reasons; [81751]

  (2) who the author is of the HFEA consultation document on sex selection; and who is responsible for assessing the results of the consultation. [81752]

  Ms Blears
  We asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to review the practice of sex selection to take account of new techniques developed since the HFEA's last review in 1993. The consultation document was produced by the HFEA, who will assess the responses to it and report to Ministers

  Sickness Statistics
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days in the NHS were(a) lost and (b) lost in each of the past 10 years due to sickness of less than three days' duration in each of the last 10 years. [80952]

  Mr. Hutton
  National data on sickness absence levels in the national health service has only been collected since 1999. Information on working days lost in the NHS due to sickness of less than three days duration is not held centrally, but may be available from individual NHS employers.

  The national sickness absence rate in 1999 was 4.96 per cent. which is equivalent to approximately 9.97 million working days. The sickness absence rate in 2000 was 4.68 per cent., which is equivalent to approximately 9.78 million working days. Sickness absence figures for 2001 are currently being analysed by the Department

  Social Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost to public funds of making non-residential social services free of charge for(a) people aged over 65 and (b) people in receipt of disability living allowance. [80455]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 1999–2000, total charge income for non-residential social services in England was £303 million. Of this, £232 million was in respect of services for people aged 65 or over

  No comprehensive estimate is available for charges paid by people receiving disability living allowance

  Warrington PCT
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of (a) the production and (b) the distribution of the leaflet entitled 'Your Guide to Local Health Services' recently distributed by Warrington PCT. [82055]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows production and distribution costs incurred by Warrington Primary Care Trust to issue the leaflet 'Your Guide to Local Health Services' to the population of Warrington. In order to keep costs to a minimum, distribution was made via free local newspapers

  Costs £

  Number of copies

  Cost per leaflet

  Production

  5,768

  94,000

  6p

  Distribution

  1,204

  —

  —

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Air and Pellet Guns
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to launch an inquiry into the misuse of air and pellet guns; [80135]

  (2) what plans he has to further restrict the sale of pellet and air guns. [80134]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have been looking at a number of options for dealing with the problem of air weapon misuse, and will bring forward proposals in due course.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in each of the last five years cyclists have been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit; [80397]

  (2) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists for (a) cycling the wrong way down one-way streets, (b) riding on pavements, (c) cycling through traffic lights at red, (d) using footpaths designated for pedestrians and (e) failing to carry cycle lights at night. [80398]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The available information is contained in the table. This relates to neglect of traffic directions (which will include cycling the wrong way down one-way streets), riding on footpath (which will include riding on pavements and using footpaths designated for pedestrians), failing to obey signal (which will include cycling through traffic lights at red), lighting and reflector offences (which will include failing to carry cycle lights at night) and other offences (which will include any offences of exceeding the speed limit)

  Information for 2001 will be published in December.
  247W

  Persons1 proceeded against at magistrates' courts for various offences connected with pedal cycles, England and Wales 1996 to 2000

  Office Description

  Principal statute

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Neglect of traffic directions

  Road Traffic Act 1988 Secs 35 and 36

  181

  92

  121

  63

  52

  Riding on footpath

  Highways Act, 1835 Sec 72; (as amended by Local Government Act 1888 S.85(l), the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act 1888, Highways Act 1959 Sch, Criminal Justice Act 1967, 3rd Sch. and Criminal Justice Act 1982, ss 39 and 46 and Sch. 3); Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, Sec.54(7) and Byelaws.

  423

  648

  1,055

  376

  223

  Failing to obey signal

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sec. 28(3)

  24

  43

  19

  45

  6

  Lighting and reflector offences

  Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 81 and RVL Regs. 1989

  382

  412

  624

  459

  275

  Certain other offences

  Various

  16

  7

  16

  25

  15

  Notes:

  1 Principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire 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 the table.

  Deer Hunting Study
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the Home Office Project Licence to the Joint Universities Study on Deer Hunting was refused. [80821]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have been unable on available information to identify a Joint Universities project licence application of the type described. A similar application was, however, made in 1998 from another source. It was made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and was for a project licence to conduct a study concerned with deer hunting

  It is not policy to disclose details of individual applications, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the application was refused because it was not considered to meet the cost/benefit criteria set out in section 5(4) of the 1986 Act. In other words, the adverse effects on the animals to be used were deemed to outweigh the likely benefit to accrue from the specified programme of work.

  Heroin
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the annual consumption of heroin was in each year since 1992; [81000]

  (2) how many people have been convicted of dealing in heroin in each year since 1992. [80999]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Although there is no robust estimate of the consumption of heroin, data are collected on the number of heroin seizures made in the United Kingdom, and these are shown for each year from 1992 to 2000 in Table 1.

  Table 1. Number of heroin seizures made in the UK 1992–2000.

  Number of heroin seizures

  1992

  2,968

  1993

  3,678

  1994

  4,483

  1995

  6,479

  1996

  9,834

  1997

  12,508

  1998

  15,192

  1999

  15,519

  2000

  16,295

  Table 2 shows the number of persons found guilty of dealing heroin in Great Britain between 1992 and 2000
  248W

  Table 2. persons found guilty of dealing in heroin in Great Britain, 1992–20001

  Number of persons2

  1992

  472

  1993

  706

  1994

  764

  1995

  942

  1996

  1,296

  1997

  2,060

  1998

  2,727

  1999

  3,248

  2000

  3,3343

  1 The term 'dealing' is taken to cover the following drug offences: possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply, and unlawful import/export.

  2 As the same person may be found guilty of or cautioned for more than one offence, rows cannot be added together to produce totals.

  3 Import/Export data not available for 2000.

  Source:

  Home Office Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, 2000–Supplementary Tables

  The Home Office Statistical Bulletin is available on the RDS website http:www.homeoffice.gov.uk.rds.pdfs2.hosb402.pdf, and copies are available in the Library.

  Road Traffic Penalties
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results of the consultation on road traffic penalties. [81095]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Tom Harris) on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1450W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma (Refugees)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much humanitarian assistance her Department provides for refugees in Burma. [80564]

  Clare Short
  The situation for internally displaced people/refugees in Burma remains extremely vulnerable. Many of these people have taken refuge in remote,
  249W
  inaccessible and politically sensitive areas, making it difficult to conduct any detailed humanitarian assessment of their situation. This financial year 2002–03, we have committed humanitarian assistance amounting to £2 million for both refugees and internally displaced people within Burma. This included funding through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Burmese Border Consortium and the International Committee of the Red Cross

  Magistrates Courts (Greater Manchester)
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the UK Government and other key donors are taking to address the shortfall in funding to the Afghan Government for promoting Afghanistan's recovery. [78215]

  Clare Short
  The international donor community has now disbursed $1.3 billion of the $1.8 billion pledge for 2002; of this, a total of $200 million has been paid into the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is used by the Afghanistan Transitional Administration to meet recurrent costs and finance the most pressing of reconstruction requirements. Recent payments into the fund mean that the ATA now faces a far smaller potential budget deficit this financial year than was originally feared but my Department is continuing to work closely with other donors to help ensure budget requirements are fully met. In addition, I recently approved a contribution of $20 million in support of Afghanistan's arrears clearance with the major international financial institutions, and am confident this will enable the Asia development bank and world bank to finance the implementation of substantial reconstruction initiatives in the near future

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the UK Government and other donor countries are taking to address the shortfall in funds to the WFP and UNHCR in Afghanistan. [78216]

  Clare Short
  We understand that UNHCR and WFP programmes for 2002 for Afghanistan have been well-resourced so far (to the order of 90 per cent. and 75 per cent. respectively). So far in the current financial year, the UK has contributed 4 million and 2.2 million respectively to UNHCR and WFP programmes.

  Overall needs for emergency support are being revised in light of the increasing number of returned refugees and in anticipation of the coming winter. A consolidated appeal is due to be launched at the Afghan Support Group meeting in December, in Oslo. The basic emergency needs will come under the human capital pillar of the National Development Framework, for which the Afghan Government has determined it will allocate 45 per cent of all external funds received

  We have now committed 65 million to Afghanistan for the current financial year (the original allocation was 40 million). We will consider future support in light of the Transitional Assistance Programme for Afghanistan and the priorities set out in the National Development Framework, in consultation with the Afghan authorities.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance given by her Department to increase the provision of clean water to the people of Malawi. [82688]

  Clare Short
  My Department operates the largest bilateral donor programme in Malawi (70 million in 2002–03). Our focus is on health, education, governance and sustainable livelihoods. We have no involvement in the water sector

  Ministerial salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the annual cost was of Ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60943]

  Clare Short
  The levels of Ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From May 1997, in this Department there was one Cabinet Minister at an annual salary of £43,991 and one Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at an annual salary of £23, 623. From June 2001, for the same two posts, the respective salaries were £68,157 and £26,835

  Overseas Development Assistance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to other international donors regarding the untying of overseas development assistance. [80948]

  Clare Short
  The international community has this year untied financial aid to the least-developed countries. We welcome this, but we want other donors to follow the UK example and untie all development assistance for all countries. As the largest block of development finance, Europe should give a lead. The Commission have tabled proposals for further untying which I welcomed at this week's Council meeting. We want to see a clear timetable for future progress

  Pharmaceutical Sales
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to increase world pharmaceutical sales(a) to the developing countries and (b) to Africa. [80557]

  Clare Short
  The Government are working to bring about increased supplies of essential medicines to developing countries, in a way which is sustainable and predictable and ensures they reach the poorest

  The Government will shortly be launching the report of the UK's high level working group on access to medicines. The report is a result of a year's collaboration between representatives of UK industry, WHO, WTO, The European Commission, a developing country and international foundations. It outlines an approach intended to facilitate voluntary differential pricing of essential medicines for the poorest developing countries-and all of sub-Saharan Africa-as the international operational norm. The UK is committed to working with others to take the report's recommendations forward as a matter of urgency. The

  251W
  report complements ongoing work in the context the Doha Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS and public health, and it also emphasises the importance of sustainable financing and reliable health and supply systems. The UK has already pledged $200 million over five years to the Global Fund to Fight TB, AIDS and Malaria (GFATM), and has committed over £1 billion since 1997 to strengthen developing countries' health systems. The Government have also introduced tax incentives to encourage longer-term development of new medicines to treat AIDS, TB and malaria in developing countries.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Bercow (Buckingham)
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, how much and what proportion of the Departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61027]

  Clare Short
  Spending on staff from DFID's Administration Costs was £41 million in 2001–2, which was 1.3 per cent. Of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL). On the same basis, spending in 2002–3 is forecast to be around £45 million, or 1.3 per cent of DFID's DEL. We expect spending on staff to rise over the next Spending Review period but at a significantly slower rate than the Departmental Spending Limit

  Zimbabwe (Food Aid)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her strategy is for delivering food to vulnerable communities in Zimbabwe when the Government of Zimbabwe obstructs food aid. [80574]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided over £38 million in humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe since September 2001. This has included food assistance through the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and through non-governmental organisations. There has been relatively little obstruction in these operations that cover more than half of the country's 57 districts and continue to expand.

  If obstruction does occur, we work closely in support of the United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator and the World Food Programme in engaging with the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that the obstruction is dealt with and the distribution of food resumed as quickly as possible. For example, Save the Children UK has now obtained written clearances to resume its feeding programme in Binga.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr Peter Jewell
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the Lord Chancellor intends to reply to the letter dated 3 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr Peter Jewell. [81712]
  252W
  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was sent on 19 November 2002. My right hon. Friend wrote originally to the Home Secretary. The letter was then passed to the Lord Chancellor for reply in late October.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what steps the Lord Chancellor will take to ensure that the Court of Appeal adopts the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in sentencing for offences or rape; [81930]

  (2)if the Lord Chancellor will monitor the implementation by the Court of Appeal of the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in sentencing for offences of rape; [81928]

  (3)what discussions the Lord Chancellor has had with the Court of Appeal in connection with the implementation of the recommendations of the Sentencing Authority Panel on sentencing for offences of rape. [81929]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor is grateful to the Sentencing Advisory Panel for publishing its advice to the Court of Appeal, which proposes a revision of the current sentencing guidelines for the offence of rape.

  The decision on whether or not to adopt this advice is for the Court of Appeal alone and is not a matter in which the Lord Chancellor can intervene.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  British Irish Joint Secretariat
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what is the total cost per annum of the British Irish Joint Secretariat, based at Windsor House in Belfast; and how the cost are allocated between the British and Irish Governments. [80676]

  Mr. Browne
  The expenditure of the British irish Intergovernmental Secretariat is met by the two Governments. The total cost to the British Government in 2001–02 was £554,000.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many staff are employed by the British Irish Joint Secretariat at Windsor House in Belfast; and what proportion of these staff members are appointed by the(a) British and (b) Irish Governments. [80677]

  Mr. Browne
  The British Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat comprises 25 members of staff, 12 employed by the Northern Irleland Office and 13 employed by the Irish Government.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what are the main functions of the British Irish Joint Secretariat based at Windsor House in Belfast. [80678]

  Mr. Browne
  The British Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the Secretariat were established by the British-Irish Agreement, which took effect on Thursday 2 December 1999. the role of the Secretariat is to support the Conference. As such it provides a formal
  253W
  channel of communication to promote bilateral co-operation between the two governments on non-devolved Northern Ireland matters. [80678]

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Christopher Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81841]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is general departmental travel planning policy that staff should not use cars to commute to and from work. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is to his Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81880]

  Jane Kennedy
  All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own everyday home to office travel costs. The introduction of a Central London user charge will not affect this basic condition of service.

  Any additional costs to the Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Electoral Identity Cards
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the percentage take-up among electors of the new electoral identity cards. [81574]

  Mr. Browne
  A question was included in this year's Annual Canvass registration form which asked electors if they would need an electoral identity card. Once the Annual Canvass is complete on 29 November and the new Electoral Register is published, the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to target his efforts and resources to those people who have indicated that they need the card. As of 16 November 220,000 (18 per cent. of the 1.2 million Northern Ireland electorate) had done so.

  The Government is committed to providing those people who require one with an electoral identity card in time for the Assembly election on 1 May 2003. This also remains the target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic ID from the list of specified documents acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he collates on the average price of petrol paid by motorists in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; when he last discussed fuel prices with major companies
  254W
  supplying petrol to Northern Ireland retail outlets; and if he will make representations to reduce the price paid by Northern Ireland motorists at petrol stations. [80807]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Trade and Industry obtains, on a weekly basis from petroleum suppliers, the average UK price charged for petrol on the forecourts. DTI provides this information to the European Commission. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment does not collate separate information.

  I have not currently had discussions with major companies supplying petrol to Northern Ireland retailers. The level of pricing is a commercial decision taken by the companies in the petrol supply industry. Unless there is evidence of "price fixing" Government cannot intervene in those commercial decisions.

  Prison Officer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prison officers have been informed they are on the intelligence list stolen by SF/IRH, how many have been accepted on to the S.P.E.D. scheme for alternative housing; and what the total amount offered to those who choose to stay in their homes for installing additional security measures has been. [80824]

  Jane Kennedy
  Of the 1,426 names of Northern Ireland Prison Service Staff on the PSNI list, the vast majority have been informed either orally or in writing, efforts to inform others are continuing daily.

  To date 40 prison staff have applied to be accepted onto the SPED scheme. This is operated by the NI Housing Executive and so far no decisions have been confirmed.

  Officers who decide to remain in their current homes are individually assessed regarding their security needs. As this matter is ongoing the cost of the work involved is not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Downing Street Air Conditioning
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister what coolant is used in the air conditioning recently installed in Downing Street. [81776]

  The Prime Minister
  All coolants in the air conditioning units in Downing Street comply with the UK Climate Change Programme and all relevant European Standards on the use of HFCs and safety in the workplace.

  Gifts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what rules govern the retention of gifts given to members of the Royal Family when they are undertaking official tours [80816]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for the Palace. However I understand that the Palace issues internal guidance on gifts.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Solicitor General what discussions she has had with the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister about the legal aspects of the fire dispute and the implications of trade union legislation when there is a risk to life [81661]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The Law Officers are concerned with the legal aspects of the fire dispute in three ways. We are responsible to Parliament for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for considering whether to bring prosecutions where hoax calls have been made. We are also legal advisers to the Government. There is a long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments and reflected in the Ministerial Code, that both the content of legal advice to the Government and the fact that it has been given remains confidential. Thirdly, the Attorney General has the power to apply, when he thinks it appropriate, to the High Court for an injunction to prevent breach of the criminal law, including offences under trade union legislation. In making such decisions he acts as guardian of the public interest.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bilateral Trade
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the total level of bilateral trade was with each EU applicant country in the last 12 months; [82352]

  (2) what the level of bi-lateral trade with each of the EU applicant countries was in the last 12 months. [81652]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, the value of UK trade in goods with the EU applicant countries, for the 12-month period ended August 2002, was as follows:

  £million

  UK imports

  UK exports

  Malta

  168.9

  232.7

  Estonia

  320.7

  101.8

  Latvia

  433.3

  76.4

  Lithuania

  249.9

  151.3

  Poland

  1,235.6

  1,331.3

  Czech Republic

  1,247.6

  1,081.9

  Slovakia

  200.6

  201.3

  Hungary

  798.3

  715.5

  Slovenia

  165.5

  169.4

  Cyprus

  237.6

  276.7

  Romania

  494.5

  394.4

  Bulgaria

  113.1

  133.8

  Bilateral Trade

    BNFL
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to 256W
    seek a reduction in the movements of (a) high-level and (b) intermediate-level radioactive material by BNFL. [80861]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The number of movements of radioactive material undertaken by BNFL is dependent on operational requirements and is a matter for BNFL. I have no reason to believe that BNFL or any other relevant operator would undertake unnecessary movements of radioactive material The transport of radioactive material in the UK is subject to stringent regulatory requirements in respect of safety and security.

    Business Link
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost is of the Business Link advertisement campaign broken down by(a) newspapers, (b) radio and television. [80482]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The current advertising campaign was launched in September 2002. The costs associated with the campaign to date are:

    £

    (a) Newspapers

    (b) Radio

    (c) Television

    Media

    549,978

    489,255

    2,139,063

    Production 1

    62,980

    44,202

    239,275

    1Excludes COI fees and VAT

    Phase 2 of the campaign is due to run in the new year with advertising planned to run on TV, radio, press and online.

    Car Parking
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and (b) visitors to her Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81866]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Within the proposed central London charging zone there are:

    103 car parking spaces available to employees of the Department, and

    12 car parking spaces available to visitors to the Department.

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81846]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The DTI policy in relation to reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees is to reimburse the costs only if necessarily incurred on essential departmental business.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost is to her Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81885]
    257W
    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The DTI does not maintain central records of the number of staff who make essential business journeys into the area covered by the central London congestion charging zone. To obtain data on which to produce a meaningful estimate for the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

    Debt Swapping
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy towards debt swapping and the rainforest. [81243]

    Ms Hewitt
    Under ECGD's Debt Conversion Scheme, a percentage of a country's rescheduled debt stock (usually 10 or 20 per cent.) can be swapped for 'certain' projects. When evaluating such requests, ECGD will consider the potential contribution of any project towards the social, economic and environmental development of the country. ECGD is willing to consider projects involving rainforest protection. Any project must be jointly approved by the debtor Government and ECGD and comply with ECGD's Business Principles.

    The Debt Conversion Scheme does not affect debt relief for HIPCs (Highly Indebted Poor Countries), for whom the UK Government have pledged to write-off 100 per cent. of their UK debt. Debt write-offs for HIPCs are contingent on country commitment to a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process.

    Employment Agencies
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on the responsibility of employment agencies to interview and assess those responding to job advertisements, where the advertisement is published(a) in a newspaper and (b) on the internet; and if she will make a statement. [82021]

    Alan Johnson
    Under the legislation covering the private recruitment industry, employment agencies and employment businesses, who have placed job vacancy advertisements in either a newspaper or on the internet, before supplying or introducing a work-seeker to an employer, are required to make all such inquiries as are reasonably practicable to establish that the worker-seeker is suitable and has such qualifications as are required by law and that employment of that work-seeker by the employer would not breach any other duty or restriction imposed by law.

    It is in the best interests of all those involved in this sector to ensure that the legislation covering the private recruitment industry operates effectively and is relevant to the flexible labour market of today and of the future. On-line recruitment companies have proposed that the Employment Agency legislation should not apply to on-line job boards. I will consider the case for treating on-line job boards as a special case on its merits within the normal framework.

    India
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she next plans to visit India. [82045]
    258W
    Ms Hewitt
    I plan to visit India early in the new year 2003.

    Industrial Tribunals
    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the time it takes for industrial tribunals to hear individual cases; and if she will make a statement. [82107]

    Alan Johnson
    In the financial year 2001–02, the Employment Tribunals heard 69 per cent. of individual cases within 26 weeks of receipt. In the current financial year, as at the end of October 2002, Employment Tribunals have heard 72 per cent. of individual cases within 26 weeks of receipt.

    This achievement is in the context of a 60 per cent. increase in applications over the three years to March 2001. At March 2002, the level of applications remained high in comparison to previous years.

    Parliamentary Answer
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) of 10 June if he will place details of the direction in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [80620]

    Ms Hewitt
    I have no plans to do so under Exemption 13 of the Open Government Code, on grounds of commercial confidentiality where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.

    UK Solar Industry
    Mike Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been created in the UK Solar PV industry since 1997; and if she will make a statement [81750]

    Mr. Wilson
    The DTI's 1996 Sectoral Competitiveness Analysis for PV estimated that there were a maximum of 350 people employed fulltime in the manufacture, supply, design, consultancy, and research areas. A subsequent review in 2001 concluded that though there had been some expansion and reduction of staff in individual organisations the overall figure had remained about the same.

    Since then, with the implementation of the £10 million Domestic and Large-Scale Field Trials, and the launch of the £20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme this number has undoubtedly risen.

    Renewables UK is conducting a GAP analysis, which will include figures on employment. This will be published next year.

  TRANSPORT

    Minicabs
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has undertaken into the links between illegal and unlicensed mini-cab touting and other crimes; and what the findings were. [80536]
    259W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department has not carried out any research into the links between taxi touting and other crimes. Taxi touting is a criminal offence and enforcement is a matter for local licensing authorities and the police.

    A249
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress with the A249 Iwade to Queenborough improvement, with special reference to the(a) start date, (b) finish date and (c) Compulsory Purchase Order required. [82228]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Derek Wyatt, dated November 2002:

    I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent question about progress on the A249 Iwade Bypass to Queenborough Improvement scheme.

    This scheme is incorporated within the A249 Stockbury (M2) to Sheerness DBFO project which is currently out to tender, with a tender return date of 6 December. We expect to award the contract in November next year.

    The actual delivery programme for the improvement scheme will be determined by the successful DBFO Company. At this stage of the procurement process our assumed programme is as follows:

    Works commencement date-01 March 2004

    Road open to traffic-31 March 2006

    Completion of Works-01 July 2006

    It should be noted that whilst tenders are due to be submitted by 6 December, a significant period of negotiation is required between return of tenders and award of contract. The period between the date of award and the start date for the works allows for completion of detailed scheme design.

    With regard to the Compulsory Purchase Orders for the scheme, these were made in June 2001 and will remain valid until June 2004. This period can be extended beyond 2004 provided that Notices to Treat are served prior to this date.

    Airport Staff (Security)
    Miss Anne McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what security checks are being undertaken on airport-related staff on recruitment of(a) baggage handlers, (b) dispatches, (c) security staff and (d) other airport workers. [80959]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Before being able to work airside, all persons, including baggage handlers and dispatchers, are required to have undergone a five year background check on their education, training and employment record, and to have have submitted proof of identity. UK legislation requires that those carrying out listed security activities at UK airports are also in possession of a government security clearance known as a Counter Terrorist Check. All others working airside are to be subject to a Criminal Record Check.

    Notwithstanding these checks, all baggage handlers, dispatchers and other airport workers are screened on each occasion before being able to enter the airport's Restricted Zone

    Airports
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost benefit analysis has been conducted by his Department or is planned of the(a) economic, (b) social and (c) environmental costs and benefits from (i) new airports and (ii) airport expansion, which (A) has taken place since 1997 and (B) is planned. [81410]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 20 November 2002]: These issues have been covered extensively in the Government's recent airport studies. This included an assessment of the economic, social and environmental benefits and impacts of various airport development options, both at existing and new sites. The findings are set out in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation documents.

    Modal Shifts
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the past and potential future role of improvements to public transport access at United Kingdom airports upon (i) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (ii) past and future (A) economic, (B) environment and (C) social impacts; [81415]

    (2)what research has been conducted by his Department or is planned on the potential impact of high speed rail links on the modal shift of (a) internal and (b) international air passengers and freight away from air; what incentives have been provided or actions have been taken or are planned to encourage such a modal shift; [81400]

    (3)what assessment and research has been made by his Department or is planned of the past and potential future impact of improvements to public transport access at United Kingdom airports upon (a) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (b) past and future (i) economic, (ii) environment and (iii) social impacts; [81414]

    (4)what (a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the potential impact of high speed rail links on the modal shift of (i) internal and (ii) international air passengers and freight away from air; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; [81401]

    (5)what research has been conducted by his Department or is planned on the causal processes and mechanisms responsible for (a) past and (b) potential future modal shifts between air transport and other modes of transport for (i) passengers and (ii) freight transport, distinguishing between (A) internal and (B) international flights. [81398]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The Department's policies aim to deliver safe, reliable and secure transport for everyone that respects the environment, encouraging modal shift where appropriate.
    261W
    The research which has been carried out into recent and future public transport improvements for access to United Kingdom airports and on rail-air mode shift has been extensive and is set out in the seven consultation documents "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" published on 23 July and the background technical reports which support them. The latter include reports commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority and the Commission for Integrated Transport on the potential for rail-air substitution and the different environmental effects of journeys made using different modes on key inter-regional journeys within the UK.

    The Strategic Rail Authority is also conducting a study into a potential North-South high speed line which will consider its likely impact on other modes, including air.

    The service quality improvements resulting from use of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link are expected to result in some transfer of international air passengers to Eurostar. However, the forecast of Eurostar demand does not allow the transfer from international air services to be separately identified. The report of this research was not published because of the subject's commercially sensitive nature.

    Buses
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent guidelines he has issued on the use of bus lanes by cars. [82082]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, was published in 1997. This includes advice on the use of bus lanes by other vehicles, including cars.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage occupancy is of the UK bus fleet on normal timetable services. [81020]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Department collects information on the number of bus passenger journeys in Great Britain, but does not have information on bus occupancy.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has(a) been conducted and (b) is planned by his Department on the effects of marketing upon bus usage. [81733]

    Mr. Jamieson
    No research has been commissioned specifically on the effects of marketing on bus usage. However, we have obtained relevant information from research into quality bus partnerships and from surveys on satisfaction with the quality of local bus services.

    Bus operators are well aware of the benefits of good marketing of services. Marketing includes a variety of activities such as branding, publicity, timetable information, fares and tickets. A task group established by the Bus Partnership Forum, which comprises industry, local and central government representatives, is examining a number of surveys conducted by Transport for London, local transport authorities and operating companies to evaluate the success of marketing initiatives on particular routes or networks.

    Camera Systems
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to permit camera systems to be used to aid enforcement against illegal turning movements by vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [80490]

    Mr. Jamieson
    If approved by Parliament, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill will allow London authorities and Transport for London to enforce compliance with signs indicating banned turning movements using camera systems. Owners of vehicles not complying with signs would receive a penalty charge. The Government have no objection to such enforcement in principle and will follow its piloting in London with interest.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the channel tunnel rail link to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [82551]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Section 1 of the CTRL (channel tunnel to Fawkham Junction, north Kent) is now over 90 per cent. complete and on target for completion by the end of 2003. Section 2 of the CTRL (Kent to St. Pancras in London) is over 30 per cent. complete on target for opening in early 2007.

    Cycles
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people in the United Kingdom own pedal cycles. [80394]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Information is not available about how many people in the United Kingdom own pedal cycles. However, from the National Travel Survey, the percentage of households in Great Britain owning bicycles in 1999–2001 was as follows:

    Bicycles

    Percentage of households

    1999–2001

    None

    58

    1

    17

    2

    13

    3

    6

    4

    3

    5 or more

    2

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many people used a pedal cycle at least once a week in each of the last five years. [80395]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The National Travel Survey for Great Britain has asked about the frequency of bicycle use
    263W
    since 1998. The percentage of people who have said that they cycle at least once a week is as follows:

    1998: 14

    1999: 14

    2000: 15

    2001: 14

    Diesel Trains (Stopping Distances)
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the safe braking distance is for a diesel commuter train to stop from a speed of 70mph. [81246]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Health and Safety Executive have advised that, assuming a standard-load diesel commuter train, on a flat gradient with good rail/wheel adhesion conditions, approximately:

    816 metres using defensive driving brake application;

    544 metres using full service brake application; and

    408 metres using an emergency brake application.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the safe braking distance is of a 125 mph diesel train to stop from maximum speed. [81247]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Health and Safety Executive have advised that, assuming a standard-load diesel commuter train, on a flat gradient with good rail/wheel adhesion conditions, approximately:

    2,568 metres using defensive driving brake application;

    1,713 Metres using full service brake application; and

    1,283 Metres using with an emergency brake application.

    DVLA
    Clive Efford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the information held by the DVLA. [80805]

    Mr. Jamieson
    DVLA carried out a postal survey in January 2001 to establish the overall accuracy of its records. The survey indicated that 92 per cent. of mail issued by the Agency was delivered to the correct vehicle keeper. Work is underway to improve further on these accuracy levels.

    Emissions
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what emissions of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) hydrocarbons, (c) oxides of nitrogen and (d) particulates are generated by (i) a four car new DMU train on a normal commuter service, (ii) a new bus on an urban test cycle, and (iii) an average new car on an urban test cycle. [81254]

    Mr. Spellar
    The emissions are shown in the following table. The data for road vehicles are from the 2001 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. The data for rail are from a recent study carried out by NETCEN.

    g/vehicle km

    NOx

    PM

    CO

    HC

    4 car DMU train

    26.75

    0.85

    8.16

    2.51

    Urban bus

    6.748

    0.216

    1.625

    0.725

    Urban car

    0.190

    0.0058

    0.813

    0.046

    264W
    The train emissions are for a Virgin Voyager Class 221 with one power car and three trailer cars. It should, however, be noted that the majority of commuting by train is in London and the south east, where the majority of trains are electric and so have zero local emissions. The car and bus data refer to Euro III standards (ie current standards for new vehicles) at an urban speed. The car emissions are averages, weighted by the proportion of petrol and diesel cars in the fleet. A full environmental comparison would need to incorporate occupancy figures but comparative data per passenger km are not available.

    Heathrow (Land Values)
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department or is planned of the potential value of land at Heathrow for uses other than aviation; what other(a) social, (b) economic and (c) environmental assessment has taken place [81406]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 20 November 2002]: As part of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) analysis a wide ranging social, economic and environmental assessment of airport development options at Heathrow was undertaken. These are summarised in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom—South East" consultation document. The analysis takes account of the costs of acquiring, at market value, the additional land which would be required. No assessment has been made, or is planned, of the potential value of the existing airport land at Heathrow for uses other than aviation.

    IT Security
    Brian White
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80770]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The security of the Department's IT system is kept under constant review. Separate figures are not available for the number of digital attacks on the Department's IT system, as the Department shares with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the IT network of their predecessor (the Department for Transport, Local Government, and the Regions). For that IT network, the number of digital attacks detected was(a) 18 in October and (b) 266 in 2002 up to the end of October.

    London Traffic
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people enter London by(a) the M1 and (b) the Great Northern railway between 8 am and 9 am on a working weekday morning. [81252]

    Mr. Spellar
    The average number of vehicles entering London by the Ml between 8 am and 9 am on a week day morning is 4,240. The Highways Agency does not have details of the number of occupants in these vehicles.
    265W
    The Great North Eastern Railway (GNER) brings into London Kings Cross on average 2,800 people in the hour 8 am. to 9 am. on a normal working weekday. This figure may fluctuate a little as commuters do not always travel on the same train.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people enter London by(a) the Great Western Railway and (b) the M4 between 8 am and 9 am on a working weekday morning. [81253]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are between 11,000 and 12,000 people entering London between 8 am and 9 am using trains which operate into London Paddington. The exact figure will vary a little from day to day as not all commuters use the same trains every day.

    The average number of vehicles entering London by the M4 between 8 am and 9 am on a weekday morning is 5,520. The Highways Agency does not have details of the number of occupants in these vehicles.

    Maritime and Coastguard Agency
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his restructuring of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and what further plans he has to restructure it. [81657]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The structure and management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are matters for its chief executive, Maurice Storey. Mr. Storey is responsible for ensuring that the agency meets its targets effectively and efficiently. All chief executives must keep organisational structures under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.

    Merchant Navy
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage recruitment of(a) British officers and (b) cadets in the Merchant Navy. [80958]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In December 1998 this Government's introduction of a tonnage based corporation tax for UK tax resident shipping companies requires applicant companies to satisfy a minimum training obligation and recruit and train one British Cadet for every 15 officers. We estimate the number of cadets undergoing training for the year, as of October 2002, to be in the order of 650. The total cumulative training commitment for the training year beginning October 2002 is 660. This is an encouraging and significant increase on previous years.

    Under the Support for Maritime Training Scheme the Government has made available 9.4million for merchant navy training for this financial year.

    The Government appreciates that the consequence of the tonnage tax has been an increased demand for cadets. We are therefore heartened and supportive of the industry led initiative to raise the profile of the maritime industry in the eyes of the general public. This major campaign, co-ordinated by the Chamber of Shipping, has the active support of over 70 maritime organisations including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and goes under the title of "Sea Vision UK". The campaign is gaining momentum and hopes to attract public attention at the London Boat Show in January 2003 and other events through the year.
    266W

    Ministerial Cars
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars are(a) owned and (b) leased by the Department for the use of Ministers and employees. [81022]

    Mr. Spellar
    (a)(b)

    New Roads and Railways
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new road are under construction in London and the South-East under the supervision of the Highways Agency. [81256]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Highways Agency is supervising the construction of 35.2 miles of road in the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent. This includes the on-line widening of the A2/M2 road.

    Transport for London is responsible for roads in London.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent in each year from 1990 on the construction of(a) new roads and (b) new railway lines, excluding in both cases the refurbishment of existing capacity. [81576]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

    Expenditure on the construction of new roads and rail lines

    £million1

    National roads

    Jubilee line extension

    1990–91

    1,270

    41

    1991–92

    1,277

    62

    1992–93

    1,309

    67

    1993–94

    1,345

    255

    1994–95

    1,218

    371

    1995–96

    1,125

    588

    1996–97

    1,007

    657

    1997–98

    875

    476

    1998–99

    714

    283

    1999–2000

    663

    655

    2000–01

    677

    0

    2001–02

    829

    0

    2002–03

    1,032

    0

    2003–04

    1,003

    0

    2004–05

    1,196

    0

    2005–06

    1,206

    0

    Total

    16,746

    3,455

    1Outturn prices

    Notes:

    Total expenditure on construction of the channel tunnel rail link to the end of 2000–01 was £1,343 million. An annual breakdown of this figure could be provided only at disproportionate cost. An additional £983 million was spent in 2001–02.

    The figures for national roads are not on a consistent basis over the whole period because of a change in the way that the information was classified from 1994–95 onwards. The figures from 2002–03 are for all work on national roads other than maintenance, although actual expenditure will depend on progress on specific schemes.

    The table excludes spending on the construction of new local roads because this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The JLE figure for 1999–2000 reflects an estimated accrual in London Transport's accounts for 1999–2000 to cover Jubilee line extension works in future years.
    267W
    These figures exclude spending on the construction of light rail schemes.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of(a) new railway line and (b) new dual carriageway road he plans in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [81027]

    Mr. Spellar
    The first section of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is expected to open by the end of 2003. This is 46 miles of new railway, the first major new railway line in over 100 years. Other proposals for enhancement to the network are set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan, which it is required to update annually.18.2 miles of new dual carriageway trunk road are planned to be opened in the remainder of 2002–03, 64.9 miles of new dual carriageway trunk road are planned to be opened in 2003–04 and 7.9 miles of new dual carriageway trunk road are planned to be opened in 2004–05.

    Additional dual carriageway standard local authority roads are planned to be opened over these years; the timetable for their construction is in the hands of the relevant local authority.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of(a) new dual carriageway road and (b) new railway line have been constructed in the last two years. [81028]

    Mr. Spellar
    11.4 miles of new dual carriageway trunk and local road have been constructed in 2000 and 20.2 miles of new dual carriageway trunk and local road have been constructed in 2001 No new railway lines were constructed in 2000 or 2001.

    New Station (Wokingham)
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the project for a new station at Wokingham will begin on the ground. [81258]

    Mr. Spellar
    A Rail Passenger Partnership bid has been received, and is being evaluated by the Strategic Rail Authority, which will meet South West Trains soon to discuss the matter further.

    Paddington Station
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains an hour can enter Paddington from the west; and what his plans are for capacity for Paddington. [81249]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are approximately 28 trains per hour entering London Paddington station at peak times. The Strategic Rail Authority has invited comments on a consultation paper on its capacity utilisation policy. In order to make the best use of existing capacity at Paddington, the Authority intends to create a new Greater Western franchise out of the existing First Great Western, Wessex and Thames franchises.

    Rail Projects
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those projects from the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan launched in January 268W
    which have been (a) amended, (b) dropped and (c) added subsequently; and what the (i) timing and (ii) total cost of each project was. [81739]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The SRA is required to update its Strategic Plan annually. We expect a revised version to be published in early 2003.

    Road Schemes
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those major road schemes in the local transport settlements for 1999 to 2001 which were(a) provisionally approved and (b) considered 'work in progress', and which have been subsequently (i) approved, (ii) 'provisionally approved' and where there is work still in progress. [81746]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The following are the current classifications for schemes which were "provisionally approved" by Ministers in the local transport settlements between 1999 and 2001. Those marked with an * were originally classified as "work in progress" in a previous settlement.

    (i)Approved

    The following five schemes are open to traffic:

    Ashby Bypass Stage 2 (Leicestershire)

    A131 Great Leighs Bypass (Essex)

    Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road (Regent Road/Gore Street) (Manchester/Salford)

    Broome and Ellingham Bypass (Norfolk)

    A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement (Nottinghamshire)

    A689 Sedgefield to Wynyard Improvement (Durham)

    Semington to Melksham Improvement (Wiltshire)

    Biddulph Inner Bypass (Staffordshire)*

    Bridgwater Northern Distributor (Somerset)

    Burntwood Bypass (Staffordshire)

    Baldock Bypass (Hertfordshire)

    Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3 (Barnsley)

    Scarborough Integrated Transport Scheme (North Yorkshire)

    A53 Hodnet Bypass (Shropshire)

    South Stockton Link (Stockton-on-Tees)

    A6023 Denarby Main Diversion (Doncaster)

    Still Provisionally Approved

    A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (Nottinghamshire)

    A507 Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link (Bedfordshire)

    Bedford Western Bypass (Bedfordshire)

    Stowmarket B1115 Relief Road (Suffolk)

    A142 Fordham Bypass (Cambridgeshire)

    A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade W. Bypass (Buckinghamshire)

    Nar Ouse Regeneration Project (Norfolk)

    South Lowestoft Relief Road (Suffolk)*

    W. Thurrock Regeneration Ring Road (Thurrock)

    A1073 Spalding to Eye Improvement (Lincolnshire/Peterborough)

    A607 Rearsby Bypass (Leicestershire/Leicester City)

    Earl Shilton Bypass (Leicestershire)

    A158/C541 Coastal Access Improvement (Lincolnshire)

    Southern Radial Route (Sunderland)

    269W

    Eastern Transport Corridor (Darlington)*

    A688 Wheatley Hill to Bowburn Link (Durham)

    A167 Chilton Bypass (Durham)

    Scotswood Road Improvement (Tyne and Wear)

    Carlisle Northern Development Route (Cumbria)*

    Bridgefoot Environmental Enhancement (Warrington)

    Glossop Spur (Tameside)

    Hall Lane Area Improvement Scheme (Liverpool)*

    East Kent Access Phase 1 (Kent)

    Brunel Link and Harnham Relief Road (Wiltshire)

    Barnstaple Western Bypass (Devon)*

    NW Taunton Package (Somerset)

    A39 Camelford Bypass (Cornwall)

    Weymouth Relief Road (Dorset)*

    Rugeley Bypass (Staffordshire)*

    Hanley Bentilee Link (Stoke-On-Trent)*

    Barford Bypass (Warwickshire)

    Cradley Heath Town Centre (Sandwell)

    Rugby Western Bypass (Warwickshire)

    Northfield Regeneration Route (Birmingham)

    Owen Street Relief Road (Sandwell)

    Inner Relief Road—Stages 2 and 3 (Sheffield)*

    Glasshoughton Coalfields Link Road (Wakefield)

    A631 W. Bawtry Road Improvement (Rotherham)*

    Hemsworth—A1 Link Road (Wakefield)

    A1198 Papworth Everard Bypass (Cambridgeshire)

    Markham Employment Growth Zone (Derbyshire)*

    East Corridor South (Luton)

    A612 Gedling ITP Scheme (Nottinghamshire)

    A34 Alderley Edge Bypass (Cheshire)*

    A228 Main Road to Ropers Lane (Phase 1) (Medway)*

    Bletchley Link (Milton Keynes)*

    Junction 11 M4 Improvement Proposals (Reading)

    Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative (Poole)*

    Selly Oak Relief Road (Birmingham)*

    A628 Cudworth and West Green Bypass (Barnsley)*

    Oakham Bypass (Rutland)*

    A57(T) M1 Junction 31–Todwick Crossroads (Rotherham)

    Pegswood Bypass (Northumberland)

    A6096 Ilkeston Awsworth Link (Derbyshire)*

    Kiln Lane Link (Surrey)*

    In addition to the above schemes, the following schemes which were classified as "work In progress" by Ministers in the Transport Settlements between 1999 and 2001

    are:

    (i)Approved

    None

    (ii) Still Work In Progress (some have not been resubmitted in subsequent settlement rounds)

    Inner Relief Road (Leeds)

    Cadishead Way (Salford)

    Integrated Transport Scheme (Wigan)

    Roscommon Way Extension (Essex)

    Northern Gateway Stage 2 (North Tyneside)

    Central Route (Sunderland)

    A24 Horsham Capel Improvement (W.Sussex)

    Ashton Northern Bypass (Phase 2) (Tameside)

    A36 Codford-Heytesbury Improvement (Wiltshire)

    A350 Westbury Bypass (Wiltshire)

    270W

    M6 Heysham Link Road (Lancashire)

    Manchester Ship Canal Crossing (Warrington)

    Newhaven Port Access Road (East Sussex)

    E. Kent Access Phase 2 (Kent)

    A228 Ropers Lane to Grain (Phase 2) (Medway)

    A418 Wing Bypass (Buckinghamshire)

    A33 Interchanges (Reading)

    Wylye Valley Relief Road (Wiltshire)

    A4 Bath Road—Callington Road Link (Bristol)

    Westbury Bypass (Wiltshire)

    Town Centre Transport Package (Walsall)

    City Centre Link (Stoke-On-Trent)

    A244 Cross Thames Transport Corridor (Surrey)

    S. Humber Bank Link Road (Stage 2)

    (N.E. Lincolnshire)

    Birkenhead Town Link Diversion (Wirral)

    Great Yarmouth A47/A149 Link Road (Norfolk)

    N. Gateway Stage 3 (N. Tyneside)

    Tunstall N. Bypass (Stoke-on-Trent)

    School Transport
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has(a) been conducted and (b) is planned by his Department; and what research has been assessed by his Department on the steps needed to reduce the cost of starting up new home to school transport. [81732]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department has recently commissioned independent consultants to evaluate the American-style yellow school bus pilots which First is running and other innovative school bus schemes. The objectives of the evaluation include comparing the daily cost per capita to local authorities of running a First pilot vehicle to that of running a traditional school contract vehicle. The study is expected to report in August 2003 and we expect to issue a statement on the interim findings next month.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been conducted and (b) is planned by his Department on the implications on (i) road safety, (ii) congestion and (iii) pollution of changes in home to school transport which (A) have taken place, and (B) could arise from additional improvements in home to school transport. [81736]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In March 2001 the then DTLR commissioned W. S. Atkins to assess what the effects would be of increasing the current provision of home-to-school transport. The study, which reported at the end of 2001, identified considerable interest in using home-to-school transport among households that were currently not entitled to free home to school transport. It concluded that relaxing the eligibility criteria would have a noticeable impact on car use. Copies of the report "Assessment of parental attitudes to and the potential take-up of additional home to school transport" are available in the Libraries of the House.

    My Department has recently commissioned independent consultants to evaluate the American style yellow school bus pilots that First are running. The objectives of the evaluation include assessing how successful the pilots have been in reducing the number of journeys to school by car, comparing the safety

    271W

    record of the First pilot vehicles with that of the vehicles traditionally used for school bus services and assessing their impact on other accident rates in the area. The study is expected to report in August 2003 and we expect to issue a statement on the interim findings next month.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State (1) for Transport what funding mechanisms are available directly from his Department to(a)local authorities and (b) other education bodies for improving school transport in order to (i) improve road safety, (ii) tackle congestion and (iii) tackle pollution; [81737]

    (2) what funding mechanisms have been available directly from his Department to (a) local authorities and (b) other education bodies for improving school transport in each year since 1992. [81738]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department does not provide specific funding for school transport. Responsibility for the provision of statutory home to school transport lies with the Department for Education and Skills.

    However, as part of their Local Transport Plan strategies, whose objectives must include the improvement of safety, the promotion of accessibility and the protection of the environment, local authorities in England can propose strategies to provide support for and improve school transport provision. They may also take advantage of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding route. An example of the latter is Surrey County Council's (Pegasus) School Bus Scheme for which my Department announced 16 million in PFI credits, which will be paid through supporting special grant, in December 2002.

    Local authorities are able to fund bus services that would not otherwise be provided from their Revenue Support Grant; in some cases these will be on routes that serve schools. They may also bid for funding for innovative road passenger transport schemes, which may include school transport services, under the Rural and Urban Bus Challenge schemes.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce speed limits in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [80886]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Legislation is already in place that allows local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits. Traffic calmed 20 mph zones have been particularly successful as they ensure compliance with the speed limit thereby substantially reducing the risk of accidents.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance exists for the erection of 30mph repeaters in lit streets. [80621]

    Mr. Jamieson
    None. The use of repeaters on 30mph lit roads (restricted roads) is strictly prohibited.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to whom the(a) Chairman and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority, (b) Directors of the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) Organisation of the Strategic Rail Authority are accountable; what
    272W
    actions are required in each case to report on their delivery and performance; what requirements are placed on each by his Department in terms of delivery and performance; and what actions his Department can take where delivery and performance targets are not being met. [81741]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The chair and members of the Strategic Rail Authority are appointed by Ministers and collectively responsible to the Secretary of State for the overall performance of the Authority.

    They are required to operate within the bounds of statute and in accordance with any directions and guidance from the Secretary of State issued under sections 206(3) and 207(5) of the Transport Act 2000. The authority must also comply with a statutory financial framework and its management statement. Copies of these documents are available in the House Library.

    The management of the authority, within this framework, is a matter for the chair, chief executive and members. The authority reports on its performance in its annual report, which is laid before the House in accordance with section 75 of the Railways Act 1993.

    Traffic Lights
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic lights in London have been replaced in the last two years. [81245]

    Mr. Spellar
    Traffic lights in London are the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). Further information can be obtained from:

    Jim Landles

    Assistant Director of Traffic Technology Services

    TfL Street Management

    Windsor House

    42–50 Victoria Street

    London SWIHOTL

  TREASURY

    Bankers (Northern Ireland) Act
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what general or special licences have been issued under section 2 of the Bankers (Northern Ireland) Act 1928 in the past five years. [80721]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: None.

    Budget Projections
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the difference between the Budget projections of 2001–02 and the projection based on actual receipts in 2002–03 to 30 September 2002 for(a) income and capital gains taxes, (b) corporation tax and (c) stamp duties. [82284]

    Ruth Kelly
    Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, an interim update of projections for tax receipts will be published in the forthcoming pre-Budget Report.
    273W

    Company Cars
    Ms Atherton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the use of fuel-efficient company cars following changes to the taxation of company cars introduced on 1 April; what steps have been taken to encourage employers to consult employees on company policy following the changes; and what evidence he has reviewed of the change in the number of vehicles of commercial vehicle status purchased by companies since 1 April. [81664]

    John Healey
    The Inland Revenue has begun an extensive evaluation programme to look at the effects of the company car tax reforms introduced in April this year. Results of the evaluation are not yet available.

    The changes have been widely publicised.

    Financial Services Authority
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what action is being taken by the Financial Services Authority to address the problems caused by the collapse of the professional indemnity insurance market for independent financial advisers in the United Kingdom. [80675]

    Ruth Kelly
    This is a matter for the FSA. I understand that in a press statement on 29 October 2002, the FSA announced technical changes to its rulebook regarding professional indemnity insurance. The FSA has explained that it introduced these new, temporary measures to increase capacity in the market for professional indemnity insurance.

    Fire Service
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister regarding funding sources for a possible increase in firefighters' pay. [81791]

    Ruth Kelly
    Deployment of the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Treasury is in regular contact with the office on a range of financial issues.

    Firefighters' Dispute
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of a national firefighters' strike to the UK economy per day. [81790]

    Ruth Kelly
    Estimated costs to the UK economy of fires were set out in Home Office Research Study 229 (October 2001) entitled "The economic costs of fire". It is not possible to reliably estimate in advance the costs to the UK economy of a firefighters' strike given the number of factors involved, including the different capacity offered by emergency cover arrangements compared with the normal fire service.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much an(a) 11 per cent., and (b) 40 per cent., increase in firelighters' pay would cost HM Treasury over the next five years. [81789]
    274W
    Ruth Kelly
    Estimated spending on fire services (the Fire Standard Spending Assessment) is set out in the Government's White Paper: "2002 Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 2003–2006", published in July 2002. Actual spending on fire services, including pay, is determined by fire authorities and will include an element derived from local taxation.

    London Underground
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with representatives of Amey concerning the delayed public-private partnership of London underground; and if he will make a statement. [81787]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 114W–15W.

    Military Action Costs (Middle East)
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made regarding the cost to HM Treasury of military action in the Middle East; and what discussions his Department has had with the Ministry of Defence about action as a result of the UN resolution against Iraq. [81802]

    Ruth Kelly
    Officials of HM Treasury and the Ministry of Defence routinely discuss potential contingencies. The cost of any UK contribution to military action would depend on a number of factors, including the scale of the UK contribution and the duration of military action. No decisions have, however, been taken to commit UK Armed Forces to new military action in the Middle East. Military action is neither imminent nor inevitable, and will not be necessary if Iraq chooses to comply fully with UNSCR1441.

    National Air Traffic Services
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of a national air traffic controllers' strike to the UK economy. [81806]

    Ruth Kelly
    No such assessment has been made.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the research his Department undertook before deciding on the level of the national minimum wage; [81805]

    (2) what recent representations he has received from (a) trade unions, (b) industry and (c) other interested parties regarding the level of the national minimum wage. [81803]

    Alan Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    When setting the level of the national minimum wage the Government take account of the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission. The commission has recently consulted widely as part of the process of preparing its fourth report on the minimum wage and industry, trade unions and other interested parties will have made representations to them, although we have received copies of these from only a

    275W
    small number of respondents. The Government submitted their evidence to the commission earlier this month and a copy of this has been placed on my Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk. We expect the commission to present the fourth report to the Government in February 2003.

    Network Rail
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's interests in Network Rail, taking into account the UK accounting principles. [81809]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government does not have an equity stake in Network Rail nor does it control the company's governing board. Government has made certain credit facilities available to the company. UK accounting principles includes both Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) used to prepare company accounts, and the European System of Accounts (ESA95) used by the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of economic statistics. Sir John Bourne (the Comptroller and Auditor General) and Len Cook (the National Statistician) made a joint statement on 24 October on how these accounting rules affect Network Rail. This is available on the ONS and NAO web sites.

    Office for National Statistics
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the data series produced by National Statistics to which Ministers in his Department have had privileged access prior to publication since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [80413]

    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 Taylor, dated 21 November 2002:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning data series produced by National Statistics to which Ministers have had privileged access prior to publication since May 1997. (80413)

    Historical information is not held centrally. Treasury Ministers currently receive pre-release access to the following statistics released by the Office for National Statistics:

    2001 Census Statistics—first release

    Balance of Payments First Release

    Business Enterprise R&D

    Business Investment

    Consumer Prices Index

    Environmental Accounts in Blue Book

    Foreign Direct Investment

    GDP Preliminary First Release

    Government Debt Under Maastricht

    Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D

    Health Statistics Quarterly

    Index of Distribution

    Index of Production

    Investment by Insurance Companies

    Labour Market Statistics (UK and Regional)—First Release

    Life Expectancy [by sub-national geographies and socio-economic classifications] Low Pay Estimates

    276W

    Motor Vehicles Production

    New Earnings Survey

    Outcome Income and Expenditure

    Overseas Travel and Tourism

    Pilot UK Health Accounts

    Population Trends

    Producer Prices Index

    Productivity

    national

    Profitability of UK Companies

    Public Sector Accounts

    Public Sector Finance

    Regional Accounts

    Quarterly National Accounts

    Retail Sales Index

    Social Trends

    The effect of taxes and benefits on household income

    UK Trade

    Pensions Dividend Tax
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of Government policy on pensions dividend tax in relation to the value of stocks and shares listed on the(a) FTSE 100 share index and (b) FTSE 250 share index. [81783]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government ended the payment of dividend tax credits to pension providers and other tax-exempt investors in order to encourage companies to retain more of their profits for investment and long-term growth. Over time, this measure will help to enhance the value of stocks and shares in listed companies.

    Public Finance Initiative
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the revised accounting treatment for PFI transactions will be recorded in the government accounts; and if he will make a statement. [80126]

    Ruth Kelly
    The government's policy when accounting for PFI contracts is to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP). In particular, Application Note F to Financial Reporting Standard 5—Private Finance Initiatives and Similar Contract complemented by the Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No.1(Revised) How to Account for PFI Transactions.

    The guidance requires that PFI projects are recorded in accounts in the year the project becomes operational.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce external auditing of PSAs; and if he will make a statement. [80588]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government announced in its response to Lord Sharman's report on Audit and Accountability in Central Government that it has invited the Comptroller & Auditor General to take responsibility, under his existing powers, for the validation of systems used in reporting on PSA targets where measurement of performance depends upon data.
    277W
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish statistics this autumn to fulfil his pledge in the 2002 Budget to publish bi-annual reports of departmental progress against public service agreement targets. [80590]

    Ruth Kelly
    Updates of progress against public service agreement targets will shortly be published by departments in their autumn performance reports.

    Public-private Partnerships and PFI
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his Department is reviewing the use of the Private Finance Initiative and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement; [81812]

    (2) what plans he has to review the bidding process for public-private partnerships. [81785]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government keep all aspects of procurement policy under review in order to ensure that high quality public services are delivered on the basis of value for money.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the off-balance-sheet borrowings funding projects on the Private Finance Initiative and public private-partnerships are(a) fully guaranteed and (b) effectively guaranteed. [81813]

    Ruth Kelly
    A full guarantee is in place in relation to the bonds issued by London and Continental Railways for the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This represents a contingent liability of £3.75 billion and has been laid before the House.

    No borrowings related to PFI and PPP are effectively guaranteed.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters of comfort his Department has issued in association with the public private-partnership financing scheme. [81814]

    Ruth Kelly
    Details of all letters of comfort which fall within the definition of a reportable non-statutory liability in Chapter 26 of "Government Accounting" have been provided in minutes laid before the House of Commons. The exceptions are those cases where commercial confidentiality has required that they be reported in confidence in writing to the Chair of Public Accounts Committee.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks and balances are in place to ensure that investment through public-private partnership and Public Finance Initiative offers value for money for the Government. [81815]

    Ruth Kelly
    This Government only uses PFI where there is a clear value for money case to do so. Specific procurement decisions are a matter for individual Departments concerned.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's system for accounting for public-private partnerships and the Private Finance Initiative; [81811]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's liabilities, including those under PFI. [81807]
    278W
    Ruth Kelly
    All Government liabilities are disclosed on the basis of openness and transparency. Independent auditors determine the accounting treatment for PFI and public-private partnership projects. The Government record all future PFI obligations in the Budget Red Book and reports to Parliament any contingent liabilities over £100,000.

    Suicide
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people committed suicide in each year since 1992. [82693]

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

    Letter from L. Cook to Mr. P. Marsden, dated 21 November 2002:

    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many people have committed suicide in each year since 1992. (82693)

    The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1992 to 2001 are given in the table below.

    Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted1, persons, England and Wales,1992 to 20012

    Calendar year

    Number of deaths

    1992

    5,486

    1993

    5,251

    1994

    5,144

    1995

    5,157

    1996

    4,893

    1997

    4,981

    1998

    5,154

    1999

    5,188

    2000

    4,922

    2001

    4,699

    1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1992 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

    2 Figures are for deaths registered in 1992 and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

    Terrorist Funds
    Mr. Wray
    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in co-operating with other European Treasury Departments in neutralising terrorist funds. [81063]

    Ruth Kelly
    As made clear in the recent joint Treasury/Home Office report "Combating the Financing of Terrorism: A Report on UK action", many of the measures to target, disrupt and cut off terrorist financing are taken at international level. The Treasury works in close cooperation with its European counterparts and others, including the financial services industry, to ensure the effectiveness of these measures in the fight against terrorism. EC Regulations have been introduced which require all EU members to freeze the assets of terrorists and those listed by the UN Sanctions Committee as associated with bin Laden, Al Qa'ida and the Taliban.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Annuities
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of annuitants had annuitised over £100,000 of pensions savings in each of the last five years; and if he will estimate what the effect on annuity rates would be were the excess over £100,000 not annuitised. [82063]

    Mr. McCartney
    Estimates taken from data collected by the Association of British Insurers show that around 3 per cent. of pension funds used to purchase annuities in 2001 were £100,000 or larger.

    Figures for earlier years are not available.

    No assessment has been made of what the effect on annuity rates would be if people were not required to annuitised that proportion of their pension fund in excess of £100,000. The Government believes that, once any tax-free lump sum has been taken, the remaining funds built up in a pension fund should be used to provide an income in retirement

    Benefits
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on(a) contributory and (b) non-contributory benefits in the last 12 months. [82062]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Data on total expenditure on contributory and non-contributory benefits is included in the Department for Work and Pensions consolidated resource account.

    Data on contributory and non-contributory benefits for 2000–01 was included in the Department of Social Security consolidated resource account published on 31 January 2002 (HC 491). The 2001–02 resource account is scheduled to be published on 31 January 2003.

    Post Office Card Account
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultations have been carried out with benefit recipients on the advantages and disadvantages of(a) the basic bank account and (b) the Post Office card account. [82165]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We have discussed the changes widely with interested groups, who have been given an opportunity to comment on the information materials that will be issued to our customers. Our information campaign will take customers through the changes. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options (including the key features of each type of account) and enables them to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances.

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost per transaction will be of paying(a) the basic state pension and (b) child benefit through (i) the basic bank account and (ii) the Post Office card account [82166]
    280W
    Malcolm Wicks
    The cost of making payments to the Post Office card account is less than 1p, as it is for basic bank accounts, however the Government pays additional costs to the Post Office for the provision of the Post Office card account services. These costs remain commercial in confidence.

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of(a) the likely take-up of the Post Office card account and (b) the cost to the Department thereof [82170]

    Malcolm Wicks
    There is operating assumption that three million card accounts will be opened. The cost will depend on take-up which is itself dependent on a variety of factors including the numbers of benefit, pension and tax credit customers and the choices that customers make between different types of accounts.

    SERPS
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to how many recipients of his initial letter regarding changes to the rules regarding inherited SERPs he plans to send a further letter of clarification following the referral of one such letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [82277]

    Mr. McCartney
    Officials are currently finalising detailed plans in response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman's findings. However, we expect to be writing to around 500,000 individuals to offer further clarification of their SERPS position.

    The background to this is that the Pension Service has sent out 5.1 million letters to people who will reach state pension age between 6 October 2002 and 5 October 2010. This letter informed them of the changes to the rules regarding the inheritance of SERPS announced to the House by my predecessor on 29 November 2000 and subsequently approved by Parliament in March 2001.

    This letter gave people the option of requesting a SERPS estimate, and by 16 November some 1,248,104 estimates had been requested.

    This follow-up estimate letter was the subject of exhaustive drafting and an approval process that included the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and outside bodies. One key complexity was around how to explain SERPS and its interaction with Contracted Out Deductions (COD).

    However, it has come our attention that some people may have possibly misunderstood the estimate despite the caveat in the letter. This group may believe that they stand to receive their full SERPS without appreciating that if they have contracted out, their SERPS will be lower because of their occupational or private pension scheme.

    We have therefore decided that officials should write again to all those people who have received an estimate letter and have some COD deductions except people who will reach pension age between now and 5 July 2003-they will get pre-retirement pensions claim material including full personal details of their new final entitlement.
    281W
    In addition we will continue the provision of the very successful Contact Centre, incorporating a helpline which has already dealt with in excess of 270,000 phone calls and 1.5 million pieces of post.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Nappies
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to encourage families, nurseries and hospitals to switch to traditional cotton nappies. [81222]

    Mr. Meacher
    A growing number of councils are promoting the use of re-usable nappies. For instance, both West Sussex and Oxfordshire provide subsidies for parents who use re-usable nappies. A number of councils also take part in awareness-raising initiatives.

    Grants have also been made from Defra's £140 million Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to councils promoting waste minimisation to their communities. A project aimed at increasing the use of re-usable nappies is among these, and a number will include nappies as part of their programmes.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she proposes to maximise the potential development for combined heat and power plants. [81224]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Department recently consulted on a draft CHP Strategy that sets out the measures thought sufficient to achieve the CHP target of at least 10,000 mega watts of good quality CHP by 2010. The Government are currently developing an Energy White Paper that aims to set out future energy policy to and beyond 2010. This will include consideration of CHP.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Bacon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the pig industry scheme for Outgoers. [81225]

    Mr. Morley
    The Outgoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (PIRS), which was introduced as part of the Action Plan for Farming, and is now closed to applications, provided assistance of £15.6 million in 2001 to pig farmers seeking to leave the industry. Under the Ongoers element, £10.9 million was offered this year and next to producers who wished to restructure their businesses to become more viable in the long term.

    Agrimonetary Compensation
    Sir Robert Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her European Union counterparts on a succession scheme to agrimonetary compensation. [81227]
    282W
    Alun Michael
    My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has had no discussions with European Union counterparts on a successor scheme to agrimonetary compensation.

    EC Fisheries Council Meeting
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will head the UK delegation at the next EC Fisheries Council Meeting. [81228]

    Mr. Morley
    EU negotiations are a reserved matter as laid out in the terms of the, devolution settlement, and Defra is the lead Department. UK negotiating positions are agreed with the involvement of devolved administrations.

    Corporate Environmental Reporting
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to encourage corporate environmental reporting. [81229]

    Mr. Meacher
    We have produced a series of guidelines to help companies measure and report their environmental performance, including general guidelines published last year, and more specific guidance on reporting the key impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water. The general guidelines were endorsed by the CBI and sent to approximately 3,000 of their members, and to all of the leading FTSE 350 listed companies.

    We have written this year to companies in the FTSE 350, asking them what they had done to respond to the Prime Minister's challenge to report on their environmental performance. A list of the results was placed in the Library of the House in July.

    We have also been working with the Department for Trade and Industry on plans for some important new reporting provisions, set out in the White Paper on Modernising Company Law, published this summer. These would require approximately 1,000 of the most economically significant companies to include information on environmental, social and community issues relevant to the company's business in a new Operating and Financial Review. We are supporting the Department of Trade and Industry in establishing an independent group of experts to help develop guidance on how directors should assess whether an item is material to their company and would therefore have to be included in its OFR. The membership of the group will be announced shortly.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's strategy for combating bovine TB. [81230]

    Mr. Morley
    Bovine TB in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems being faced, and the increase in its incidence is continuing to give considerable concern. The Government are keen to
    283W
    tackle the problem and have implemented a wide-ranging strategy at a cost of £35 to £40 million a year. Action is centred around a five-point strategy as follows:

    protecting human health;

    developing a TB vaccine;

    carrying out research into bovine TB;

    testing cattle for TB and putting controls in place; and

    the randomised badger culling field trial.

    The strategy is kept under review by officials. Some elements of the overarching bovine TB strategy will not produce results in the immediate future, e.g. the badger culling trial and development of a TB vaccine. We are therefore exploring and, where appropriate, implementing interim measures to help control bovine TB, while taking account of the affects of disease control measures on farmers.

    A package of measures was announced in early October. This introduced:

    the licensed movement off farm of non-reactor cattle in certain specified circumstances;

    the imposition of movement restrictions on herds with overdue tests;

    a pilot project to assess the effectiveness of the gamma interferon blood test in detecting bovine TB; and

    the establishment of an industry group to monitor progress in implementing the new measures.

    Defra is currently considering how to manage the risk from movement of animals onto herds affected by bovine TB. An announcement will be made shortly.

    Recycling (Inner London Boroughs)
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to increase the level of recycling in waste by boroughs in inner London. [81231]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government have set statutory performance standards under the Best Value regime so that authorities must, on average, double their 1998–99 recycling rate by 2003–04 and triple their 1998–99 rates by 2005–06.

    We are providing funding to assist. Primarily, this is through additional revenue support grant, which all local authorities receive. This year the EPCS block, which includes funding for waste, will be £1.1 billion over baseline in 2000–01. In addition, we have put in place a waste minimisation and recycling fund challenge fund totalling £140 million over the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04. In London, we allocated £21 million of this challenge fund to a partnership between the Mayor of London, the Association of London Government, the GLA and London Waste Action. That partnership is allocating the funding to various recycling initiatives in London boroughs.

    Illegal waste
    Sir Sydney Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in the Environment Agency's role in tackling the dumping of illegal waste. [81232]
    284W
    Mr. Meacher
    The Environment Agency as purchased £120,000 worth of surveillance equipment that may be used in covert surveillance operations to identify fly-tippers attempting illegally to dump waste. This equipment has been distributed to all of the agency's regions for use in both the agency's Tyre Watch campaign to detect illegal dumping of waste tyres and to counter fly-tipping generally. The agency is working with local authorities to deploy such equipment at relevant sites and investigations made using this equipment will lead to prosecutions for those caught.

    The agency is also working closely with the Fly-tipping Stakeholder's Forum representing farmers, landowners, local authorities and others with the common aim of combating fly-tipping, better to establish the scale of fly-tipping and to develop measures to detect and prevent it.

    The agency investigated some 3,800 incidents in 2001–02 to ensure protection of the environment and has prosecuted a number of fly-tippers. In 2001–02, the agency won 132 successful prosecutions against fly-tippers.

    Air Pollution
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the changes in the levels of air pollution in large cities over the past five years. [81233]

    Alun Michael
    In general, levels of air pollution in large cities in the UK have reduced over the past five years, largely as a result of reductions in road transport emissions brought about by tighter specifications for new vehicles and fuels. The average number of days of moderate or higher air pollution at air monitoring sites in urban areas reduced from 48 days in 1996 to 21 days in 2001.

    Doorstep Recycling
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help she is giving to local authorities to improve doorstep recycling [81234]

    Mr. Meacher
    Individual local authorities are in a position to decide how best to meet the requirements we have put in place to increase recycling, taking into account local circumstances.

    However, we are providing additional funding to improve recycling rates, both through additional revenue support grant distributed to local authorities by formula and through a waste minimisation and recycling fund totalling £140 million over the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04. The latter is a challenge fund.

    Under the allocations from that fund outside London for 2002–03, we supported 112 schemes, more than 30 of which involved additional kerbside collection outside London.

    Waste Collection
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. [81235]
    285W
    Mr. Meacher
    We propose to amend the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 to allow waste collection authorities to serve notice on businesses, which will allow the authority to see their duty of care waste transfer notes. This should mean better enforcement of the duty of care requirements. The amended regulations should be laid before the House shortly.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Voluntary Initiative on pesticides use [81236]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government are committed to reducing the environmental impacts of pesticides. To this end, the Government have invited industry to implement a package of measures, under the badge of the "Voluntary Initiative". These measures are designed to deliver real environmental benefits over a five year period, commencing in April 2001.

    Year

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2002 planned

    Number of samples tested

    3,371

    3,742

    3,230

    3,449

    2,648

    2,187

    2,374

    2,304

    4,003

    4,000

    The surveys cover fruit and vegetables, cereal products, animal products and miscellaneous items such as bottled water or composite foods like baby foods. But otherwise, the commodities tested vary from year to year. Samples of both imported and UK origin produce are tested. The 2001 survey generated results for over 130,000 pesticide commodity combinations.

    The detailed results of the PRC's monitoring (and its predecessor the Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR)) (including the commodities tested) have been published and can be viewed on the relevant websites:

    www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm (PRC results)

    www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/WPPR/wppr.htm (WPPR results)

    These electronic results go back as far as 1996. Hard copies going back to 1992 are available in the House Library.

    The Department is also responsible for surveillance for veterinary residues. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) of Defra runs two surveillance schemes that look for residues of authorised veterinary medicines and banned substances. In total, over 35,000 samples are collected per annum. All of the results are published quarterly in the VMD's newsletter and annually since 1996 in a report on surveillance and previously in the VMD's Annual Report and Accounts. Copies of the Annual Reports are available in the House Library or the VMD's website www.vmd.gov.uk.

    The main, statutory, scheme collects samples from farms and abattoirs from throughout the UK and covers: red meat, poultry, farmed fish, eggs, farmed and wild game, milk and honey.
    286W
    The Government are closely monitoring progress on implementing the Voluntary Initiative. The Government hope that the initiative will produce results and urge farmers, growers and their advisers and suppliers to give it their full support. If the Voluntary Initiative does not produce tangible environmental benefits, the Government will need to take other action. One option would be a pesticides tax, which the Government believe could be a useful tool in conjunction with other measures.

    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many food samples by type were tested for pesticide and other residues in each of the last 10 years. [81585]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) conducts an annual pesticide residues surveillance programme for fruit and vegetables and other produce. This programme is now overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC).

    The number of samples tested in each of the last 10 years is indicated in the table.

    The second scheme complements the statutory scheme and concentrates on raw imported produce and samples of popular processed foods collected from shops.

    The two surveillance schemes are subject to independent scrutiny from the Veterinary Residues Committee, which was established in January 2001. Prior to that, the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues oversaw the work.

    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for pesticide residues and veterinary residues. Other food residues are a matter for the Food Standards Agency, who also takes the lead in monitoring food products for environmental contaminants.

    Landfill Directive
    Andrew Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what progress is being made by the UK in meeting the EU Landfill Directive. [81237]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 14 November. This will set the framework for achieving the targets on municipal biodegradable waste in Article 5(1) and (2) of the Directive to be met by the United Kingdom. For England and Wales, other aspects of the Directive were covered in The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002 no. 1559).
    287W

    Foot and Mouth
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on her policy on vaccinating against foot and mouth disease. [81238]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government's policy is set out in their Response to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries (Cm 5637), published on 6 November. Section 4.3 in particular deals with vaccination.

    Brassenthwaite Lake
    Tony Cunningham
    Tony Cunningham (Workington): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans the Environment Agency has to deal with the environmental problems suffered by Brassenthwaite Lake [81239]

    Mr. Morley
    The main environmental problem suffered by Bassenthwaite Lake is eutrophication caused by an increase in nutrient levels, specifically phosphorous, due primarily to diffuse pollution and discharges from waste water treatment works.

    Nutrient enrichment of Bassenthwaite Lake will be addressed within the framework of the Environments Agency's national strategy (set out in an Agency publication entitled "Aquatic Eutrophication in England and Wales—A Management Strategy") and through a more targeted Bassenthwaite Lake Restoration Programme that is currently being developed.

    Two initiatives currently under way are:
    the use of the Agency's regulatory powers to reduce the discharge of phosphorous from Keswick waste water treatment works. The introduction of phosphorous stripping in 1996 has lead to a significant reduction in the amount of phosphorous being discharged to the lake. Additional upgrades to the treatment works planned for 2004 will further reduce phosphate discharges. The Environment Agency will consider what other enhancements are required to waste water treatment works within the Bassenthwaite catchment for the water utilities Asset Management Process period 2005 to 2010;
    the promotion of the Still Waters partnership within the catchment to promote solutions to nutrient enrichment caused by diffuse pollution that are beyond the remit of any one regulatory body or party. Since land use and land management practices are the primary cause of diffuse phosphorous entering Bassenthwaite Lake and diffuse sources are the biggest contributors of phosphorus pollution in the lake, the Still Waters partnership will focus on ways and means of reducing such inputs.

    Fishing Industry (Scotland)
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the fishing industry in Scotland. [81240]

    Mr. Morley
    I always discuss fishing issues affecting all parts of the United Kingdom with the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, in preparation for meetings of the EU Council of Ministers, and often in between Council meetings as well. There is constant contact between fisheries officials from Defra and their opposite numbers in the Scottish Executive.
    288W

    Vehicle Registration and Licensing Procedures
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what steps have been taken and are planned to tackle the problem of abandoned cars. [81241]

    Mr. Meacher
    In October 2001 we published a consultation document on measures to remove abandoned and untaxed vehicles from the streets more quickly and, for the longer term, bring forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record.

    Regulations reducing the statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles from the highway and the storage periods for unlicensed vehicles came into force on 9 April. Local authorities can now remove those vehicles that they consider merit destruction from the highway after the expiry of a 24 hour notice placed on them.

    We have supported pilot schemes in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham in which the local authority was given DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours. Following the success of the Newham pilot on 19 April, we announced that all councils who wished could operate in the same way

    In addition, councils have targeted over 6,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles in multi-Agency "Operation Cubits" with over 4,000 vehicles crushed and more operations are planned. To date we estimate that the operations have induced more than 15,000 motorists to relicense voluntarily bringing in over £2.3 million in additional revenue.

    The Government are currently developing proposals for the reform and modernisation of vehicle registration and licensing, to reduce evasion and to bear down on vehicle crime. In response to the recommendations of a report commissioned by the Department for Transport from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science DfT have established a Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board (MVRIB). This includes representatives of motorists' organisations, the motor trade, the police and the insurance industry to advise on and develop those proposals

    The 2002 Finance Act contained provisions under which the responsibility for licensing and taxing vehicles will be placed on the registered keeper, who will remain liable for doing so until such time that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has properly been notified of a change of keeper. These proposals will also mean that it is not necessary for a vehicle to be detected on the road for effective enforcement action to take place. The implementation of these new powers is at the heart of MVRIB's agenda.

    Collection of Flood Event Data
    Dr. John Pugh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department is taking to improve the collation of flood return statistics [81242]

    Mr. Morley
    The Environment Agency has established and implemented systems and procedures in all of its regions and areas covering England and Wales
    289W
    for the collection of flood event data during and after flooding. Flood and hydrometric data is collected from instrumentation (rain gauges, river level and flow recorders, tide gauges, wave buoys) and by using techniques such as aerial/remote sensing, land survey, on-site monitoring and post-event questionnaires

    A project led by the Environment Agency (funded by DEFRA) in collaboration with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland, is being carried out to improve the capture and archiving of flood flows at river gauging stations in the UK. Known as "HIFLOWS-UK", the main aim of the project is to extend and improve the data available for flood estimation primarily using Flood Estimation Handbook methods, and to develop a single authoritative UK dataset. The project also aims to make the data widely available and easily accessible via the Internet, and to establish structures and procedures for future updating and dissemination. The project is due to complete in March 2004

    Work started in 2002 to improve accessibility to sea level data. Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) who manage the UK Tide Gauge Network for DEFRA and the Scottish Executive are being given extra funding from DEFRA to collate a new data base of tide data over the last 30 years and make it available on CD. In addition recent historic data from the network is now freely available from the POL web site. In September 2002 DEFRA installed the first of two of a network of six near-shore wave recording gauges which, together with data from existing offshore wave gauges run by the Met Office, will be collated to form the first long term archive of wave data for England and Wales. Data from the archive will be freely available on the CEFAS web site who are managing the network for DEFRA

    In the South-East of England a new £8.2 million pilot project has been established by the Agency in partnership with all the maritime authorities (via the coastal groups) for the strategic regional coastal monitoring of the shoreline form and coastal processes (including wind, waves and tides). This project has been supported and grant-aided by DEFRA, and similar projects are likely to be established in other regions of England and Wales

    In all cases, collating date and making it freely available facilitates the user community who undertake statistical analysis including flood frequency analysis for many purposes.

    Ivory
    Mr. Desmond Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to prevent trade in ivory products; and if she will make a statement [80885]

    Mr. Morley
    Under EU CITES Regulations, commercial trade in ivory products, including internal sales is prohibited. The only exception relates to worked items acquired before 1 June 1947. The recent CITES 290W
    decision to allow a one-off sale of limited ivory stocks after May 2004, subject to strict conditions, will not affect the EU's current position on trade in ivory.

    Arable Farmers
    Mr. Alan Hurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to ensure fair competition for British arable farmers in the international grain trade [80481]

    Mr. Morley
    The terms of competition for UK farmers in the international grain trade are governed by the relevant provisions of the EU's common market organisation for cereals and the wider WTO framework. The Government's objective is to ensure that these are as fair and open as possible.

    Cattle
    Mr. Desmond Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the losses incurred by farmers as a consequence of the disappearance of cattle passport tear-off slips; and if she will make a statement. [80823]

    Alun Michael
    The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is currently reviewing the results of cross checks which it has carried out between the bovine subsidy claims made by farmers and the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) maintained by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). No reliable estimate can be made of the sums which may be withheld or applied by way of penalties until the review is complete Penalties will apply only where the RPA is satisfied that the claimants have failed to meet their obligation to ensure that details of their animals are properly registered on the CTS.

    Fallen Livestock
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the collection of fallen livestock for disposal and its relationship with existing livestock movement regulations; and if she will make a statement. [81160]

    (2) what assessment she has made of the relationship between fallen livestock and hunts; and if she will make a statement. [81158]

    (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of the use of incinerators for dealing with fallen livestock; and if she will make a statement [81162]

    (4) how many fallen livestock there have been in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region [81161]

    (5)what plans she has to provide financial support for the disposal of fallen livestock from 2003; and if she will make a statement [81159]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answers 20 November 2002]Since April 2002, the Government has been holding discussions with livestock and disposal industry stakeholders with the aim of developing a national fallen stock disposal scheme. At a stakeholder meeting on the 18 September the collection and disposal industries submitted a joint proposal for a National Fallen Stock collection and disposal scheme. I intend to meet the
    291W
    industries to discuss their proposal. However, it is for the livestock industry, like other industries, to pay for the disposal of its waste

    No specific assessment has been made of the collection of fallen stock and its relationship with existing livestock movement regulations. However, there was agreement at the stakeholder meeting that additional guidance on detailed bio- security would need to be produced if plans for the scheme were to be taken forward.

    Information regarding the number of fallen stock for each of the last 10 years is not available. However, it is estimated that something in the order of, at least, 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock will need to be collected annually. In arriving at this figure, assumptions have been made about mortality rates for adult and immature animals and their average weight.

    Hunts and incinerators are permitted disposal routes for fallen stock, and are used by many farmers. We estimate there to be around 2500 on-farm incinerators, mostly on pig and poultry farms.

    Flood Plains
    Andrew Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration has been given by the Environment Agency to identifying and preparing suitable areas of flood plains, adjacent to non-tidal reaches of rivers, for use as emergency wash-lands to minimise peak heights of floods occasioned by increases in the proportion of direct run-off as a result of changes in the amount and nature of precipitation. [80517]

    Mr. Morley
    Following the autumn 2000 floods the agency has been investigating solutions for the 700 affected locations. We consider whether it will be more appropriate to provide additional discharge capacity or to temporarily store excess water.

    The agency carries out the option with the best return, taking into account the technical, environmental and economic aspects. In some cases the preferred option will involve the creation of flood storage areas which are purpose built reservoirs.

    The agency ensures that the natural floodplain is utilised as much as possible during times of floods and seeks to prevent the location of inappropriate development in the floodplain.

    The agency is planning to complete catchment flood management plans for the whole of England and Wales over the next five to six years. These will consider the impact of future development, land use changes and climate change and will explore the use of wetlands, washlands and flood storage areas in reducing flood risk to local communities.

    Functional Foods
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations are in place to ensure that new functional foods claiming to improve mental and physical well-being are covered by a legal framework. [81059]
    292W
    Ms Blears
    There are no specific regulations in place to control the use of claims for improving mental and physical well-being made on 'functional' foods. Claims on foods are controlled by provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which prohibit false and misleading claims. In addition, the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended) lay down general labelling requirements for foods and prohibit medical claims i.e. claims that a food will prevent, treat or cure a disease.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been done in the past two years to promote scientific research into(a) the claims of functional foods and (b) their safety. [81060]

    Ms Blears
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Government has not taken any specific steps to promote scientific research into the claims made for "functional foods" or their safety. "Functional foods", like other foods, must comply with the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990, the Food Labelling Regulations (1969) as amended and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) supports the activities of the self-regulatory joint health claims initiative that has established a voluntary system for the scientific substantiation of health claims. The FSA also commissions a broad spectrum of research and surveys on nutrition and food safety, details of which are available through the agency's website.

    GM Technology
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how she plans to assess public opinion regarding GM technology and commercialization. [81226]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government is sponsoring a public dialogue on GM technology and this will focus on issues and concerns raised by the public. The outcome of the debate could be invaluable in informing the Government's approach to decision making, and our view of the overall framework in which decisions are taken. We will listen, and learn, from the views emerging from the debate.

    Imported Offal
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of(a) sheep, (b) cattle, (c)pig and (d) poultry offal have entered the UK from (i) Latin America, (ii) Africa, (iii) South Asia, (iv) East Asia, (v) North America, (vi) the EU, (vii) non-EU Europe and (viii) Australasia in each of the last 10 years. [81571]

    Mr. Morley
    The table shows the UK imports of sheep, bovine, pig and poultry offal from(i) Latin America (ii) Africa (iii) South Asia (iv) East Asia (v) North America (vi). The EU (vii) non-EU Europe and (viii) Australasia between 1992–2001, as recorded in the Official Overseas Trade Statistics.
    293W

    Type of offal

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Africa

    Bovine

    0

    0

    0

    0

    18

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Pig

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sheep

    0

    16

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    17

    0

    0

    Total

    0

    16

    0

    0

    18

    0

    0

    17

    0

    0

    Australasia

    Bovine

    6,350

    6,782

    5,357

    4,969

    2,919

    1,305

    2,337

    1,458

    775

    225

    Pig

    0

    71

    0

    19

    18

    2

    1

    1

    4

    0

    Poultry

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sheep

    12,685

    11,789

    10,591

    13,343

    12,585

    9,819

    9,863

    10,998

    11,609

    12,561

    Total

    19,035

    18,641

    15,948

    18,331

    15,552

    11,126

    12,201

    12,457

    12,388

    12,786

    East Asia

    Bovine

    0

    0

    0

    0

    128

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Pig

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sheep

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    18

    207

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    1

    3

    0

    0

    128

    18

    207

    0

    0

    0

    EU

    Bovine

    21,139

    20,027

    16,411

    13,868

    9,021

    13,360

    9,457

    11,243

    12,731

    11,418

    Pig

    25,066

    18,935

    20,932

    21,348

    16,465

    16,569

    18,187

    18,609

    28,028

    22,939

    Poultry

    1,122

    2,167

    3,900

    5,195

    5,671

    11,359

    5,115

    5,935

    4,926

    9,147

    Sheep

    978

    717

    503

    453

    650

    358

    315

    372

    249

    375

    Total

    48,305

    41,864

    41,746

    40,863

    31,806

    41,646

    33,074

    36,158

    45,934

    43,879

    Latin America

    Bovine

    372

    402

    768

    1,477

    888

    485

    311

    570

    827

    546

    Pig

    0

    0

    0

    14

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    22

    0

    42

    Sheep

    203

    141

    184

    60

    96

    33

    61

    79

    139

    47

    Total

    575

    542

    952

    1,550

    983

    518

    372

    672

    967

    635

    Non-EU Europe

    Bovine

    36

    33

    87

    19

    0

    0

    0

    0

    14

    41

    Pig

    0

    1

    3

    0

    0

    0

    7

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    20

    Sheep

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    18

    0

    0

    28

    Total

    36

    34

    90

    19

    0

    0

    25

    0

    14

    89

    North America

    Bovine

    1,446

    1,850

    1,804

    1,610

    752

    75

    16

    0

    0

    0

    Pig

    4,748

    3,091

    3,313

    2,872

    1,914

    479

    596

    227

    176

    133

    Poultry

    0

    15

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sheep

    35

    0

    36

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    6,228

    4,956

    5,153

    4,482

    2,666

    554

    612

    227

    176

    133

    South Asia

    Bovine

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Pig

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sheep

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Total

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Grand Total

    74,180

    66,039

    63,889

    65,246

    51,123

    53,861

    46,491

    49,531

    59,479

    57,523

    Source:

    HM Customs and Excise

    Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA
    294W

    Mobile Slaughtermen
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is towards the practice of home kills by mobile licensed slaughtermen. [80460]

    Ms Blears
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) require that no person shall carry on the business of a slaughterhouse unless the premises are licensed under the Regulations. Furthermore the regulations also require that no person shall sell fresh meat for human consumption unless it has been slaughtered in a licensed slaughterhouse.

    It is unlawful for a mobile licensed slaughterman to kill and dress an animal outside of licensed premises where it is intended that the meat be used for human consumption. In addition, the slaughterman would further contravene the Regulations as he would be supplying goods—the dressed carcase—and a sale would therefore have taken place.

    Poultry Imports
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department has taken to ensure that poultry imports meet the same(a) animal welfare, (b) chemical contact and (c) hygiene standards expected of United Kingdom-produced poultry meat. [81040]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government has made it clear the importance it attaches to developing and maintaining high welfare standards for all animals both domestically and internationally. We have made clear that trade liberalisation must not compromise EU standards of animal welfare and hygiene. Our concerns are fully reflected on the negotiating proposals that the Commission has submitted in the Doha Development Agenda

    All poultry in the European Union must be slaughtered or killed in accordance with the requirements laid down in Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. This Directive should have been implemented in all Member States by 1 January 1995, and has been implemented in this country by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended). The Directive contains a requirement that birds imported from third countries must be slaughtered under conditions which offer guarantees of humane treatment at least equivalent to those provided for in the Directive.

    In respect of chemical contact where illegal veterinary medicine residues, for example nitrofurans and chloramphenicol, have been detected in imports of poultry meat from third countries there is a requirement under community law to test all consignments at border inspection posts. Consignments are not allowed entry if they are found to contain these chemicals. Nitrofurans and chloramphenicol are not permitted for use in food producing animals in the EU due to public health concerns. Therefore their residues should not be present in food.
    296W
    Imports into the United Kingdom of animal products are governed by European community legislation, which contains provisions to protect both animal and public health. Under these rules only third countries approved by the Commission on the advice of the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health may export into the community, and only from establishments which meet community hygiene standards. The lists of countries and establishments allowed to export particular products into the community, are available on the Commission's website at the following address:

    http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/sanco/vets/info/data/listes/tableO.html

    Imports of poultry meat from third countries must have been produced to the standards at least equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 71/118/EEC. In addition, all consignments of fresh poultry meat imported from third countries are subject to veterinary inspection on entering the EU to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and to ensure that they have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport.

    Responsibility for ensuring that third countries meet these requirements lies with the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission. FVO reports are published on their website at: http://euroDa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/insDections/vi/reports/index en.html.

    Rural Payments Agency
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding has been allocated to the Rural Payments Agency in each of the last five years. [82203]

    Alun Michael
    The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) was established on 16 October 2001 as a single EU paying agency, combining the functions previously undertaken by the Intervention Board and the Defra paying agencies. RPA's published accounts for 2001–02 (HC 1197) give details of the funding allocated to the Agency in that financial year and for 2000–01 on a comparative basis. Combined figures for prior years covering the activities now administered by RPA have not been produced. RPA's budget for 2002–03 is shown in the table below.

    RPA is partway through a £130 million restructuring programme that will deliver a step change in customer service when completed in 2005. These funds are ring fenced and are allocated separately, over and above the amounts quoted.

    £000

    2002–03

    DEL administration

    111,140

    DEL programme

    257,314

    AME

    1,933,988

    Local authorities

    6,495

    Payments to DGD's

    695,440

    EU receipts

    -2,396,824

    Net total

    607,553

    TB Reactor Cattle
    Mr. Roger Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost is of maintenance of TB reactor cattle per day while awaiting slaughter; and if that cost is met by her Department. [81569]

    Mr. Morley
    Information on the cost of maintaining TB reactor cattle awaiting slaughter is not held by Defra.

    Government pays compensation for cattle compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures but does not pay for the maintenance of animals awaiting removal from farm.

    Veterinary Practices
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary practices and surgeries are(a) registered and (b) not registered with the RCVS in the UK. [81155]

    Mr. Morley
    (a) There are 3,539 veterinary practices and practice branches listed in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons "Directory of Practices". In addition, the College holds details of 74 charity veterinary clinics/hospitals who are not listed in their directory, giving a total of 3,613.

    (b) No figures available.

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I am pleased to announce that the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, entitled "Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons", has been published today by the Committee. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information Act
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced that he has placed copies of the Codes of Practice under sections 45 and 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  The Department has concluded that there is not a strong enough case for changes to the current regulatory framework. Responses to the consultation highlighted the ultimate cost to the consumer of all of the options identified.

  However, the Department will continue to work with operators and users to encourage the maintenance of adequate contingency plans against the possibility of any future operator failure.

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  As part of a rolling programme of appointments, I have decided to appoint 23 new members to the Regional Development Agency boards outside London; the Mayor of London makes appointments to the LDA. The names of the new Board members are set out below.

  Twenty-two of these appointments begin on 14 December 2002 and are for three years, expiring on 13 December 2005. To fill a current vacancy, Bryony Rudkin took up post on the EEDA Board on the 14 November. The rolling programme enables the boards to be refreshed and bring new talent and ideas to the boards on a regular basis. I have placed further details of the new appointees in the library of both Houses.

  Decisions on appointments have been made following open competition and following consultation with key national and regional players.
  44WS

  NWDA

  SEEDA

  Robert Johnston

  Sarah Hohler

  Maureen Williams

  Terry Mills

  Poul Christensen

  Keith House

  John Peel

  EMDA

  YF

  Neville Jackson

  John Napier

  Ross Willmott

  Julie Kenny

  EEDA

  ONE NorthEast

  George Kieffer

  Christine Smith

  Stephen Castle

  Keith Taylor

  Bryony Rudkin

  Kevin Rowan

  Chey Garland

  SW RDA

  AWM

  Henry Studholme

  Ahmed Hassam

  Judith Reynolds

  Richard Hyde

  Professor Eric Thomas

  Flexible Working
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  I am today laying before Parliament an affirmative Statutory Instrument which details the procedure which the employer will have a statutory duty to follow when an eligible employee makes an application to work flexibly under the new right.

  These new regulations provide the detail to the flexible working provision set out in broad terms in the Employment Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in July. They detail each stage of the procedure and how decisions on applications to work flexibly should be notified to the employee. They also provide an employee with a right to be accompanied at the meeting to discuss the application and, if necessary, at appeal. A companion may be any worker employed by the same employer. The regulations also specify the procedure for making a complaint to an employment tribunal when an employer fails to comply with the right to be accompanied and allows a tribunal to make an award of up to two weeks' pay. A week's pay will be subject to the cap provided under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  These regulations, subject to their approval by both Houses, will be followed by two negative Statutory Instruments. One will set out the details of the eligibility criteria, complaints and remedies. These specify that the maximum amount of compensation an employment tribunal may award for breaches of the procedure (other than failure to allow a companion) or where a decision by the employer to reject the application is based on incorrect facts, is eight week's pay. A week's pay will again be subject to the cap. The other negative Statutory Instrument will concern the extension of the ACAS arbitration scheme to cover the right to request.

  The detail of this new right has been the subject of a three-month public consultation. The right will come into effect next April, at the same time as the Government extends maternity leave and pay and introduces paid paternity and adoption leave. Together these new rights will provide more choice and support

  45WS
  for working parents to help them balance their work and family responsibilities, to the benefit of employers, employees and their children.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment will be placed in the libraries of both Houses today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arcade Gaming Machines
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  A Safe Bet for Success, which we published in March 2002, set out the Government's plans for the overall reform of the controls on gambling. We said that we would categorise gaming machines into four groups. Within these categories, Group D amusement machines would have maximum stakes and prizes of 10p and £5 and would be playable by children. Machines in groups A to C would have maximum stakes and prizes of more than 10p and £5, and would not be playable by children.

  We have had representations from the gaming machines and arcades industry about machines with non-money prizes, often called 'crane' machines, which are extensively played by children, especially in arcades at the seaside. These currently operate on a maximum stake of 30p, and their operators have pointed out to us that they will not be commercially viable if their stake is reduced to 10p.

  The Government believes that children and gambling should be kept apart and has taken careful note of the conclusions which the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport have reached on this issue.

  But it is important not to endanger the traditions of family entertainment at the seaside, which people have enjoyed for generations.

  We are determined as part of our ongoing reform of the controls on gambling to listen carefully to the business sectors involved, and we recognise that there is a case for allowing children's and family amusement machines which do not offer money or exchangeable token or ticket prizes to keep their current maximum stake of 30p.

  We have therefore decided that the stake limit which we will propose to Parliament for Category D amusement machines will be 30p if the machine does not offer prizes in money or exchangeable tickets and tokens, and 10p in all other cases.

  This will not affect the maximum prize limit which we wish to see for these machines, which will remain at £5. Nor will it affect the stake and prize limits for machines paying out exchangeable tickets and tokens, which will remain at 10p and £5 respectively.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Marking St. Andrew's Day Overseas
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  British Posts abroad are committed to promoting the interests of Scotland—as well as England, Wales and Northern Ireland—365 days a year. In addition, they are also actively involved in 46WS
  marking St Andrew's Day and the other Patron Saints' Days of the United Kingdom where English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish communities, both large and small, are represented in local populations.

  St Andrew's Day events will take place across the world from major European and US cities, to further afield in, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa and South East Asia. Posts have been involved in many of these events, and senior representatives at Post will be attending events organised by the local community. Senior representatives at Posts and prominent members of the local Scottish Societies will deliver a joint message from my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister of Scotland.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Performance Report and Resource Accounts
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  Information about the Department's performance during the last financial year is contained in the Ministry of Defence Performance Report 2001–2002, which will be laid before the House tomorrow as Cm 5661 and
  the Ministry of Defence Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts 2001–02, which will be laid before the House today as HC47.
  Copies of these reports will be placed in the Library of the House. We will also publish them on the Ministry of Defence website.

HEATH

  National Health Service University
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I am today publishing for consultation a development plan for a new corporate university for the National Health Service—which will initially be known as the "NHSU", and which we intend will be called the "National Health Service University" when it meets the relevant criteria to be granted full university status.

  The NHSU will offer training and development for everyone at every level of the NHS. This includes those staff who may not have experienced learning since leaving school. It will make learning a right for all staff in the NHS. By unlocking the potential of staff, NHSU will make a key contribution to the development and modernisation of the NHS and support the effective delivery and implementation of the NHS Plan.

  The focus of the learning opportunities, training and development offered will be improving services for patients.

  Copies of the consultation document, 'Learning for Everyone', have been placed in the Library. Copies can also be obtained through the NHSU's own website at: www.nhsu.nhs.uk.

  The consultation process will end on 21 February 2003.
  47WS

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Victims and Witnesses
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  My right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and I have today jointly issued a short summary document about the measures we have already taken, and are planning, to improve services and support to victims and witnesses of 48WS
  crime. The paper, entitled "A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses", also highlights those parts of the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced today, which will benefit directly victims of crime. Our programme of reform is guided by a single clear priority—to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim and the community so as to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice.

  Copies of the summary document have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [H.L.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision enabling an enforcement notice under Section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to impose a requirement under subsection (2) of that section in relation to a person. whether or not a requirement under subsection (1) of that section is, or may be, imposed in relation to that or any other person. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a first time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
11.6 a.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Baroness Turner of Camden—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, there can be no doubt that one of the main obligations of any government is to provide security for their citizens. That means providing protection from crime and the fear of crime. Public protection is one of the central themes of the gracious Speech. It is a key priority for the Government. We believe that public services must improve. That means better healthcare, better transport, better housing and better education. All of that is of little value for our communities, if they do not feel safe.
We have dedicated ourselves to fighting crime and anti-social behaviour since we took office. We make no apology for that. We have made some progress. For five years, crime has fallen overall, and, last year, the chances of becoming a victim of crime were the lowest that they have been since the early 1980s. According to
470
the British Crime Survey, overall crime has fallen 22 per cent since 1997. Domestic burglary is down 39 per cent, and car crime is down 26 per cent. The street crime initiative has reduced the number of recorded robberies in the 10 worst areas by 25 per cent, compared with the same period last year. The safer communities initiative, launched in April 2002. has provided £20 million of extra resources to help local crime reduction partnerships to tackle crime locally.
The introduction of anti-social behaviour orders and parenting orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been widely welcomed. On 12th November, Mr Frank Whiteley, spokesman on anti-social behaviour for the Association of Chief Police Officers and Deputy Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police, said:
"Anti-social behaviour is a blight in too many communities and neighbourhoods … The first priority for the police is. to protect the public, and ASBOs can help us achieve that, by setting the boundaries of what is acceptable and seeing that the law is enforced".
We have much more to do. The people who most need the changes are those living in deprived communities and members of the black and minority ethnic communities. Black and ethnic minority people's experience of crime is the same as—in some cases, worse than— that of white communities. Ten per cent of black people are victims of personal crime in a year, compared with 8 per cent of white people and 7 per cent for Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian groups. The fear of crime is substantially higher than for their white counterparts, and not just for racially motivated crime; the rate is almost twice as high for crimes such as burglary. robbery and rape.
When we arrived in government, the view was that crime would rise and there was little that we could do about it. Levels of crime, the argument went. were preordained by economic factors. Over the years, the factors relied on to explain the crime figures changed. Sometimes, they arose from the poorness or the economic situation, sometimes from its strength. Whichever might prevail as the critical factors., the important message was that crime was beyond the control of mere governments. Those predictions were wrong. I refer back to the figures that I quoted.
We will never eradicate crime. Economic and social factors certainly have their part to play in determining who commits crimes and when, but we do not accept the view that there is little that governments can do to reduce crime. By addressing both crime and its causes, we can make progress—progress that makes a real difference to individuals, communities and society as a whole. However, there must be some clear and accepted building blocks in the fight against crime: improved and reformed policing; real partnership between the criminal justice agencies, who must share goals and work effectively together; and a recognition that anti-social behaviour is as corrosive to communities as other crimes. People must have confidence that that, too, is being fought by the state.
The causes of crime must be addressed as well. That requires real partnership, in particular between the criminal justice system and the wider public, private

471
and voluntary sectors. Much crime is now international—drugs, people trafficking and money laundering. International police and judicial cooperation is required to fight crime. Sentencing must focus more on reducing reoffending—on rehabilitation as well as punishment. Drugs fuel much crime. To reduce reoffending, we must address the drug cause of crime. If an offender has been offered and has not taken treatment, he should know that the consequences for him in the criminal justice system will become substantially worse.
The criminal justice system focuses too much on the defendant and too little on the victim. It must be rebalanced in favour of the victim. The court process, from charging to sentence, requires fundamental reform to make it more focused and effective in dealing with crime. It is vital, in reform of the criminal justice system, that certain principles should be regarded as sacrosanct. Those principles—the three fundamental principles on which our criminal justice system is based—are the independence of the judiciary; the presumption of innocence and the principle that a defendant can be found guilty of a criminal offence only when the state has proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and the use of jury trial as the norm for serious cases. Our reforms maintain those central principles.
Legislation, of course, is only one part of the reform process. It is an important part because it provides a framework, unblocks problems and sends clear messages. Just as important is helping and supporting the people who work in the criminal justice system in the job that they do. We must help them to think and act differently. That is why as much change as possible should go with the grain of those who work in the system. We have crafted our proposals with that in mind. We know that some lawyers have objected to a number of our proposals, but they have broadly supported and endorsed the need for fundamental reform. We hope that we can persuade them that the system can and should change for the better.
English law has never stood still. Its strength has always been its ability to adapt to changing times. Now is the time for change. The people who depend on the criminal justice system and the criminal law are the communities who look to it for protection. We will not compromise the three fundamental principles, but our communities expect a better performing criminal justice system, and they are entitled to it. That is the approach that we have adopted. We have passed Acts to promote partnership and to provide the police and local authorities with better tools to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour. We have passed legislation to reform police practices. We have passed legislation to make it easier to remove from criminals the proceeds of crime. We have passed Bills to fight terrorism. All of those Bills have helped us to progress towards our aims. Now is the time for fundamental reform of the criminal justice system to make it effective in the fight against crime.
472
I turn first to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is to be introduced later today in another place. The proposals in the Bill will rebalance the system in favour of victims, witnesses and communities and deliver justice for all by building greater trust and credibility. They will address revolving door justice, whereby offenders are arrested, charged and bailed only to commit further offences. The Criminal Justice Bill will reform the criminal trial processes by making changes to the rules of evidence, double jeopardy, juries and appeals. It will put sense into sentencing through comprehensive reform of the sentencing framework. It will introduce provisions to address drug-related and juvenile offending and it will improve the treatment of victims and witnesses.
In all those criminal justice reforms, we aim to ensure that crime is effectively addressed without risking miscarriages of justice. We want to create a system which convicts the guilty, acquits the innocent and reduces offending and reoffending. The courts reform Bill will bring the administration of the courts below the House of Lords into a new, single organisation accountable to Parliament through my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The gracious Speech made clear that the attack on anti-social behaviour will be among the Government's highest priorities in the current Session. Since we came into government, we have focused steadily on improving the prospects of the most deprived communities. Because those communities suffer disproportionately from anti-social behaviour, we have given special emphasis to measures that will help communities to fight back against loutish behaviour in all its forms—whether graffiti, noise nuisance, harassment, abuse, or any of the mindless actions that can make life intolerable for law-abiding people.
The anti-social behaviour Bill that we will introduce will build on well-laid foundations. I cannot yet give your Lordships a definitive list of its provisions, but I expect it to include measures to enhance the use of fixed penalty notices and anti-social behaviour orders; to address the problems caused by the misuse of airguns; further to improve the range of measures available to encourage parents of unruly children to face up to their responsibilities; to ensure that businesses whose activities contribute directly to antisocial behaviour contribute to the costs of policing to which it gives rise; and to improve our efforts to prevent the splattering of buildings with graffiti.
Of course, those legislative measures will not be the whole story. Only by ensuring that they and the measures already in place are enforced vigorously will we achieve success. We are setting up a new interdepartmental team in the Home Office that will bring to the fight on anti-social behaviour the project-focused approach that has already shown its value in the reduction of street crime. The anti-social behaviour Bill will strengthen the armoury of measures available to tackle that insidious problem. The Government will work tirelessly with our partners in the communities to ensure the success of that campaign.

473
The Government are committed to combating corruption, which, left unchecked, can undermine transparent and democratic government and cause considerable damage to all aspects of commercial and public activity. Our Bill on corruption, based on recommendations of the Law Commission and of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege will send out a clear message to all sections of society that corrupt practices will not be tolerated. It brings together the various overlapping offences of corruption into a single statute and puts beyond question that the offences cover everyone, making the law more effective and easier to apply.
The publication of the Bill in draft this Session before its full introduction next Session is to enable full scrutiny and constructive discussion. We addressed the ma in international corruption issues in the Antiterrorism. Crime and Security Act 2001 and extended the existing offences overseas. But the existing offences as a whole are in need of rationalisation and modernisation. That is what we intend to achieve.
Tackling international crime and terrorism requires better and faster co-operation with European Union partners. Crime, including people trafficking and drug trafficking, does not stop at national boundaries. The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill will significantly improve our ability to tackle serious crime across Europe. It will implement a number of European Union measures to which the Government have signed up in recent years, including those on the European Union post-September 11th road map or action plan. It will bring down the barriers to successful cross-border investigations and prosecutions. Its implementation of the mutual legal assistance convention, improving co-operation not just between judicial authorities but between police or customs authorities, will be of great importance in the fight against organised crime.
We have brought forward a Bill to modernise and simplify our outdated extradition laws. It is simply ridiculous that at the start of the 21st century we are trying to operate an extradition system that is largely unchanged from that of the 19th century. So the Bill will remove fugitives' current opportunities to raise spurious points time and again, which results in some cases taking five years or more to resolve. Such delays do nothing for Britain's standing in the world and are a great disservice to the victims of crime who are denied justice. Within the European Union, extradition will become a judicial matter rather than a largely political process. For the first time, all of our EU partners will be obliged to extradite their own nationals and those accused of fiscal offences.
If we are serious about fighting terrorism and other serious international crime, we must have in place modern extradition arrangements. That includes the European arrest warrant. The European arrest warrant will ensure that we will be able to get those accused of serious crime in Britain back to stand trial within three months. Despite the scare stories emanating from the Benches opposite, no law-abiding citizen need have anything to fear from the European
474
arrest warrant. As the draft Bill we published in June makes clear, there are important safeguards for those here who are the subject of a European arrest warrant.
The issue of sexual offences and the sex offenders register was dealt with in detail in the Statement that was made on Tuesday. With the permission of the House, I shall not say anything further about that.
Since we came to power in 1997, we have been embarked on a methodical process of fighting crime and anti-social behaviour. The result has been an overall reduction in crime since 1997, but there is much more to do. Indeed, it is clear to everyone that the fight against crime and anti-social behaviour is not one to which there are a handful of simple solutions. It is a process which takes time and commitment and an understanding that communities expect us—rightly—to provide the law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice agencies with the appropriate means to fight the scourges of drugs, crime and anti-social behaviour. We hope that the House will join with us to enact those measures to provide the confidence and safety that the people of Britain are entitled to expect.
11.21 a.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the legislative programme for this Session is indeed dominated by the six Bills from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. On listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, reciting the huge successes of the Government in sweeping away crime from society, one wonders why they need so many Bills.
It feels as though we are stuck in groundhog day—the ever repeating day that one cannot escape—and facing the same government Bills. Session after Session; the same unwillingness to think through changes before forcing them through another place by guillotine and timetabling Motions and the Government then finding that they need to make substantial changes in this House when the Bill is thoroughly scrutinised, changes that are often made at a late stage.
Surely the Government should have learnt by now that legislation on criminal justice matters is very much a blunt instrument for changing social behaviour. The centrepiece of the programme is yet another Criminal Justice Bill, the 12th or 13th—perhaps unlucky 13—since 1997. Yet the number of offenders brought before the courts has remained static at 218,000 a year. Five years after the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime, a crime is committed every five seconds. The number of solved crimes has fallen by 18 per cent in the past five years; street crime has increased by almost a third in the past year.
Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims sounds a laudable objective—who on earth could complain about that?—but it will only work while the system itself is credible. If all it achieves is the punishment of more innocent people, who are then released at some future date to claim compensation for their ruined lives, the Government will have taken a

475
retrograde step back into the 19th century instead of leading us forward into the 21st. In the mean time, it will have done nothing to help the victims of crime.
If the Home Secretary is tempted to be carried away by a desire to appeal to populism and dismisses too lightly the unintended negative consequences of that desire, it is the victims of crime who will suffer. As my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith said in another place last week,
"One does not fight crime by undermining the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens while allowing thugs and criminals to walk free".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/02; col. 19.]
Overall, these Bills do not offer a long-term coherent strategy to solve the problem of crime. That is what our own policy proposals, which we have been developing and publishing over this year and will continue to do over the following year, would do.
Looking to the detailed proposals in the individual Bills, of course there are many that we will support, and support strongly. If any Bill escapes the trap of groundhog day, it is the Sexual Offences Bill, to which the noble and learned Lord referred briefly. I accept his reasons for not going into detail as we had an opportunity to do so on Tuesday. I simply take the opportunity to repeat our commitment to ensuring that we have proposals which meet the needs of those who are vulnerable to sexual abuse, whether they are those who have a mental incapacity or children. It is something that this House is well able to scrutinise. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House say that he anticipated the Bill would start in this place.
As to the Criminal Justice Bill, the Government have made much of their proposals for new sentencing options, those of custody minus and custody plus. Both are interesting, but it will be vital for them to be properly resourced. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees them as a cheap way of emptying our overcrowded prisons, he will be sorely disappointed.
Above all, we will need to look very carefully at the points where the Government trespass upon the ancient rights of the subject. Protection of individuals from miscarriages of justice is an essential part of the Government's duty. There will be much debate in this House over any restriction on jury trial; over moves to abandon the double jeopardy rule; and over moves to give foreign police the right to arrest people in this country for activities that are not crimes under British law.
If the double jeopardy rule is abandoned and police and prosecutors know that they can have a second go, that will do nothing to encourage them to ensure that the investigation is competent and exhaustive in the first instance. On the other hand, who can fail to be outraged when a defendant who has been acquitted of an offence promptly presents himself or herself to a Sunday newspaper and sells his or her story on the basis that he or she was acquitted and got away with the crime. That must offend all of us.
476
Is there not a danger that the proposals on the admission of hearsay evidence put forward by the Government, and the disclosure of previous convictions, will create more unreliable convictions? As Liberty's Mark Littlewood said last week,
"blaming fair trial protections for crime rates is wrong and misleads the public".
Less than 10 per cent of people brought to court are acquitted. He continued:
"The real problem is that in over a¾of all crimes—over 4 million a year—no-one is arrested".
We are very concerned at the Government's recidivism over jury trial. Yet again they are trying to force through Parliament plans to abolish it having been defeated twice in the past. They seek to get round objections now by abolishing trial for a restricted list of offences.
But the Government's principles seem to be grounded on quicksand. The first time round, when they tried to abolish jury trials it was for offences triable either way and for lesser offences; now they have gone the other way and want to abolish trial for the serious offences they list. We shall question in careful detail where is their logic for that shift of ground. To mix my metaphors, is this the thin end of the wedge for an eventual demand to abolish jury trials in further cases?
I listened with care when the noble and learned Lord said that jury trial should be a norm—one of the three key principles that the Government put forward. We believe that it is a norm that should not be breached, and we believe that the Criminal Justice Bill is about to do that.
I should have thought that by now the Government would have taken note of public opinion on this. As the Bar Council's Matthias Kelly said last week,
"People trust juries, and want a justice system which features juries wherever possible".
I turn now to the Extradition Bill and the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill provides in the main a constructive framework for police and judicial cooperation and we look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on these matters shortly. We agree that the processes for arrest and extradition need to be more streamlined and effective, but we do not want to give foreign police powers to search and arrest in the United Kingdom except for terrorism offences.
I read carefully the reports today in the press of comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and others in the Government. with regard to the publication yesterday of the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill. We are concerned that, in hot pursuit, police from the European Union may come into this country armed and will not be under the operational control of our own police forces during the five-hour period. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that there is a quid pro quo and that our police have rights in return, but I do not believe that that is a justification for what is being attempted in the Bill. In particular, the one

477
border more than any other where perhaps one might want the facility is barred to us—that is, the border with Ireland.
We are deeply sceptical about the Government's proposals in the Extradition Bill. We accept that the authorities must have power to detain terrorist suspects in one country for crimes they have committed in another, but we will vigorously oppose any new powers to arrest and deport British citizens for activities that are not crimes in the United Kingdom, and any measures which compromise the presumption of innocence or habeas corpus.
I turn to the anti-social behaviour Bill, which the noble and learned Lord explained in some detail. We have concern that this seems to be a measure simply to seize the headlines. Of course society would like to support action to reduce anti-social behaviour—why not?— but the Government have already had two goes and failed. How can we be sure that they will get it right this time? Or will it be a case for them of three strikes and they are out?
Only 644 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since 1999, despite predictions that 5,000 would be issued each year. NACRO has just published research into the effectiveness of the orders. It says that they are,
"cumbersome, costly and difficult to enforce".
It discovered that the average order cost over £5,000 to enforce and took more than three months to obtain. More than one-third of the orders were breached within the first nine months. No child curfew orders had been issued at all, despite changes to the law raising the age of' the child on whom they could be applied from 10 to 16 years.
Will the Government's plans for reducing antisocial behaviour actually work in practice? That is the real question. The major problem is lack of a clear definition of what constitutes anti-social behaviour. It is undesirable and unpleasant, but it is not always criminal.
It is important to tackle the problems of anti-social behaviour, but we need to find the reasons behind it and do something about them. The Government need to look again at how services are provided to children and families who require support before problems escalate and children are drawn into the criminal justice system along the conveyor belt to crime.
What is needed to counter such behaviour is a more holistic approach, combining enforcement with preventive measures tailored to individual local conditions. That way, and only that way, can we hope to get children off the conveyor belt of crime at an early stage.
Finally, I turn to the courts Bill which proposes changes to the administration of justice. Later today my noble friend Lord Kingsland will go into more detail. An efficient court structure is vital if we are to make the criminal justice system more effective and efficient. We shall want to examine carefully the plans to merge the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court into a single new criminal court. It is important that local decision-making is not altogether sacrificed to
478
national control. We would not want resident judges turned into glorified court managers. Above all, we wish to be sure that the changes do not sacrifice effectiveness and fairness on the altar of M r Brown's budgetary diktats.
This vast package of home affairs and legal affairs legislation will need to be painstakingly examined in this House so that the Government's claims can be subjected to proper scrutiny. Where we are convinced that the practical effect of the proposals will work well, we will support them—and support them thoroughly. But we shall not shirk from opposing headline-seeking measures if it is shown that they will do nothing to help the victim and everything to undermine the fairness of our criminal justice system. In seeking rightly to increase the efficiency with which we convict the guilty, we must never reduce the efficiency with which we acquit the innocent.
11.33 a.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, once again we are faced with a number of Bills on criminal justice matters. There seems to be an insatiable appetite on the part of the Government to enact such legislation as an answer to society's ills. We have seen the introduction of criminal justice legislation in almost every Session of Parliament since Labour came to power, even before the previous legislation had a chance to bed down.
Some legislative measures are important and we will support those. Others will require detailed scrutiny to ensure that rights and liberties of individuals are not trampled on beyond that which is necessary. We have moved from the days when the Left and Right fought the battle to claim the high ground on criminal justice matters. The battle now is between liberal and illiberal measures. There must be something wrong when even the Daily Telegraph now stands to the Left of the Labour Party on criminal justice matters. Let me quote from the editorial of 14th November reporting on the Queen's Speech:
"Even worse is the way the Government is prepared to shunt aside anything that stands in the way of this relentless centralisation. There can surely never have been such a comprehensive attack on the liberties and safeguards of the British legal system as that outlined yesterday. The curtailment of trial by jury, the admission of hearsay evidence, the abolition of the protection against double jeopardy, the proposal that previous convictions might be revealed to juries before they consider the verdict; the combined effect of these measures must be radically to rebalance the scales of justice in favour of the state and against the defendant. We will doubtless be told, as always. that this is justified by the need for 'joined up government'. But the whole point of the legal system is that it should not be a 'joined up' agency of the state but independent. It must contain within itself the essential checks and balances on which liberty depends.
All past experience suggests that these measures will do little to reduce crime or enhance the effectiveness of the police but they will certainly increase the risk of injustice. The irony is that all this is being proposed by a government that constantly trumpets its commitment to human rights. For those who value civil liberty, this was a deeply depressing Queen's Speech".
The context in which we operate offers distinct solutions as to how we should tackle crime and criminality. We can stop mugging by locking up all the old ladies, but we do not do that. Instead, we can look at the way in which so many of our young people feel

479
excluded from the process of meaningful citizenship and more purposeful opportunities. Simply relying on the criminal justice process may become counterproductive.
Of course we should be aware of opportunities and threats. For example, no one can dispute that a rising prison population threatens positive initiatives. Equally, we need a commitment to help and reduce social exclusion and crime. It is for these reasons that we intend to challenge the negative and encourage the positive developments, while all the time never forgetting people who would remain at the margins of our society.
On the political front there is now a growing consensus that the "tough on crime" posturing of the past decade has been harmful rather than helpful to the serious debate about crime. Tough talking on crime may well play with some of the electorate but rarely makes for good policy.
We often reflect public opinion in shaping criminal justice policies, but measure this against opinion polls that tell us that the public hold negative views of the system. People's expectations are far too great and the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver is strictly limited. Media hype on crime does not help. We should be talking up and not talking down the effectiveness of non-custodial alternatives to punishment.
Of course society needs to be protected from the anti-social behaviour of the few. Tackling this is high on the agenda of both the Government and local agencies. We can criminalise anti-social behaviour but it has little effect on the perpetrators. In essence, local partnerships together with local communities should be encouraged to identify local problems, develop strategies and action plans and evaluate their interventions to inform future practices. On-the-spot fines look attractive, but a good citizenship programme is more effective than any criminal sanctions imposed. The threat of custodial penalties has little effect on those who are socially excluded.
Let us look at some facts—and these are government figures. Ex-prisoners commit around I million recorded crimes each year—roughly one-fifth of the total—at a cost to society of £11 billion. Prisoners tend to come from and return to socially excluded backgrounds. Prisoners are 13 times more likely than the general population to have been in care as children and 14 times more likely to be unemployed. Some 60 to 70 per cent were using drugs before imprisonment. More than 70 per cent suffer from at least two mental disorders. Over half of male prisoners and more than 70 per cent of female prisoners have no qualifications at all. The vast majority have reading, writing and numeracy levels below those expected of an 11 year-old. The reconviction rate is running at nearly 60 per cent over two years. Almost half will be returning to prison in this time. We need to tackle the real causes of crime; that is, poor education, housing and employment prospects. This is where our measures should effectively be directed.
480
The provisions of the Queen's Speech relating to criminal justice contain a number of helpful measures together with others which are of serious concern to many who are concerned with the quality of justice. The Government's overall aim for the criminal justice system is described in the Queen's Speech as,
"to reform and rebalance the criminal justice system to deliver justice for all and to safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and communities".
There is no doubt that in the past victims have all too often been insufficiently supported, informed, helped and compensated by the criminal justice process. But we must remember that it does no service to the victim if the wrong person is convicted of the offence.
We are concerned, for example, about the proposal to inform juries of the previous convictions of defendants. There are some limited circumstances in which defendants' past behaviour can be of genuine evidential value—for example, if it shows a unique modus operandi which is also part of the current offence—but in most cases telling the jury of past convictions runs the risk that defendants will be convicted because juries are thinking of what they have done in the past, even though the evidence that they committed the current offence may be thin. That is a recipe for injustice.
The proposal to abolish the double jeopardy rule in cases of serious crime is also a matter of concern. There are exceptional cases in which the emergence of later evidence shows with scientific certainty that a previously acquitted defendant must have committed the crime, the most obvious example being DNA evidence. But few cases are as clear cut as this, and there is a real danger that abolishing the rule could have oppressive results by hauling individuals back before the courts because of new evidence which is far from clear cut. Changing the rule could also provide a disincentive to the police and Crown Prosecution Service to get things right first time round.
We broadly welcome the proposal on sexual offences, including the redefinition of a range of offences and the tightening up of arrangements for sex offender registration.
We also fully support the Government's continued resistance to the dangerous arguments of those who argue for public disclosure of sex offenders' identities and whereabouts in a process of so-called "naming and shaming". There is no doubt that this would lead to vigilante attacks and drive offenders to ground. thereby increasing rather than reducing risk to the public. We agree with the Government that the better approach is increased supervision, treatment and multi-agency work with sex offenders to increase the safety of the public.
The proposal to introduce a new indeterminate sentence for serious violent and sexual offenders is welcome. This will enable such offenders' progress to be regularly monitored and reviewed during a prison sentence so that they can be released when, but only when, it is safe to do so. However, there is a strong responsibility on the Government to ensure that offending behaviour and treatment programmes are

481
available to all prisoners in these categories, so that they have the opportunity to progress to a stage when they are safe to release under supervision.
I must emphasise that indeterminate detention is justifiable only because the offender has already committed a serious offence against the person and the available evidence shows that he or she poses a future danger to the public. Such powers of indefinite detention cannot be justified for individuals who have not offended. We therefore hope that when the Government bring forward their mental health Bill they will listen to the overwhelming weight of opinion from professionals in the mental health field and drop their proposal for the indefinite detention of non-offenders with serious personality disorders.
In principle we welcome the new "custody plus" sentence, which will ensure that short-term prisoners receive supervision on release. At present short-term prisoners receive little in the way of rehabilitation while in prison and do not receive supervision when they leave. Not surprisingly, they have a high rate of reconviction and they are responsible for much of the high volume crime, which is so distressing for many people on the receiving end. If "custody plus" is to be successful, it must be backed by resources, both for Probation Service supervision and for voluntary agencies to provide the help with accommodation, employment and mentoring which can make such a crucial difference to the likelihood of reoffending.
However, the "custody plus" sentence contains one serious risk: that courts will find it an attractive proposition for offenders who now receive community sentences. In a borderline case, magistrates and judges may currently opt for a community sentence rather than a short prison sentence with no post-release supervision because they feel that community supervision will do more to steer the offender away from crime. If in future they have the option to impose a short prison term plus a period of supervision, they may be tempted to opt for prison sentences in greater numbers. It is therefore crucial that the sentencing framework contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, including the guidance drawn up by the new sentencing guidelines council, strongly dissuades courts from passing short prison sentences.
The proposal to empower magistrates' courts to pass prison sentences of up to 12 months is likely to prove a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it will reduce waiting times on remand if offenders who would otherwise have been committed to the Crown Court are dealt with by magistrates instead. On the other hand, in some cases magistrates may pass prison sentences of nine or 12 months where Crown Courts would have imposed a community sentence or a shorter prison term—something which not infrequently happens now when magistrates commit offenders to the Crown Court for sentence.
Here again, the strength of the restrictions placed on the use of prison sentences in the new sentencing framework is of the greatest importance. It is also important that Ministers continue to argue strongly and publicly for a reduced use of custody, thereby
482
reinforcing the recent welcome comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the evils of overcrowded prisons.
We will look carefully at the provisions of the antisocial behaviour Bill. There is an important place for fixed penalties for low level criminal behaviour. They avoid unnecessarily dragging minor offenders before the criminal courts, relieve the police and CPS of paperwork, save court time and avoid unnecessarily giving a criminal record to those involved in low level misbehaviour. There is a good case for using fixed penalties for a wider range of offences, including those of minor dishonesty and damage to property which currently clutter up magistrates' courts. However, we need to ensure that the range of behaviour, which is covered by fixed penalties in the Bill, is not unreasonably wide and disproportionate to the seriousness of the behaviour which is penalised.
Above all, it is important to recognise that law enforcement has only a limited impact on anti-social behaviour. Measures such as neighbourhood mediation, developing well structured youth activity programmes and the "acceptable behaviour contracts" pioneered by local authorities such as Islington are likely to be more effective in changing behaviour than any number of changes in the law. This is where we need to develop a strategy on the causes of crime, and put less emphasis on "tough on crime".
11.47 a.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I rise to welcome the provisions of the gracious Speech in relation to home affairs and criminal justice matters.
At the beginning of the 1960s I joined the police service as a young man Since then I have listened to people saying how much better life was in the "old days", whenever that was. Like taxes and death, crime will always be one of the certainties of life. I saw my task for 35 years as being to reduce the effectiveness of criminals, either by preventing offences in the first place, which is the ideal, or by detecting the offender and bringing him to justice, thereby deterring him and others in the future from embarking on such antisocial behaviour.
As a society we have not succeeded in persuading that small number of fellow citizens that crime is wrong. Parents have failed; teachers have failed; the police have failed; the courts have failed; and the criminal justice system has failed. We live in a society where standards have fallen dramatically: authority is no longer accepted; the elderly in many cases are not treasured; young children are not cherished; and Parliament and politicians, unfortunately, are not respected.
The question is: does it always have to be like this, or is it possible to bring about a change and, more importantly, does that need more legislation? I have continually heard that the criminal justice system is unfair; that it favours the rich; that it favours the criminal; and that it ignores the victim. I have to say that I have some sympathy with that view and that is why I welcome the provisions in the gracious Speech.

483
I believe that we can turn things round, but it requires a cultural change—a cultural revolution, if you like. We did it with smoking and we did it with drink driving. There seems to be a perception that we have great difficulty in controlling crime and yet if we look at the British Crime Survey, crime has reduced by some 23 per cent since 1997. Overall, of course, that is the problem. Recordable crime may well be reducing in many areas, but it is the quality-of-life issues—which do not figure in the statistics—that are often the problem. These are the very matters encompassed in the term "anti-social behaviour".
I have spent most of my working life dealing with this type of behaviour. It is almost exclusively the domain of the young. We do not hear of sadistic senior citizens biting off ears in brawls; we do not hear of "graffiti grannies" spraying the bus stand; we rarely hear of middle-aged muggers snatching mobile phones. But, of course, those of mature years are not immune from committing crime—no, no. Paedophilia is well known to continue into old age; fraud and corruption is invariably the province of the middle-aged; and, as we know, perverting the course of justice can even infect Parliament—even your Lordships' House. But we are talking about the type of anti-social behaviour which prevents the elderly and law-abiding citizens from going onto the streets at night, the drunken yobbery which frightens people and their families.
We need to take the streets back. That is what we pay the police to do, so we must give them the powers and our support. But their leaders, in turn, must remember that they are not social workers and get back to enforcing the law. They must have the will to confront bad behaviour, such as urinating in doorways, drunkenness and swearing, and throwing down litter and chewing gum. This does not necessarily mean that people have to be arrested or even summonsed. I do not want to live in a police state. But what the police need to do is at least challenge such behaviour. Unfortunately my recent observations tell me that the police are doing so less and less. I say that with reluctance.
Last month, for example, I was walking past Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court and saw five uniformed police officers standing outside talking. Perhaps they were waiting to give evidence. I had walked 100 yards further down the road when a youth of about 19 rode past me on a cycle, on the footpath, almost knocking me down. It was the kind of behaviour that we have probably all witnessed from time to time. I turned round with a wry smile, knowing that he was riding towards five uniformed police officers. Imagine my astonishment when I saw him continue on the footpath directly past the police officers without one of them taking the slightest bit of notice. What kind of message does that send out? He should have been stopped and ordered to use the road, as the law requires. That is the least that the police officers should have done.
484
I mentioned those facts last week to a provincial chief constable. He said that he thought it was peculiar to the Metropolitan Police. I wish that that were true, my Lords.
Fixed penalties for such bad behaviour will be a godsend to busy police officers. But their leaders, chief officers, must ensure that they enforce the law. It is also an ideal task for street wardens and community support officers.
Moving to the general principle of re-balancing the criminal justice system, this is not a new campaign. Perhaps I may quote a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police:
"What we know about trials in higher courts doesn't justify any complacency. Indeed, there is one fact I can mention which should be enough in itself to justify some kind of enquiry. This is the rate of acquittals … The English criminal trial never decides whether the accused is innocent. The only question is whether, according to the rules of evidence, the prosecution has proved that he is guilty—and this is not at all the same thing.
"There must be a failure rate—we can't always expect to convict the guilty or never to prosecute the guilty. But in my opinion a failure rate of one in two is far too high".
He then went on to talk of some defence advocates. I quote:
"We see the same lawyers producing, off the peg, the same kind of defence for different clients…witnesses suddenly and inexplicably change their minds. Defences are concocted far beyond the intellectual capability of the accused. False alibis are put forward. Extraneous issues damaging to police credibility are introduced. All these are part of the stock in trade of a small number of criminal lawyers. The truth is that some trials of deliberate crimes for profit—robbery, burglary and so on—involve a bitter struggle of wits and tactics, between the detective and the lawyer!"
Sir John Stevens? The noble Lord, Lord Condon? The noble Lord, Lord Imbert? No. Those are the words of Sir Robert Mark, who was commissioner in the 1960s, in his Dimbleby Lecture almost 30 years ago!
I make no apology for quoting his words. They illustrate that there has been, certainly during my many years of police service, an ongoing debate—quite rightly—-on the efficacy of the criminal justice system in its efforts to protect our most vulnerable citizens from violence. I, for one, welcome the provisions in the gracious Speech dealing with double jeopardy and court procedures; indeed re-balancing the justice system itself. I believe that they go some way towards giving more support to the victims in society and I welcome them unreservedly.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, first, I effusively apologise to noble Lords and particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for not being present when he opened the debate. A sequence of unfortunate accidents prevented my arriving in time.
I must declare an interest. It seems to be implied by some commentators that opposition on the part of lawyers to forthcoming legislation which we have not yet seen will be due to the fact that the changes affect their personal financial interest. I declare an interest. Forty years of my life were spent, as a young man,

485
defending, and, as Attorney-General, prosecuting, in the courts of this country, although, having retired 17 years ago, I cannot be said to have any interest in what is to happen in the future.
My opposition, like that of my profession, is due to anxiety about what may happen to justice. It is nonsense that double jeopardy, or the revelation of an accused's previous criminal record, or the abolition of jury trials in certain cases will affect the interests of lawyers who prosecute as well as defend. If, as I have read, this approach is acclaimed as a reform of the judicial system, it is in fact nothing of the kind. It is a reform of the criminal law that clearly shifts the balance against the citizen and in favour of the state. All criminal trials are issues between the state, with all its power and its might, and the citizen. One safeguard, which, having been created, has grown up and has worked for centuries, is that at least the citizen has had the presumption of innocence: he who accuses must prove the truth of his accusation.
My impression is that the Home Secretary and others believe that too often the courts have got it wrong in criminal trials. But who decides? Not the Home Secretary. Not the police. Not the media. It must be a court. It therefore appears to me that the Home Secretary is now changing the rules to make it easier to obtain a conviction. I should have thought that some of the recent miscarriages of justice might have made the Home Secretary hesitate before doing that. In the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago, he wrote:
"Intimidated juries are a good example of how an adherence to tradition fails justice".
What does that mean?
"Intimidated juries are a good example of how an adherence to tradition fails justice".
What tradition fails justice? There has always been tampering with juries. For scores of years, since the jury system began, people have tried to get at juries, and they always will. Neither the courts nor lawyers can do anything about it. It is for the police to protect juries and the system. The statement is absurd, if that is the level of the Home Secretary's thought about criminal justice reform.
I gather that there will also be proposals on double jeopardy. We must have strict limitations, otherwise they will encourage an existing vice: sloppy, casual preparation for prosecution. The proposals will affect very few, perhaps only a single case. I hope that reform is not being carried out simply on account of a single case. Hard cases make bad law. What is the purpose of revealing the accused's previous convictions? That information has been excluded so that a jury will convict, as they have sworn to do, on the evidence rather than on the principle of "give a dog a bad name". The Home Secretary is proposing a very risky novelty.
Changes will be welcomed by the police. I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord's comments. But the great failure has been the inadequate number of police available on the streets to look after jury members. There has been insufficient
486
recruitment, including that of men and women of superior education, perhaps because of poor salaries, especially in the higher ranks.
Things seem to have gone wrong with the prosecuting authority. There have been too many slipups by the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the old system, there were prosecuting solicitors in towns and a representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions in each region. What has happened to the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General? In the old days, there were constant discussions between the two, sometimes several times a week. Any case involving a hint of public interest or sensitivity was brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. Some cases require the Attorney-General's leave; for example. offences under the Official Secrets Act. As the Attorney-General, I would discuss any such cases with the Director of Public Prosecutions, along with the Solicitor-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. We would probably send for the police officer.
In the Burrell case, for example, I cannot imagine that under the old system the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General would not have discussed the case at the time of the police report, well before the prosecution was formally launched. We would probably have sent for the police officer to discuss his report. The question must have arisen, having regard to the strangeness of the man, whether there was evidence to show any intent to permanently deprive.
I congratulate the present Attorney-General for his personal activity in the courts, by contrast to some of his recent predecessors. He has played a big part in the courts over the past few months and years. He has little experience of the criminal courts and none of the Solicitor-General role. My fear is that under the present system the Crown Prosecution Service is not acting as it was intended to. First, it is underfunded. In the police, we only get quality if we arc prepared to pay a salary commensurate with what is expected in private practice. If the Home Secretary is serious about improving criminal justice, he does not need to make risky changes of hallowed practices and novelties in the criminal law. His job is to rattle the bars of the Treasury and frighten the Chancellor to produce more money for the investigatory service and the prosecution service. They must get more funds or the situation will increasingly deteriorate. The Home Secretary should not propose such risky novelties in the forthcoming Bill.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I shall take you away from serious crime to minor trespasses, which may be committed in the process of legislation. The gracious Speech promises us 22 Bills, several draft Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny and other measures and proposals. It is a programme of considerable proportions, even before other measures are laid before us. I want to use the occasion of this debate to comment on the process by which Parliament. notably your Lordships' House,

487
deals with this programme. I hope that I have chosen the right slot for such comments, given that the noble and learned Lords opening and concluding this debate for the Government are distinguished experts in matters of process as well as substance.
One of my conclusions as I enter my tenth Session in your Lordships' House, and incidentally my fifth on the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, is that this House has become central to the legislative process. While the other place concentrates on either supporting or challenging government, and on maintaining the link between the political centre and the electorate in the constituencies, we spend much time on line-by-line scrutiny of Bills and on improving legislation brought before us. In a sense, we do the work that in other countries is done by committees of the first Chamber. We can do so effectively because we are prepared to devote time and expertise to the task. This we can do because we are not too distracted by politics in the narrow sense, let alone by constituency demands.
One may wonder whether such an arrangement can be justified in abstract constitutional terms. But, in so far as it works—in my view, it works rather well—it does so because we, as Members of the upper House, are not elected. We do not have to compete with the House of Commons in any way. Once the House of Lords is even a partly elected Chamber, a new balance of tasks will have to be found or else the legislative process will suffer. I shall leave this issue on one side for the moment; it will no doubt keep us busy for a good while in the early part of next year.
I shall make five necessarily brief, and, therefore, probably unduly simple, comments on how our legislative process works or might even be improved. There is first the statement of the obvious. Bills that come to Parliament should express the Government's intentions clearly and be technically flawless. It is a regrettable fact that major Bills have come to this House in a very imperfect state. Perhaps it is a compliment to your Lordships' House that the Government once again introduced nearly 2,000 amendments to their own Bills during the past Session. Some of those amendments were the result of debates in this House and of open discussions between spokesmen from all Benches. However, at times one feels that departments have had to work to target dates rather than to standards of quality. The result is that Bills are changed by their sponsors even at Third Reading. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has to add to its considered comments on the original Bills at times unduly rushed results of the scrutiny of amendments. When a Bill is finally passed and given Royal Assent, it still has evident flaws and one can see another Bill on the same subject coming. This is not good legislation and it may not even reflect good government.
One remedy proposed—this is my second comment—is pre-legislative scrutiny. The gracious Speech explicitly states that the Government place importance on that method, which involves a committee of both Houses looking at draft legislation.
488
Those who were involved in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Communications Bill speak of it with satisfaction and many others have considerable expectations. However, it is clear that pre-legislative scrutiny can be applied only to a small portion of all legislation. It is no accident that the gracious Speech mentions 22 Bills but only three drafts for scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny is time-consuming. Joint Committees are sometimes barely quorate and, of necessity, they leave many questions open. We should give the new method a chance, but not over-rate it.
Thirdly, there is the much less satisfactory result of imperfect legislation, which is to add towards the end of Bills a clause enabling the Secretary of State to fill in "incidental and consequential" gaps by secondary legislation. Over the years the House has tolerated such clauses, even if Bills stipulated no more than negative resolution of regulations promulgated on this basis. It is relevant that in the recent debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, a more robust attitude was taken, especially when secondary legislation involved Henry VIII powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will shortly put to the House a report on experience with such clauses. The Government have promised to comment on it and help find time for a debate in your Lordships' House. It would not surprise me if the outcome was a stricter scrutiny of enabling clauses for consequential provisions.
Fourthly, it appears that in the near future we are going to see more and more deregulation measures—or regulatory reform orders, as they are now called. These are intended to lift burdens. They are scrutinised by a committee of the other place and by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These orders raise a whole new set of issues. In some cases, they take the place of primary legislation. Indeed, rumour has it that the Government have encouraged departments that were unable to find a slot for legislation to use the instrument of regulatory reform orders instead. No doubt both Houses of Parliament will follow the process closely. Again, a general debate of the issue may be in place once we have more experience with regulatory reform orders.
Fifthly and finally, my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Goodhart tried the other day to test the view of the House and the Government on "sunset clauses". The occasion, right at the end of the Session, was perhaps not propitious, but the subject deserves attention. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was impressed when visitors from Australian state legislatures told us of the use of clauses that limit the assured life span of secondary legislation to five years and thus force the legislator to take a positive decision to renew it for another period. There might well be scope for the extensive use of sunset clauses on secondary legislation in particular. It would certainly be worth a try.
These are footnotes and no more to an important legislative programme. They are intended to help create good laws that are clear in substance and technically as nearly perfect as possible. I look forward to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the

489
Lord Chancellor, but first, like all your Lordships, I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
12.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to begin by saying that the 16 days that I have spent as a Member of this House have been an encounter with a spirit of welcome and assistance that went well beyond what I had been led to expect. I am most grateful not only to those noble Lords who have assisted me on numerous occasions, but particularly to the officers of the House, who seem to be naturally inclined to rescue wanderers who clearly do not know where they are going. I am learning gradually. There seems to be an instinctive recognition here that to the inheritor of an episcopal see established in the seventh century, coming here feels like entering a risky modern innovation.
Although my membership of this House derives from my being the current tenant of the see of Worcester, the three Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Wales, concerned lest idleness be an occasion of sin for me, have asked me to take on, on their behalf, responsibility for the episcopal oversight of the Prison Service. With that in mind, I have chosen to ask to make my maiden speech in this debate.
In that role, I succeed the right reverend Robert Hardy, the former Bishop of Lincoln, whose service to this House and to prisons, through his membership of this House, will be in the minds of many noble Lords. Your Lordships will wish to know that an occasion is being arranged for early December, to be presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, at which he will be honoured. I am sure that that will delight Members of this House as much as it daunts me in thinking that I need to succeed him.
The modern Prison Service, by which I mean the development of a national and legislative framework for imprisonment since the 19th century, has had rehabilitation at its heart. Rehabilitation in the modern Prison Service is not a secondary object or something that you try to do while keeping people locked up, which is your main concern. It was at the heart from the beginning. That is why, historically, a prison was constituted by the presence of a governor, a doctor and a chaplain. It was also recognised that the contribution of faith and spiritual values to the rehabilitation of persons was indispensable. That precious tradition continues. It has, mercifully. been widened. We should be proud as a House of the contribution that is being made through the office of the Chaplain General and by his colleagues, the principal Roman Catholic chaplain, the senior Free Church chaplain and now the Muslim adviser and the representatives of other faith communities, to enabling all the faith communities of this country to play their part in creating a climate in which people can stand the best chance of being rehabilitated after conviction and sentence. In addition, I can say without fear of contradiction and without any sense of apology that the Churches in this country remain probably the foremost source of voluntary assistance in the process
490
of rehabilitation—something about which I am not in the least complacent, but about which I am also very pleased.
The work of Mothers' Union branches in staffing visitor centres at prisons does a great deal to enable that very fraught environment to become as humane as possible. Members of the House who are familiar with the work of Alpha and of its courses may be less familiar with the fact that there are now between three and four hundred people whom Alpha volunteers have met at the prison gate, escorted into their communities, and enabled to find a place within local church communities. We need that kind of process if rehabilitation is to stay at the heart of the aim of the Prison Service.
I salute, and I hope all Members of this House support, the decency agenda that the present Director General of the Prison Service is pursuing with the support of his staff. It was a sign both of his recognition of the contribution of spiritual values and of our recognition of his contribution to the work of rehabilitation that he was invited by my predecessor Bishop Hardy to address the General Synod of the Church of England and is now preparing to address the first multi-faith, fully inclusive chaplaincy conference to be held next March. These developments are all extremely encouraging and merit our support.
So why do I feel it necessary to make any comment on this matter in the debate on the gracious Speech? It is because this rehabilitative heart of the aim of the Prison Service is under some considerable pressure, if not threat. The fact that we have approaching 73,000 people in our prisons and are now the foremost imprisoner in Europe indicates that we have entered a competition that we should not have entered. It also signals a victory about which we should riot he pleased.
I am particularly concerned at the relative increase in the number of women and young people being imprisoned. Both of those trends seem to me to run the risk of preparing other young people—and, indeed, children—for a life of crime, and is an implication of the imprisonment of the parents and people of a young age.
It is not for me—and, certainly, a maiden speech is not the time—to enter into the debate that other noble Lords are clearly initiating about the detailed provisions in the gracious Speech. However, while such provisions are debated, it is important for me to take this opportunity to invite the House to have ill the back, if not in the front, of its mind the implications of these measures as regards the overwhelming pressure of prison population on the very aims at the heart of the Prison Service.
It is extremely easy for people to be persuaded that there are simple remedies for the problem of crime. I have a good deal of local experience. I chair the chief officer group concerned with racial justice in the criminal and civil justice system in West Mercia. I also invited one of our most senior police officers to address our diocesan staff meeting on how he saw the future of his work. He made two comments that seemed to me to be of the greatest importance. First—

491
this was shortly before an election—he said that he was very frightened of what he termed the political "auction" in toughness, which was likely to bedevil the campaign and lead people to suppose that there were simple remedies for the problem of criminality.
I mention the second comment of that senior police officer because I had intended to do so. However, I do so with some hesitation, lest it be presumed to be a criticism of a previous speech. He also said that he was extremely concerned about the rhetoric that was used in the debate about crime. In particular, although he accepted that the use of the language of "fighting" was very understandable under the pressures of the need to engage public sympathy, he believed that it liberated precisely those aggressive, angry and destructive instincts that lead in the long run to an increase, not a decrease, in criminality.
It is clear to all of us—indeed, that has been a thread in the speeches that preceded this one—that the reduction of criminal activity is a many-faceted task. The recent report of the Social Exclusion Unit on reoffending is an example of just how many considerations one has to bear in mind if one is seeking a reduction in criminal behaviour. So, in the many debates that will follow over the specific provisions adumbrated in the gracious Speech, I plead that we keep in mind the priority that is at the heart of our prison system. When seriously considering the implications of our legislation, we should keep in mind the three priorities of numbers, numbers, and numbers.
It is some 37 years since, as a raw priest in training, I sat in the chaplain's office in San Quentin prison on the west coast of the United States and heard a knock at the door. A man some three years younger than I came into the room and placed on the table a metal object that had been honed to a lethal instrument. He said, "You had better take this off me, or I'll use it". At that time I was new to that kind of situation. It was a very frightening moment, but the challenge was very clear. His challenge to me has remained a life challenge a metaphor for what we need to do about criminality.
The task is about lifting burdens: lifting burdens from individuals who are led into criminality; lifting burdens from children when their parents are in prison for, perhaps, short periods—times in which rehabilitation is not really possible; lifting burdens from the victims of crime, who need to live in a safe, warm and caring environment; and lifting burdens from the hard-pressed and committed servants of the Prison Service, who are seeking to honour the heart of their endeavour but are finding themselves placed under perpetual pressure.
We on these Benches know that, as a society, we have no mandate to give up hope on anyone; and that redemption and rehabilitation are concerns that merit the attention of all of us. I speak as the bishop to prisons, as well as the bishop of a diocese in which there are four prisons that represent almost all of the challenges about which I have spoken. If there is any
492
way in which we on these Benches can support a many-faceted, careful, rational, compassionate, and firm approach to the issue of criminality, we shall certainly wish to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and other speakers, as well as the Home Secretary, have used the word "culture" to describe what needs to be changed if the issue of criminality and anti-social behaviour is to be addressed. We do need a culture—a culture of firm and demanding compassion. It has to be demanding so that we do not accept that anyone realises less than his or her potential, and compassionate because we recognise that all of us face considerable obstacles on that journey. I hope that the legislative proposals will be examined in the spirit of service to a culture of demanding compassion.
12.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester in his maiden speech, which has clearly been well received on all sides of the House; it was wide ranging and generous. I am particularly grateful to follow him as I was formerly a resident in the Southwark diocese, for which he had responsibility for many years. He combines the knowledge and rigour of an academic—he was William Leech Professor of Applied Theology—with the experience of a practitioner ministering to his flock. I was particularly interested to hear him mention prison visitors centres and his work there. Prison visitors centres have been mentioned in the House several times recently, and I hope to hear much more from the right reverend Prelate on the subject. I was also interested in his comments on rehabilitation and the important role that the Church plays in that. Those remarks were very instructive and helpful, and I hope that we will hear much more from him on many future occasions.
I am grateful to the Government for this opportunity to debate their legislative programme. I shall concentrate my remarks on the issues of sentencing and children in prison. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Minister refer to the specific needs of black communities and the need to protect them from crime. About three months ago, the son of a remarkable Afro-Caribbean woman with whom I have been acquainted for some years—she is the chef in a hostel for young home homeless people and is called "Mum" or "Mother" by many of the residents—was murdered. He was in his early 20s. I therefore appreciate the Minister marking out that territory.
I also welcome the Teach First programme, to which the Prime Minister recently alluded, which will encourage the cream of graduates to work for two years as teachers in our toughest inner-city schools before taking up posts in business. In the past 10 years, Teach for America has been successful in encouraging 8,000 high-flying graduates to fill a similar role in inner-city American schools where many children qualify for special school lunch arrangements. Such programmes are an important part of efforts to create a more integrated society where the privileged and the

493
excluded can better understand each other. Such programmes remind me of the Fabian fire of my forebear and the forebears of several other noble Lords. They remind me also of the important contribution made over the years by my noble friend Lord Northbourne and his involvement with Toynbee Hall and with young people.
Young people are very sensitive to fairness. They are more likely to become cynical and less respectful of society and others if they perceive others as motivated by short-term self-interest. The Teach First programme is likely to produce some good role models—a theme to which I shall return later. The programme will help persuade children of the need to follow acceptable social norms.
I also welcome the recently announced increased funding for child and adolescent mental health services. Over the next three years, funding will almost double, increasing to £450 million. If the money is efficiently used, I expect that it will decrease the number of young offenders and provide a better experience for those who do go to prison, reducing the likelihood of re-offending. Strengthened child and adolescent mental health services are an important part of the rehabilitative process to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester referred. If mental health is the Cinderella of the health service, then child and adolescent mental health is Cinderella's little known and forgotten sister. I am very pleased that the Government are giving the matter such priority.
The Government are to introduce legislation to reform sentencing arrangements. I understand that part of their objective is to reduce the number of people in custody and increase the use of community penalties. Such action could not be more welcome as far as children are concerned. Your Lordships may have read the children's rights report, Rethinking Child Imprisonment: Report on Young Offenders' Institutions, published by the Children's Rights Alliance. On page 65, it states:
"Joseph Scholes hanged himself a month after his 16th birthday. Since his parents' acrimonious divorce some years earlier, he had allegedly suffered repeated sexual abuse by a relative, had received psychiatric treatment for depression and had tried to kill himself. He then went into the voluntary care of the local authority and was placed in a children's home. Four days after his placement, he joined a group of children from the home who committed a robbery with Joe acting as their lookout. Two weeks before his arrest, he slashed his face with a knife 30 times. The room was so bloody it had to be repainted. The young offender institution knew of his history and had him closely watched. But he seized a five-minute opportunity when a staff member went to a lavatory. The prison director Martin Narey is quoted as saying, 'We did everything we could for a boy who should not have been there'.
"Kevin Henson had developed emotional problems following the death of his mother when he was 14. He had become seriously dependent on alcohol and had a number of convictions relating to alcohol abuse. His remand to custody on a charge of wounding was his first experience of prison. On September 5th he was refused bail. He had hoped to be granted bail to visit his mother's grave on her birthday which fell soon after. The visit to her grave was of particular importance to him and a ritual he had carried out regularly. The following morning, he was found hanging in his cell. He had been dead several hours. Notes and letters were left
494
expressing his desire to join his mother. A month before his death, the governor of the YOI, Kevin Dydin, had resigned in protest at conditions he described as Dickensian".
Many children in the young offenders estate have similar backgrounds. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, alluded to the high incidence of mental health disorders in the adult prison population. However, we often subject children who have experienced neglect in their families and possibly in local authority care to further neglect in the young offenders estate.
There have been important improvements with the introduction of the Youth Justice Board and the replacement of separate prison health provision with NHS provision. But the pressure of overcrowding is such that much of the improvement in the regime is undone, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has mentioned. It is as though the Youth Justice Board seeks to alight on a bus that accelerates away. In particular, and most alarmingly, children and young people are still not receiving an adequate assessment on their arrival in prison. Vulnerable children are not being spotted. I refer your Lordships to Vulnerable Inside: Children in Secure and Penal Settings, published by the Children's Society and written by Barry Goldson, lecturer at the University of Liverpool and director of the Youth Justice Research Unit.
I quote from an NRRI practitioner:
"A lot of children we have here have committed a fair quantity of crime but they are not desperately serious, so much so that you wonder how they have met the criteria for custody. But they have been put down as persistent young offenders. As an example—I admit that it is an extreme example—I had a kid with learning disabilities who had been remanded for theft of toffees from a toffee jar and criminal damage to the lid of the jar"
The report also mentions the assessment process. The present situation is not good, according to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, with too many young prisoners arriving at YOIs with virtually nothing known about them. An NRRI practitioner states:
"If I get completed, and completed well, an ASSET—
a form of assessment that should begin at the start of the child's engagement with the criminal justice system—
"it gives very good pointers that I can follow further and expand upon. The reality is, though, that I rarely have all of the necessary documentation".
He refers at the end of the book to the,
"complexities of assessment which are given short shrift within a mechanistic, indecently hasty and deeply problematic process. Despite the rhetoric, representations and associated claims made for each assessment process, the practical realities reveal serious defects".
I look forward with keen interest to hearing Her Majesty's Government's comments on reviewing sentencing arrangements in the light of what. I have just said. Given Her Majesty's Government's evident concern in this area, I hope that there will also be an opportunity to consider the disapplication of the Children Act to the prison estate and whether:hat is still acceptable and to review Section 130 of the Criminal Justice Act 2001 that allows children to be

495
remanded for petty theft when they are not a threat to others. That particular measure received scant attention as it arose at the end of a parliamentary year.
To conclude, I apologise for trespassing so long on your Lordships' time. However, I wish to return briefly to my theme of encouraging socially responsible behaviour and consideration for others as a complement to the stick of what is being offered now. I have spoken for long enough. I thank noble Lords for their attention.
12.44 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on a powerful speech. It reminded us of our responsibilities as a society to those in prison and to those who are particularly vulnerable. As someone who is also very committed to those issues, I look forward to working with the right reverend Prelate over the months to come.
I cannot pretend that I am content with the proposals outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Had he spoken of the sexual offences Bill, by and large I should have been able to pay him and the Home Office a warm tribute. But the criminal justice Bill, with all its infringements on civil liberties, is a piece of proposed legislation that I consider unworthy of this Government. Regrettably, it is yet another example of a strand in contemporary lawmaking that can only be described as authoritarian.
Why is it that people one would have expected to be liberal are losing enthusiasm for civil liberties? I believe that there are a number of reasons. First, in debates about civil liberties the emotional power is always with those who make their stand on the side of victims and who seek to combat crime. In many ways it is the easy position to take. It certainly is the populist position to take. We can all imagine ourselves as potential victims. Few people are as concerned to imagine what it might be like to be a young, law-abiding person falsely arrested. It is much easier to imagine what it is like to be burgled or mugged or raped. Indeed, some of us have experienced some unpleasant crime.
But that appeal to populism is one of the problems. Modern political discourse is increasingly impoverished with no public space for real discussion. If focus groups become the source for politicians' decisions as to how they should proceed and those focus groups say that too many people get away with crime, but without very much debate on what infringements on civil liberties might mean, it is very easy for government to decide to do something about the courts. As mentioned in this debate, changes such as those now being suggested will he as of nought in reducing crime but as of much in relation to what will be done to our system of justice.
The second problem for civil libertarians is that authoritarians always have the best rhetoric. They claim the songs and the flags and the role of public protector. They promise a comforting paternalism to which a frightened public can surrender. And there is a lot of fear around at the moment. There is talk of war.
496
There is concern about terrorism. There is the fear of crime. The claim is that the Government will not allow us to become victims of crime, of terrorism or of other horrors that might affect our security. It is very easy for us to be deluded into thinking that these, the good guys, could mean us no harm. The rhetoric of modernisation can be very seductive. The rhetoric of rebalancing in favour of victims sounds so plausible.
The third problem for civil libertarians—and perhaps most significant of all—is that it is particularly hard to engage popular support for the protection of civil liberties because we are losing our historic memory about why we need such safeguards. Even that 60s generation who so vociferously campaigned for civil rights and liberties is often itself the author of many incursions, no longer able to identify those at the receiving end, perhaps because they seem particularly alien. Or perhaps it is just the onset of middle age—the onset of comfort.
In the main, though, the recent generation of middle class white people living in the West have not had anything directly affect their lives that creates the visceral feel for what those protections mean. Most have not felt the heavy hand of the state. But—and I emphasise this—the state does not change. The need for civil liberties is just as strong. Where you will find civic memory still alive is often among the Jewish community, the Irish, black people and other minorities. There you may still find a sense of what it is like to be powerless and marginalised, at risk of being caught up in a backlash where the law is your only shield. Unfortunately, even minorities who have in the past been at the receiving end of state abuse can be lured into the phoney yet enticing embrace of "us" as distinct from "them".
It is right that the law should modernise. The law must evolve; it must never remain a dead letter. The thing I love so passionately about the law is that it is a living, breathing entity. It should never be allowed to atrophy. That is why I have campaigned so long and hard for legal reform in the profession and the courts.
However, before one modernises anything, one must identify the founding principles, which are not negotiable. It is on those principles that the edifice is built. Our legal system embodies certain fundamental values. That may seem a trite observation; it is nonetheless true. We would certainly know if it were not the case. Today, happily, we often look for those values in formal codes of human rights and in our new Human Rights Act. But values are also to be found elsewhere—in legal rules, in presumptions surrounding procedure, and, most importantly, in certain fundamental concepts that underpin the basic approach of the law.
For example, the presumption of innocence; the right to jury trial; and the principle against double jeopardy. Those values are the accumulated moral wisdom of the law, which gives us our understanding of how the law should work. That understanding has grown up over time. This is not a conservative position. The legal conservative would probably see

497
those values as static and protective of existing arrangements. A more radical view sees them as a means of achieving greater social justice and freedom.
There has probably never been a period in which these values have been safe from attack. Any sense of history enables us to see that the freedoms and decencies to which a humane society aspires have been threatened in one way or another. Some of those threats have come from crude tyranny in the shape of fascism or Stalinism. But bullies may dress in all forms of clothing and, as I have said before in this House, tyranny can come clad in an Armani suit.
Erosion of civil liberties can come stealthily. The crude threats are perhaps easier to identify. We can tell when someone wishes to shut down our freedom through outright bans or persecution. The stealthy threats are more difficult to identify and they may even be missed. They may also come veiled in the language of social protection, or material betterment, or in claims of rebalancing the system in favour of the victim. But they can be dangerous, and it is salutary to remind ourselves of these dangers when it is necessary to do so. It is necessary now.
Legal values are under pressure from those who see them as an obstacle to efficiency or who are looking for ways o save money or assuage concern about crime. One might hasten to point out that those objectives of efficiency, saving money and dealing with crime are laudable, but they must never justify the abandonment of civil liberties.
I apologise to the House. I have been given the great honour of being invited to give the Hamlyn lectures—rather important lectures in the law calendar—this year. The first of those lectures is tonight at six o'clock. I do not know how the debate will proceed, but I may not be present to hear the reply of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I extend my apologies to all noble Lords attending the debate; I intend no discourtesy. I hope that your Lordships will understand if I am not here at the end of the debate.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it would be impertinent for me to congratulate the noble Baroness on the eloquence of her speech. Instead I would like to congratulate the Government on the courage of their legislative programme, having listened to some of the noble Baroness's remarks.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on an outstanding and most interesting maiden speech. When I was Leader of your Lordships' House I was concerned that the Bishops' Bench did not seem to contribute too much to our deliberations. I sought out where I thought the centre of power was in the established Church—which was not necessarily most obvious—and said to its members that it was right they should encourage those bishops who were Members of this House to contribute on a wider range of subjects. Over the years I have been here that has been so. I am delighted that the right reverend Prelates have been reinforced with someone who clearly has many valuable things to say to us. We shall appreciate his contributions in the years to come.
498
I cannot be sure how many Queen's Speeches I have had some responsibility for putting together, but it runs well into double figures. I hope that your Lordships will not find it amiss if I say that to me the Queen's Speech has a familiar ring about it. I hope that it will not run into some of the familiar problems, but I fear that it may.
I therefore want to talk about the process rather than the substance, and in particular to echo some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The Home Office seems to have—not for the first time—a little more than its fair share of the Bills in this Session. For as long as I have had any dealings with these matters, either in government or in opposition, it is a frequent and justifiable complaint—particularly in your Lordships' House— that Bills are not drafted as well as they should be.
That justification has substance and, of course, it did not start with this Government. Nor do I suggest it started with the government of which I was a member for many years. But I remember being told on one occasion that I was likely to be faced at legislative committee by one of the Law Officers telling us that a Bill was not fit to bring before Parliament. There was obviously no way I was going to allow a Bill to come before Parliament with such an endorsement, so we had to sort it out quickly. These problems have been going on for a long time.
Pre-legislative scrutiny will help, but we would make a great mistake if we thought it would bring about anything other than a marginal improvement. Your Lordships should not underestimate the inherent difficulties of persuading departments and Ministers to put forward their Bills in that form in time. Whenever we look at a legislative programme we should remember that, if this year is like any other, five significant Bills to be enacted by both Houses will arise out of circumstances or events. We know nothing of them at present and neither do the Government.
I want to talk about the difficulties with bad drafting. There are three reasons why Bills are drafted badly. The Leader of the House alluded to one in a remark earlier in the week. The first and most important reason is that Ministers do not make up their minds as to what the policy is in sufficient time for the excellent parliamentary draftsmen to do the job properly. That is squarely in the hands of Ministers. The business managers must encourage them to make up their minds in sufficient time for the work to be done properly.
The second problem is a tendency—in my experience, the Home Office is not the least offender in this regard—continually to add items to a Bill once it has started to go through the parliamentary process. Sometimes that inevitably has to be done hut when I was a business manager I did everything that I could to resist someone's additional idea, which was usually ill-digested and badly thought through. I did not always win the battles but I certainly tried very hard. Ministers should resist that and business managers in particular should be extremely tough in that respect.

499
The third problem is much more difficult to deal with. I was always in favour of getting the Long Titles of Bills drafted as tightly as I could to avoid additional amendments that widened the scope of the Bill, which often let the subject get out of hand. The government of the day had no intention of legislating in such a way, had not properly thought about the issue and quite rightly did not particularly want to. Problems therefore arose.
We are today discussing mainly Home Office legislation. In my experience, the Home Office has been one of the better departments; many others are considerably worse. The difficulty with Home Office Bills has not been the Home Office's capacity to draft a Bill but, as has already been made clear in our debate, the substance of its Bills. We shall certainly have some difficulty in that regard. I have not seen all of the details of the Bills and I shall not comment further. I hope that when we debate them, we remember the principles, which are not so much in question, and the detail. We should concentrate on that but our aim should be to ensure that the debate can be sufficiently constructive that we can agree to amendments from the Government and elsewhere in the House, that improve the legislation.
When I last considered this matter, I established that about 90 per cent of all decisions taken by government are not party politically controversial. The 10 per cent that are party politically controversial are usually high profile cases, which get plenty of publicity and are very important. Ninety per cent of the processes involving the government of our country are not party politically controversial. However, it is vitally important that those decisions are right. In so far as they involve legislative processes, the House has an important role to examine that.
I remember, for example, one occasion when I was Leader of the House. We had a Home Office Bill but every living former Home Secretary in your Lordships' House, from all three parties, came along and spoke against it. I had to move rather quickly and negotiate various changes. We got the Bill through and it was not emasculated; it was probably a better Bill. There was give and take on all sides and success was achieved. If I say to the Government that we have been here before, I do not say that in a spirit of criticism.
This process of debate and revision by two separate Houses with different responsibilities and composition is a key part of our present legislative arrangements. Some of us are worried about how those responsibilities will be discharged in the future. Great responsibility rests on the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. I, like the Government, look forward to considering its report, as it guides us to the future. I hope that what it and Parliament will do when they come to consider the report will be to recognise that the best may be the enemy of the good. There is going to be no solution that will command the overwhelming support of everyone. The only wise solution is some form of compromise, which may last for a long time or for a relatively short number of years. The royal commission which I had the honour
500
to chair came up with a solution which was not the ideal of any one member of that commission; it involved an interlocking set of proposals in relation to which we felt we could make progress. Our proposals were designed to give everyone something but nobody everything.
I was partly flattered and partly embarrassed to find my name clearly spelt out in the Labour Party manifesto, which endorsed our report. While the Government accepted many of our proposals, the changes that they made were sufficient to make their proposals unacceptable to everyone. In some ways— I say this in the friendliest possible way—the biggest mistake that the Government made was to call their White Paper, "Completing the Reform". That sent a signal to those who did not think that the royal commission and the Government had gone far enough—that is, pretty well everybody—that that was the end of the road and that no further progress was possible. That, in my opinion, was a difficulty that we could have avoided.
My hope is that the Joint Committee will in the end recommend the sort compromise with which it would be possible for us all to live. That compromise may or may not last a long time but to assert that there is only one solution that will last for ever would be a big mistake. The committee should strive for the greatest measure of common ground, and further progress could be made when that has been digested.
1.6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a barrister who both prosecutes and defends in the criminal courts. I am proud to he hewing at the same coal-face with the same enthusiasm as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It is no coincidence that other toilers in the criminal law, on the Government Benches in the other place and in this House, are constantly in conflict with commercial lawyers who have no experience of the criminal law but who guide this Government and have brought forward this legislation.
We face yet another tweak of the criminal justice system, a huge legislative effort to break more basic principles of the common law in order to secure more convictions. The problem is not in the practice and procedure of the courts. Noble Lords will remember that the boast used to be that British justice was the best in the world. The problem is that of getting offenders before the courts at all. The Association of Chief Police Officers, which is, it seems, in conflict today with the Home Secretary, made it an art form to attack defence barristers. We had a whiff of that earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie. If he has any concrete evidence of misdoing by defence lawyers, he will no doubt bring it before the authorities and ensure not only that they go to prison but that they no longer remain lawyers. We get much talk like that but no actual proof. It is the job of defence lawyers to expose the inadequacies of police investigation, and the standard attack, such as that we heard today, diverts attention from those very inadequacies.

501
The document, Crime in England and Wales 2001/ 2002, published in July, demonstrates where the problem really is. It puts together for the first time the police recording of crime and the British Crime Survey results. There were, in that year, about 5.5 million notifiable cases. "Notifiable cases" does not mean all crime: much crime takes place without being reported to the police at all. Detection rates of notifiable crime have fallen to 23 per cent. Only 23 out of 100 notifiable cases are ever cleared by the police. Detection does not mean prosecution; it involves the clear-up rate. About 12 people in every 100 notifiable offences are prosecuted. Detection varies according to the offence. Seventy out of 100 cases of robbery were detected in 1988; today the figure is 30 out of 100. In sexual offences, the rate has fallen from 75 prosecutions out of 100 notifiable offences in 1988 to 50 out of 100 today.
The reforms that the Government are now bringing forward focus on Crown Court and jury trials. If we turn to the judicial statistics for 2001, we find that 91,160 cases arrived in the Crown Court—that is, one offender in 20 of the cleared-up cases. Of those 91,160 cases dealt with in the Crown Court, 56 per cent—or 51,000 defendants—pleaded guilty. Of those who pleaded not guilty, 25,000 were acquitted. But 10,000 of those were discharged by the judge, 2,500 by the jury on the direction of the judge and only 7,300 by a jury verdict—that is, 7,300 out of the 91,000 cases going to the Crown Court.
Mr Blunkett said on Wednesday that it is a travesty of justice when the guilty walk free. Seven out of 90 defendants whose cases reach the Crown Court are acquitted by a jury. How many of those results are travesties? How many guilty walk free? The police and the Crown Prosecution Service do get it wrong, spectacularly so at times. So where should the effort be placed in the fight against crime? Should it be devoted to tweaking around with the criminal justice system? Or should it be concentrated on the investigative process so as to arrest offenders and bring them before the courts?
The provisions in the legislation proposed in the gracious Speech which are unacceptable are, in particular, the revealing of criminal convictions to the jury, the abolition of the double-jeopardy principle and the abolition of jury trial for fraud. What the Government always seem to forget is the overall duty of a judge to see that a trial is fair. If prejudice is occasioned by the revealing of convictions, for example, it is the duty of the judge to counter that. That does not depend upon the human rights convention; it is deeply embedded in the law. If the Labour Party wants to alter that, no doubt it will fight the next election promising in its manifesto unfair trials in British courts in order to get more convictions.
502
I was in court yesterday. I listened to a summing up. It so happened that the defendant's convictions and the periods that he had spent in prison had been revealed to the jury. The judge directed the jury in these terms:
"Because the defendant has previous convictions, it does not mean for a moment that he committed the offence with which he was charged".
The judge was doing his job of ensuring a fair trial and ensuring that the jury considered the evidence and did not take into account the convictions they happened to have heard about during the case. What will happen now? Will the judge have to direct the jury thus:
"In determining guilt, you may take into account the fact that the defendant has previous criminal convictions".
If he is not to direct in that way, what on earth is the purpose of revealing those criminal convictions to the jury? Shall we now change the jury oath? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, referred to the jury oath. Shall we now have:
"I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and deliver a true verdict according to the evidence and such prejudicial material which, thanks to the Labour Government, is now placed before me".
Will that be the jury oath in the future?
I turn to the issue of double jeopardy. Only in high-profile cases will such second trials he ordered. It will be impossible not to reveal to a jury the fact that a previous trial has taken place and impossible for the jury not to realise that the Court of Appeal has said that there is a strong possibility of conviction. If there cannot be a fair trial because of publicity of that kind, the judge, whose overall duty is to be fair, will have to discharge the defendant. There cannot be a second trial if the publicity is so strong. Convictions on a second trial will be so infrequent that they will not make a blip on the statistics. Yet every single defendant who is acquitted in the courts of this country will not be able to gain closure to the allegations which have been made against him. If this provision goes through, he will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.
All that arises out of one case— the Lawrence case— which should never have been brought. The Crown Prosecution Service did its duty in advising that no prosecution should have been brought because there was not sufficient evidence. The judge, not the jury, did his duty in throwing the case out at half-time. It was not a jury that acquitted the defendants in the Lawrence case; the judge said that there was not enough evidence. In that case, the Attorney-General of the day should have intervened to enter a nolle prosequi in order to stop the prosecution— noble Lords will recall that it was a private prosecution—and to keep alive the possibility that the defendants could be prosecuted in the future should further evidence come to light.
Why was there not sufficient evidence in that case? It was because the police investigation failed. The inquiry found that it failed due to, among other things, institutional racism. With every sympathy for the

503
Lawrence family— we all have that—they were ill-advised to bring a private prosecution. But the Attorney-General of the day was faint-hearted in failing to step in and stop it. How can the basic principle of double jeopardy, recognised by every civilised common law country in the world, be abnegated as a result of a case brought on such inadequate evidence that, as the judge found, it should never have reached the court?
It is said that DNA makes a difference. These days, DNA is sought in every single case. If there is any trace of DNA, a person who stands his trial in relation to that case will also have his DNA assessed. That is something which has no foundation. I draw an analogy with the right to silence. Your Lordships will recall that that was trumpeted by a Conservative Home Secretary in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as another way of securing more convictions. By Section 34 of that Act, juries should be directed by the trial judge to draw adverse inferences from the failure of a defendant to answer questions in a police interview—as if they did not do so anyway.
But the current practice—this is how it has developed; I speak from the coal face— as taught to solicitors and their clerks, is to advise "no comment" in interview and to hand in a voluntary self-serving statement at the point of charge. At one time, such a statement was inadmissible. But now the prosecution has to lead it because it is relevant to the question whether the statutory direction under Section 34 should be given. In fact, that voluntary statement suffices not merely to negate the drawing of adverse inferences from the defendant's silence at interview; as the statute reads, the judge has positively to direct the jury not to hold against the defendant the chanting of "no comment" at interview.
We have therefore reached a situation where what was thought would lead to more convictions has in fact operated in favour of the guilty who keeps his silence and against the interests of the innocent defendant who is anxious to blurt out his account. Because of that, through the various procedures adopted by the police these days and, in particular, phased disclosure—I shall not bore your Lordships with that—the interests of the innocent defendant are now at risk.
I want to say a word about jury trials. I have never understood what is wrong in having counsel explain a fraud case to 12 ordinary people in such a way that they and the public understand it and, when the person goes to prison, everyone knows why he is doing so. I believe that it is wrong to substitute the City of London's view of what is honest and what is dishonest for that of 12 people drawn by lot from the community. If one cannot explain how a person has been dishonest so that 12 ordinary people can understand it, then that person probably has not been dishonest at all.
504
These provisions will be subject to the greatest scrutiny from these Benches. They are against civil liberties. They will be attacked.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have considerable misgivings with regard to the Home Secretary's crusade to reform the criminal law and its procedures. I intend, however, at Second Reading of the relevant Bills, to make the odd timid and deferential intervention. It occurred to me that it might be more welcome to your Lordships if, instead of commenting on what the Home Secretary has suggested, I comment on what I think is an important omission from his programme.
Over 20 years ago, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that where the defendant honestly believed that the force used was necessary and reasonable, but the amount used was objectively unreasonable in the circumstances believed to exist by the defendant, the verdict should not be murder but should be manslaughter—sometimes referred to as the overreaction defence.
One of the advantages if this was adopted would be that the discretion as to how long a person should be given by way of punishment would be meted out by a judge and not by a politician. That suggestion was adopted by the Law Commission in its draft criminal code and was recommended to your Lordships' House by your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, on which I had the privilege to serve.
Your Lordships may have an indistinct recollection of the Irish case of R v Clegg, who, on 30th September 1990, when serving as a solder with the Parachute Regiment, shot the driver of a stolen car and one of his passengers who drove through a control point. He was convicted of murder on 4th June 1993 after a trial before Mr Justice Campbell without a jury.
His appeal to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland was dismissed, the Court of Appeal holding that the firing of the shot that killed the passenger was, on the facts found by the judge, a grossly excessive and disproportionate use of force. In the course of its judgment, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal recommended that the law should be changed by the adoption of the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
The Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, which dismissed the appeal, again endorsed that recommendation, with my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd, who is, I am delighted to see, in his place, saying that the recommendations were all one way.
Your Lordships will doubtless recall the case of Martin, a somewhat eccentric farmer who in April 1999 shot and killed a 16 year-old burglar and wounded his accomplice when they broke into his home. He was convicted of murder. In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, he introduced new psychiatric evidence that he was suffering from "an abnormality of mind" at the time of the shooting. He was diagnosed as having a long-standing paranoid personality

505
disorder exacerbated by depression, although the consultant psychiatrist who gave evidence at the trial found no evidence of depression or mental illness. The Court of Appeal accepted the new evidence and a verdict of manslaughter was substituted for that of murder, and he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
In the course of his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said that there were suggestions that the law was in need of change, but that this was a matter for Parliament and not the courts. That was an interesting reservation because, in April 1996, an inter-departmental review of the law on the use of lethal force in self-defence, or the prevention of crime, set up by the Government, duly reported. It dealt with various options for change, including that proposed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, to which I have referred. This was dealt with in what I respectfully submit was a confused manner in paragraphs 37 to 45.
Had the alternative of manslaughter been available, I have no doubt that the enormous outcry in favour of Tony Martin would not have occurred. He was convicted by a verdict of 10 to two. Mr Hague, the then Leader of the Official Opposition, referring to Martin's conviction said that it triggered,
"an explosion of anger and resentment among millions of law-abiding people who no longer feel the state is on their side".
In a leaked memorandum, Mr Blair cited the Martin conviction as an example of how the party was becoming "out of touch" with public opinion.
Mrs Gillian Shephard, a Member of the Conservative government's Cabinet when they were in power, said that the case had brought the biggest postbag of her political career—more than 1,000 letters—and that,
"the overwhelming number of responses I had were in favour of Tony Martin and saying he was right to defend himself'.
Quite recently on 17th October, Barry-Lee Hastings was cleared of murder but found guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2 of manslaughter. He stabbed to death a professional burglar who had a string of convictions, including one for attacking a person with an axe, and was on the run from the police when he broke into the flat in Tottenham, north London, where Hastings' estranged wife and their two children, both aged under four, lived. Hastings was on a visit to his family.
As Hastings approached the flat, he saw Williams in an upstairs bedroom and found the front door had been forced. He said he was about to call the police when he thought he heard his daughter crying out and so went in. He claimed that he picked up a knife intending to frighten the intruder, but when he was attacked by Williams in a darkened hall waving something in the air, he stabbed him in the back some 10 times. In the press this case was compared with that of Tony Martin and the possibility of an appeal was mooted.
As a matter of law, it might well be contended that Hastings was fortunate not to be convicted of murder, since it would appear that he intended to inflict serious bodily harm upon Williams and used excessive force in
506
so doing. This Government have repeatedly stressed that the law must not only be just but must be seen to be just. I accordingly trust that in the extensive programme of modernising and amending our criminal law, the Government will find time for this amendment, which has the impressive support of those to whom I have referred.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further debate on the Motion for an humble Address be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 1.30 p.m.]

Hepatitis C
3 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I declare art interest—not a financial one—as president of the Haemophilia Society.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what implications for National Health Service patients identically affected in other parts of the United Kingdom follow from the findings of the expert group appointed by the Scottish Executive to consider financial and other practical support for patients infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood, blood products or tissue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the expert group's report was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, and its recommendations on hepatitis C relate only to people who contracted the virus from blood or blood products from the NHS in Scotland. It does not, therefore, have implications for patients in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not much to the honour of the Scottish Executive that it had the case for compensating those infected and bereaved in this worst-ever treatment disaster in the history of the NHS independently examined by an eminent Scottish judge, not as in Whitehall by an in-house inquiry behind closed doors at the Department of Health?
If it is now seen as morally right to compensate in Scotland for hepatitis C infection by contaminated NHS blood products, should not the same moral imperative apply elsewhere in Britain? Is not the

507
Haemophilia Society eminently justified in insisting that to deny parity of treatment in this case would diminish the NHS to a two-tier, two-class and two-faced system of healthcare for the British people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his distinguished presidency of the Haemophilia Society and to the society itself for the vigour with which it pursues its case. The fact is that the matter was considered by this Government and by the previous government. In general. compensation is given only to those who suffer negligent damage from NHS treatment. On that basis, the decision was made that no compensation would be given.
The position in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. I am, of course, aware of the recommendations of the expert group set up by the Scottish Executive. My understanding is that the Scottish Executive, in welcoming the preliminary report, is now considering what the outcome should be.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has just said, can the Government give a clear assurance that, if contamination has occurred within the National Health Service, adequate compensation will be given to the individuals who have been affected?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can only repeat my words to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. One can only regret deeply the fact that so many people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through blood products. As soon as the technology to make blood products free from hepatitis C became available, the NHS introduced it. On that basis, there is no legal liability to justify compensation for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, even though there are separate organisations north and south of the Border, it seems extraordinary that the Minister should say that different moral considerations apply, depending on which side of the Border one happens to be. Malcolm Chisholm, the Health Minister, has been extremely sympathetic to Lord Ross's report, whatever the final settlement is to be.
Is the Minister really saying that the representations of the Haemophilia Society and, in particular, the results of the work of the expert working group set up by the society under Matthias Kelly QC will not be sympathetically received in the circumstances?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Mr Chisholm welcomed the expert group's preliminary report and said that there were complex medical, legal and financial considerations to take into account. The Scottish Executive will need to consider its further position. There is little point in having devolution— certainly for NHS issues—unless the Scottish Executive and Parliament can come to their own view on such matters, as this Government do.
508
All that I can do is repeat my great sympathy for those who were affected. The Government have reviewed the matter. The previous government reviewed the matter some eight years ago and came to the same conclusion.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Minister gave an answer that was, in every way, factually correct. There is no legal responsibility on the NHS in England and Wales because no negligence was proved. Is there not, nevertheless, a strong moral responsibility to offer compensation to those infected through no fault of their own when blood products used for the treatment of haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C? No one could have predicted that. but the moral responsibility is very strong.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords will know that the Government gave careful consideration to the matter and to the point raised by the noble Lord, as did the previous Government in 1994–95. Undoubtedly, meetings took place with the Haemophilia Society, and it argued its case strongly. I cannot pretend that the decision that the Government made was easy, but we decided that we could not make an exception to the general rule in this case.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in an earlier reply, the noble Lord referred to "negligent damage". Surely, there was damage from the contamination. As for negligence, whose can it be, other than that of the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as soon as the technology became available to make blood products free from hepatitis C, the NHS introduced it. There was, therefore, no legal liability to justify compensation for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C. The conclusion that this Government reached is exactly the same as that reached by the previous Conservative government— on the same issue and on the same facts—in the mid-1990s.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, how does the noble Lord differentiate between this case and the extensive compensation provided for victims of crime? There is no obligation on the Government to provide a penny piece for victims of crime, but, in the past, it was provided on the same basis as the ordinary civil liability. Subsequently, it went on to a tariff system. Many millions of pounds are provided for victims of crime. Why is there a differentiation between them and the haemophiliacs whom we are discussing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we cannot make a straight comparison. The principle that I enunciated has applied to the NHS for many years. It was shared by this Government and the previous government.

Armed Forces: Bullying
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been any changes in the Ministry of Defence's arrangements, announced in 1988, for dealing with bullying.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, measures to combat bullying in the Armed Forces are kept under regular review and adjusted as necessary. The services' policy is unequivocal: no form of harassment or intimidation will be tolerated, and all allegations are investigated and appropriate action taken. Officers and senior ranks have the responsibility to preserve good order and discipline at all times. That is reinforced on appropriate military training courses.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that response from my noble friend. We have a fine army, and we need tough, well trained soldiers. However, is my noble friend aware that the announcement made in 1988 was designed to eradicate bullying from the Army? Recent events, including suicides at Deep Cut barracks, indicate that the policy is not working. In future, instead of repeating the mantra that bullying is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, can we make commanding officers directly responsible for any bullying in their unit?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I, too, want to acknowledge the part my noble friend played in another place in 1988 in ensuring that changes were made in this area. However, he knows that I cannot comment on the specific circumstances surrounding the deaths at Deep Cut while investigations of the Surrey police remain ongoing.
The Army continues to co-operate with the police in the course of their inquiries. There have been big improvements since 1988 in a number of areas, including increases in manpower to oversee training and better man-management training of officers and NCOs.
Furthermore, an Armed Forces code of social conduct was issued in 2000 and a diversity policy for the Armed Forces was issued this year. It is an issue that the Armed Forces take very seriously.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the connected survey conducted by the Army was correct in suggesting that almost half those surveyed considered that the Army does have a problem with bullying? Does he also accept that this is a particular problem in training establishments and that clear attention needs to be given to training establishments in the Army in this respect?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to the degree that 43 per cent of those who responded to the "Continuous Attitudes" survey said that they believed
510
that harassment, bullying and discrimination were problems. The figures for those who claim to have been the victims of bullying are, thank God, lower; that is, 5.4 per cent, and 2.8 per cent of those who were surveyed.
Indeed, problems with bullying undoubtedly occur during training, as one would expect, because very young men and women are entering the Armed Forces. That would be true in other walks of life, too, because when people leave home for the first time, alas, bullying occurs, whether it be in the Army, Navy, Air Force or at school.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest. How does the record of our Armed Forces compare with the Armed Forces of other western nations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know how it compares, but I would be very surprised indeed if it did not compare very favourably.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, everyone would agree with my noble friend that there is no place for bullying in our Armed Forces, excellent as they are. However, will he accept that during recent months the newspapers may have verged towards inaccuracy, and sometimes imagination, in reporting on defence matters? Is not the key issue whether service men and women are adequately informed of the arrangements which he and previous Ministers have made to ensure that accusations of bullying are properly examined?
Lord Bach: My Lords, one case is too many. There is a policy of zero tolerance. However, there are actions which service men or women should take if they consider that they are being bullied The first avenue to any individual who has those concerns is to approach his immediate superior, or someone else within the chain of command. It is the duty—-I repeat, the duty—of every officer and senior noncommissioned officer to confront and deal with inappropriate behaviour. That is emphasised time and time again during training. Therefore, any suspicion of bullying should be dealt with immediately.
Furthermore, there are now other people to whom an individual who is worried about something can turn. They are professional personnel such as the medical officer, padre and local welfare services. But I want to take the chance of praising the Women's Royal Voluntary Service which before 1988 had 19 people in the field of welfare and now has 72. It does a remarkable job in ensuring that young service men and women are catered for if they feel that they are unhappy are or being bullied.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is all very well providing somewhere for someone who is being bullied to turn, but it is difficult indeed for someone who is being bullied to take that step. Does the Minister agree that

511
what is needed is the efficient training of junior non-commissioned officers to detect what is happening and provide a friendly face, rather than an authoritarian one, to those who need it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord and that is what happens. The training of junior officers and senior ranks involves a huge amount of being told how to behave towards youngsters in their charge. It is an important part of their responsibility. However, for those who indulge in bullying there is the prospect of being disciplined most severely indeed by being charged, if need be, with a criminal offence, or by an administrative means which can include being chucked out of the Armed Forces altogether.

Sustainable Development
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chestertonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the recent World Summit at Johannesburg, they will be focusing more of their scientific research and co-ordination work towards the goals of international sustainable development; and whether this policy will be extended to all relevant government departments and organisations funded by government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the issue of sustainable development already runs through the work and priorities of the UK science base. Research councils are committed to supporting the research and development to understand and address priorities such as climate change, sustainable energy, biodiversity, water and health. The science budget attracted substantial new funding in the latest spending review and details of the allocations will be made public shortly.
In addition, departments such as DfID, DEFRA, the Department of Transport and DTI undertake research in support of their policy interests relating to sustainable development.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouraging response. Will he change the wording of the affirmation required of researchers seeking government funds? The 1993 White Paper introduced the worthy but limited objectives of improving "wealth creation" and "quality of life". Will the Minister start consultations about introducing wider objectives?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, improving the quality of life also includes the objectives we would
512
have in terms of international development. It is a wide-ranging phrase and would be taken also to include that.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only last week the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was concerned that government departments would do no more than pay lip service to the objectives of sustainable development? In the light of that, what will the Government do to ensure that sustainable development is put at the heart of policy making?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we already do a great deal across a wide range of departments in initiatives in this area. We have the sustainable technologies initiative, which includes developing an understanding of socio-economic aspects of the adoption of sustainable technologies. There are also the enviro-wise programme; the waste and resources action programme; the market transformation programme; and the work of the Carbon Trust. So already a number of important programmes are in place and we have taken action in areas such as energy research for sustainable development, which will have a major impact.
There are already major programmes and we also have in this country some of the finest research in places such as the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, which are recognised as being world-class centres.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind the emphasis placed by the UK at the Johannesburg World Summit on access to safe water, has any scientific research been conducted in the UK with a view to providing third world countries with effective and low-cost methods of testing drinking water for arsenic and other heavy metals? Will the Minister also say whether with our increased emphasis on wind energy we might be in a particularly convenient position to transfer those technologies to third world countries where high average wind speeds obtain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we carry out a lot of good research on wind energy. We can transfer technology in exactly such areas to markets of the developing world. In fact, we recently welcomed a report from the innovation and growth team on environmental industries and services. Energy and wind energy is part of that, as is the way in which we increase our share of those markets in this country by transferring that technology to the developing world.
I am not certain about the position on water. I believe that we have some good research, but I shall write to the noble Lord setting that out specifically.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, as an extension to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, do the Government have any plans to extend their

513
scientific research and co-ordination to assist African scientists and researchers on vital sustainable development goals?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we already have substantial ongoing research for African countries. I believe that that will continue to be extended. We have an MRC research station in the Gambia, and DfID does a good deal of work and research in Africa. One of the most interesting examples is the research work that has been done on a disease affecting cassava; namely, cassava mosaic virus. Two hundred million people in Africa benefit who might otherwise suffer as a result of the disease. The work has been developed at a cost of £3 million over the past 10 years and the gross monetary benefit is about £80 million. So there are substantial programmes, with very substantial benefits.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the Minister in what respects? The programmes to which he has referred are suggested to be wholly defective.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have just given an example where £3 million of research money was spent on traditional breeding of new varieties of cassava. That gave a benefit of £80 million. By anyone's standards—certainly by mine— that is an extremely good cost-benefit ratio.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister recall the report of the Science and Technology Committee of this House, published in May this year— which I chaired, and to which he was kind enough to give evidence— indicating that the fate of the systematic biologists who are needed for the implementation of so much sustainable development was found to be in a parlous state? When will the Government give their response to the report, and which department will be leading on that response?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that it is going to be given shortly. I believe that it will be given jointly by the OST and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because both were involved—the DCMS is also involved—so I think that the response will have to be across government. The DCMS is heavily involved in the question of places such as the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum, which are very involved in the biodiversity debate.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, there is much excellent. publicly funded research in this country on, for example, sustainable agriculture. Does the Minister accept that if only there were a mechanism to fund its application in the third world it would help to meet the objectives set at Johannesburg? Does he agree
514
that for the lack of this relatively small amount of pump-priming money we are wasting an opportunity to help the third world?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I do agree with that. I think that money is available and some research establishments in this country do a very good job doing just that.

Ethiopia
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they have responded to a recent appeal by the Ethiopian Prime Minister for international donors to help combat the onset of famine in that country.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the humanitarian situation is a matter of great concern. But so far in 2002 good co-ordination between the Government of Ethiopia and donors has represented a big advance over the situation in 1984.
Prospects for 2003 are potentially very serious. We are keeping the situation under continuous review. We are involved in frequent in-country dialogue on the humanitarian situation between the Ethiopian Government, other donors and NGOs. So far, we have made humanitarian commitments of some £12.3 million in the calendar year 2002. We remain committed to playing our part in the international response, which includes increasing UK bilateral contributions when necessary.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Does she agree that studying the recent history of Ethiopia can help dispel the myth, apparently supported by the Foreign Secretary, that all the problems of Africa are linked to a British colonial past? Will the noble Baroness therefore support the view that the best way to tackle famine across Africa is by the international community looking forward and working with African countries to end the cycle of corruption, economic stagnation and war which condemns so many Africans to poverty and famine?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do not necessarily agree with the noble Baroness on the first part of her supplementary question—in fact, I do not agree with it at all. I agree strongly on the other part. The Government have become extremely engaged with the present situation in Ethiopia. We are monitoring developments on the ground through our DfID office in Addis Ababa— an example of the co-operation referred to by the noble Baroness. The Secretary of State spoke this morning on the telephone to Prime Minister Meles. We have had meetings with the Ethiopian ambassador, and the Secretary of State will visit Ethiopia in January. We have a continuing

515
partnership programme with Ethiopia, as we have with many developing countries. The programme includes ensuring that debt relief is on track. I am pleased to say that partial debt relief is now available to Ethiopia. We also ensure that long-term alleviation of poverty is at the top of developing countries' own agenda.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in view of the appalling developing situation in Ethiopia, it is essential to bear in mind the importance of balancing talk about reform of world trade and level playing fields by very specific, tailored policies to enable desperately poor countries such as Ethiopia to reach the point of economic fitness to play on those level playing fields? Does she further agree that the tragic situation underlines the importance of the previous Question by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton. Unless climate change is brought under control, we shall be confronted with worse disasters throughout Africa in the future?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend on both issues. I agree with his point on climate change, and unless we have a level playing field we shall always be catching up with the poverty situation in Africa. The Government have made very important moves, for instance in terms of CAP reform. Unless CAP reform takes place, there will continue to be a major distortion in world markets.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to reconsider—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to reconsider her answer about the Foreign Secretary's reply regarding British imperialism. Ethiopia was not governed by the British; it was removed from Italian control by the British. Does she not realise that a war has been going on in Ethiopia between the Eritreans and the Ethiopians? The country has been independent since 1959 or thereabouts. So the fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars. We should not be permanently saying that it is our fault— mea culpa. The Ethiopians are responsible for their own independence and their own actions. That is what grown ups are about, and we assume that we are grown ups.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness talked about colonial power not
516
necessarily British colonial power. I agree very much that the Government and DfID are ensuring that countries become independent as quickly as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, since the donor community is being asked to supply 300 million dollars worth of food aid and 12 million dollars worth of veterinary and medical, non-food aid, it should determine which ports would best be used for the purpose, including the Eritreans' offer of Massawa and Assab? Would not the use of those ports be beneficial in encouraging friendly relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which are so essential to the long-term recovery of the region?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is for the agencies managing the operations to use the most cost-effective means of delivering relief supply. In that sense, I very much agree with the noble Lord. We urge all parties to facilitate that process.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.31 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, as a matter of pleasure rather than duty, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech during this debate. He simply. directly and eloquently brought us to the heart of the issues in the Bills that the Government have included in the gracious Speech covering this area. As a mere layman, I feel slightly exposed at being preceded and followed by such a galaxy of noble and learned Lords. I am happy to declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs.
It is clear that our criminal justice system needs to work much better to respond to the concerns of too many local communities that they have had their safety and security stolen from them. That is why I welcome the measures that the Government want to put in place in these Bills. The day-to-day activities of the yobs, the graffiti sprayers and the anti-social louts are contemptible to neighbours. neighbourhoods and communities. As my noble and learned friend said in opening the debate, in the past few years, many types of crime have fallen on the back of much higher and sustained investment in the number of police officers, in their equipment and in more effective policing. But too many people know that darker nights and school holidays mean extra disturbance around their homes. People whose lives are ruined and wrecked by petty crime and anti-social behaviour will be impatient of lawyers who do not recognise this and who defend current measures and give the impression of resisting change. They will simply not understand it if Parliament, councils, police and the community safety partnerships that they have formed do not respond and demonstrate that we are all on their side.

517
There is progress, and it is important to acknowledge and learn from it. I have been involved in efforts to regenerate a rundown council estate at Castle Vale in my former Birmingham constituency. I also have the privilege of chairing, at residents' request, the neighbourhood management board, which links service providers and users in preparing for when the successful Housing Action Trust ends its work in about three years' time. One major, important key to sustainable development on Castle Vale is recognition of the need to tackle the causes of crime, trying to prevent it and to engage residents in that process. We have been slow to learn that neither the police nor any other agency can do this alone. There must be a partnership involving residents of those communities. They must feel safe in taking part in that process.
The Housing Action Trust has won massive resident support for making sensible use of anti-social behaviour and eviction orders against a handful of anti-social and criminal residents. If that had been contemplated by Birmingham City Council 10 years ago, there would have been close to a riot among residents and tenants on the estate. Years on, through the work of the Housing Action Trust and the partnerships that it has built, the residents were wholly behind what the trust did. The HAT uses CCTV and neighbourhood wardens to show residents three things: it is on their side, it is now more difficult to commit crime in that community, and it is much more likely that those doing so will be caught and prosecuted. The Housing Action Trust also funds a home-school liaison officer to help young people under threat of exclusion and to try to divert them from crime. In partnership with the Home Office, it funds ;.in arrest referral officer to assess and fast-track into treatment residents arrested on criminal charges who have a drug dependency.
The Government need to better spread this successful practice and to find new and more effective ways of involving the main victims of crime in its prevention and in combating it. The main victims of crime are young people. Perhaps we can learn in partnership with organisations such as the Scouts and the Guides actively to involve young people in such work. It is right that we should acknowledge the fall by 14.6 per cent in juvenile reoffending since the Youth Justice Board started to implement changes in the system two or three years ago. It is also important that we do not overlook the fact that, for every young hooligan. another 99 young people respect their neighbours and community, and, like their families, want to live in peace and security in and around their own homes. As Sir Peter Hall, professor of planning at University College London, said earlier this month in the context of the problems of litter and anti-social behaviour:
"Maybe…the answer is to get the kids—natural authoritarians, if organised—to police the other kids and to maintain their own zero tolerance regime".
That is a useful thought.
We also need to find better ways of reaching out to those mainly young men in urban and rural areas who do not see themselves sharing in the better life and
518
prosperity, and who feel it beyond their reach in any event. This lies at the heart of alienation. disconnection and much anti-social behaviour. The criminal justice system is also failing, to combat crime and to offer offenders more fulfilling lives.
As we hold this debate, there are around 73,000 people in our overcrowded gaols—the highest per-capita population in the European Union. According to Martin Narey, the director general of the Prison Service, in 18 months that figure is likely to reach 80,000. In the past year, the prison population has risen by 5,000—around an extra seven in every 100. The remand population of around 13,000 has increased by 1,300, or 11 per cent, in the past year alone. As Professor Rod Morgan, the Chief Inspector of Probation, reminds us, the proportion of offenders sent to prison has almost doubled, from 17 in 100 to 30 in 100, in the decade from 1990. Your Lordships will have noticed that it was not in that decade that crime fell year on year. It is falling now, and we all hope that that continues. Around three out of every four young offenders whom we send to prison are back behind bars within two years. That is not very successful.
We need to make two changes. If half :hose prisoners sentenced to six months or Less—that is 8,000 prisoners, or about 11 in every 100—were given community sentences, where appropriate, the prison population would fall by about 4,000. I hope your Lordships will join me in saying that politicians and the press have a responsibility to challenge those who argue that community sentences are somehow a soft option. They are not. They are sentences and, when they are well targeted and well resourced, they offer a much better prospect of stopping people reoffending. In those circumstances, they are much better at that than simply locking people away. We share a duty with the press and the media to make that clear to: hose among the public who have doubts.
An astonishing 75 in every 100 prisoners are sentenced to just 12 months or less. Even more astonishingly, 14,000 prisoners get one month or less and 40,000 get three months or less. How is the Prison Service supposed to fulfil its duties in helping these young offenders to lead better lives if they are with the service for such a short time? That collides and conflicts with the education and drug treatment roles that the Prison Service is now about.
It would be useful if my noble and learned friend could also explain what action the Government propose to take to transfer to the health service those 5,000 prisoners who are profoundly mentally ill. They do not belong in prison and need expert care and treatment that the Prison Service is not equipped to provide.
As I have told your Lordships' House, I am all for the much wider use of community sentences for those convicted of non-violent offences. However, Ministers must listen and respond to the concerns of Professor Rod Morgan, who heads the probation inspectorate. In an interview in the Guardian on 13th November, he said that,

519
"the probation service is facing the same overloading crisis as the prisons".
If, as I believe, the Government's ambition is rightly that more sentences should be served in the community, they must do even better than they have done so far with the probation service. That is in spite of the fact that an extra 2,000 probation officers have been recruited since the national probation service was put together two or three years ago and its funding in the period up to 2005 is going to increase by 80 per cent. If we are going to lay extra duties on the probation service to make a better success of the use of community sentences— which is what I want, and I suspect that a number of your Lordships agree—the resources must be provided to the probation service to enable that to happen. That would be money well invested, because cutting the large number of repeat offences is good for society and produces an economic benefit, as well as the benefit for the individuals concerned.
Professor Morgan and Martin Narey, the Director-General of the Prison Service, believe that the collapse in the use of fines by the courts has partly fuelled the rise in the prison population. There is a strong case for going back to the system of tying fines to the ability to pay, but using that fine system as an alternative to sending people to prison for short sentences. Those short sentences need to be replaced by well designed, staffed and funded community penalties. There is a rare collection of views on that now. It is the view of the Home Secretary, of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and of the Lord Chief Justice. All the big players have said that. The Government now have a responsibility to ensure that it happens.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will assure me that these views have been heard and will be acted on. The Government's response to proper concerns about anti-social behaviour will be helped by a stronger emphasis on community sentences and extra funds for the probation service to make them more effective. That will give the Prison Service a better opportunity to carry out what I believe is its main role, which is not punishment, but the prevention of further crime. In that sense, the emphasis must properly be on rehabilitation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said earlier, there are lots of people whose lives are blighted, maybe not by offences that are criminal in the normal sense, but by everyday nuisance and disturbance in going about their business. We must collectively find answers to that. I hope that the Government will achieve that in their measures.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, I, too, know that it is no longer the convention for speakers to say something nice about a preceding maiden speech. However, I want to say that it was a privilege to hear the speech of the right reverend Prelate. For far too long, too many backs have been turned on what goes on in the prisons—on
520
those who are inside them and on the often self-defeating regimes that are pursued there. The right reverend Prelate will do much to correct that.
I hope I shall be forgiven for not following the extremely important speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. I intend to limit my remarks to criminal trials for serious offences. Governments have always faced a critical dilemma. On the one hand, they have to be seen to address the public's anxiety and anger about crime. They have to show that they are on the case. Procedural reform is temptingly available to them for that purpose. On the other hand, they realise that they are the custodians of a precious framework of individual liberties, containing safeguards that, once curtailed, are seldom, if ever, restored. They certainly are part of our national heritage and I believe strongly that preserving them has far more than a mere historic or antiquarian importance. Establishing a fair and practicable balancing of those objectives has always been part of the art of governing this country. The Government are in danger of getting it wrong.
In the few minutes available, I shall focus on trial by jury. As we all know, the right to trial by jury has been adjusted more than once in modern times. Yet trial by jury for serious offences remains a fundamental feature of the balance that we strike, as it has for centuries. We have always placed it in the scales on the side of freedom. The question is whether it still carries weight there. I believe it does. I can think of one fairly recent case in which a jury's apparently eccentric acquittal led promptly and directly to the drastic revision of the absurdly catch-all law on official secrets. That is one example. The point is that juries are able to do what seems to them to be right. If they think that a prosecution or the law on which it is based is wrong or unfair, they are impregnable against the displeasure of the executive when they acquit accordingly. They do not have to give reasons, as, for example, is the case with a Diplock court in Northern Ireland.
I should like to cite a line or two from the response to the White Paper, Justice for All, prepared by the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. I do so because they make the point so well:
"Juries keep the law honest…because they oblige lawyers and judges to deal with what is right and wrong by the standards of the general public, as well as what is the letter of the law".
These days, I detect a tendency in the Home Secretary to say impatiently of the Bar Council, and of others in relevant practice, "Oh, them!", thereby implying special pleading on their part.
I suppose I should declare an interest here in that I am a retired barrister, with a son practising at the Bar. But in the Bar's response to the White Paper, I do not detect anything of the nature of special pleading. All I would urge upon your Lordships is that the language that I have cited is surely perceptive and reflective language. As such, surely it is worthy of being heeded with respect. To draw upon special knowledge is not necessarily to indulge in special pleading.
We should never forget how devastatingly invasive can be the exercise of the state's jurisdiction to prosecute people. In its powers it is quite unmatched

521
by anything that is made available to the subject, the individual, who is at the receiving end. In these days when it is. rightly, fashionable to seek public "ownership"—the modern phrase—of public processes, I cannot believe that it has somehow now become right that, in even a single category of serious crime, the ownership of the outcome of a trial should be removed from the public, represented as they have been for centuries by a randomly selected jury. That cannot be right. It is important for us to know from the Government the justification for doing so, at any rate in serious fraud cases; and, indeed, in the other categories of case to which it may be applied in the future.
Yet, again, one understands the Government to say that there is a case for this action. At least in the case of serious fraud they agree with the Roskill Commission, of some 15 years ago, which thought that such cases were too difficult for juries and recommended special tribunals. I confess to having a previous record in this respect—some form—that I suppose Ministers would feel should be disclosed to them. When the government of whom I was a member rejected that Roskill recommendation, I, for one, was not disappointed. I later established the Serious Fraud Office, answerable through its director to the Attorney-General.
When he concludes the debate, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that over the past three years the conviction rate of individuals prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office has been, as I understand, no less than 86 per cent? If that is correct, does it not, as the Bar Council's response rather modestly puts it,
"provide a proper basis for having substantial confidence in the present system"?
I hope that there is no evidence at all—indeed, I would not expect there to be— that in formulating its prosecutions the Serious Fraud Office has failed to bring out the full criminality of a case out of a desire to temper the wind to an unskilled jury, as the Government suggest in the White Paper. But if such evidence exists and is causing concern, is it not remarkable that Lord Justice Auld did not refer to it and rely upon it? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could also deal with that issue.
What jury trial for serious fraud certainly does is to oblige the prosecution to explain its case in a way that the layman can understand. And why not? Fraud is dishonesty. No one should be convicted of it without his peers being enabled to understand from the way in which the prosecution has put the case the basis upon which dishonesty is alleged. That is not asking too much. If the prosecution team cannot manage it, there is either something wrong with their case or with them. I thought that we were all agreed that we need to take the mystery out of the language and the processes of the law. I suggest that we do not want criminal trials conducted and resolved between experts in arcane jargon that no one outside their craft can understand. Keeping jury trials for serious fraud cases will safeguard us against that.
522
Both the DPP and the director of the SFO must, by statute, be superintended by the Attorney-General, who is answerable to Parliament. That, in itself, is part of the public ownership about which I have spoken. The Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest. I warmly agree with the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell earlier today about the practice that this implies in real life for the Attorney-General and the two directors. I should emphasise strongly that the Attorney-General does not have to be asked for his advice by a director before it can be right for him to give it. Some of the answers given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General when recently questioned about the Burrell case could have given rise to that impression, which would be wrong.
Of course we have to take into account our experience of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. I have never had anything but admiration for them. But they were introduced solely by reason of the intimidation of juries, as was the special court in the Republic. I cannot speak for them, but I greatly doubt whether any of the Northern Ireland judges, who have to act as both judge and jury, would not prefer, if circumstances permitted. that the system reverted to what it was. I should also be surprised if they are not irked by the assertion able to made by some defendants that they are obliged to suffer their cases being the subject of a fundamentally exceptional procedure. Incidentally, the rates of conviction and acquittal in the Diplock courts compare very closely indeed with those in cases where jury trial still obtains.
In my few remaining minutes I should like to say a few words about proposals for disclosing previous convictions. I agree with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in this respect. What is the theory behind this proposal? What weight is it said may properly be given to disclosed previous convictions? How will this affect prosecution decisions? Guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service require that a prosecution shall only be brought where there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. Will the service be advised that, notwithstanding that other evidence—if you can call it "evidence"—is insufficient, the ability to disclose a previous conviction is nevertheless capable of tipping the balance, which would mean more prosecutions than is the case at present? It is enough simply to ask that question. For the moment, I hope merely to receive a reply. The time for comment will come later.
In reviewing in this Session what will be but the latest tranche of the Government's recurring Bills on law and order, I am sure that we shall return time and again to the proportionality of their impact upon the liberties of those individuals who make up the very public whom they are intended to protect. For my part, I can think of no subject more worthy of your Lordships' most vigilant attention.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish first to apologise to the House for failing to be present in the Chamber for the opening speeches. I must confess to falling victim to the new sitting hours. I extend my sincere apologies to those concerned.
The Home Office must be the most uncomfortable ministry to occupy for reasons we all know well. Before launching into a series of criticisms of the Queen's Speech, I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, an admirable man and an experienced Minister who has his feet planted firmly on terra firma.
I shall say a few words about prisons and policing, a few words about law-making, a few words about magistrates' courts and even fewer about the criminal justice Bill on which many noble Lords have already spoken with great eloquence, experience and knowledge. I add my voice to the concerns expressed with regard to fraud juries, or the lack of them, previous convictions, double jeopardy rules, and some of the reforms proposed to sexual offences, especially rape.
The bias towards the avoidance of all wrongful conviction, which lies at the very root of our criminal justice system, has uncomfortable consequences that neither we nor the press do much to explain to the public. There is a choice to be made, and we in this country have made our choice as to where the bias should lie. We must, for no reason, move from that foundation.
With regard to prisons, it is a mystery that we have, by so great a margin, the biggest prison population per capita in the whole of Europe, bar Turkey. We let ourselves off the hook as to why that is so. The public perhaps blame politicians more than they should, and we do not always do our best to avert that blame by putting the problem back in front of the public, as we often should. The seedbed of the extraordinary level of criminality in this country, of the bizarre proliferation of anti-social behaviour, for which we are now notorious throughout not just Europe but the world, is composed of many highly complex matters. Sometimes, we should try to return to the causes of that sad state of affairs, although we are much more inclined to plunge into the particularities of legislation designed to cope with it.
A fortnight ago, I spent the morning at Feltham Young Offenders Institution, a place that has received more than its fair share of bad news coverage in recent years by dint of an exceptional number of suicides there. Happily, it is now functioning much more effectively. It has an exceptional governor in Nick Pascoe. I thought that it would interest your Lordships to hear a few of the brute facts about that place.
At present, it holds 680 prisoners, of whom 330 are young offenders aged 18 to 21, and 350 are juveniles aged 15 to 17. For those 680 prisoners, there are 1,050 staff, of whom 380 are prison officers. Even with that complement, they are 50 short. The cost per year of a young offender is £21,000; for a juvenile, nearly double at £41,000. Ten per cent of the inmates have mental problems; 70 per cent are re-offenders; 23 per cent are
524
not British; and 60 to 70 per cent—this is shocking—are illiterate or near illiterate. Ninety-nine per cent were unemployed when they committed the offences for which they were imprisoned. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to the fact that their average stay is but two months. Perhaps most devastating of all, even in that enlightened institution, where so much good, hard work has been done, they spend 17 to 18 hours a day in their cells.
The Queen's Speech states:
"Sentencing will be reformed to ensure that the punishment is appropriate for the offender. New types of sentence will be introduced to protect the public from dangerous offenders, help reduce offending and deal with young offenders".
The one certain way of not reducing re-offending is currently to put anyone into one of our prisons. They will return to society less fit to play a constructive role than when they entered prison. That is a commonplace—a notorious one—that we continually ignore. It is one that the public will not face—or, perhaps more fairly, are not called upon to face.
I am not sure that the public really understand the facts. If they understood that the direct cost of keeping people in one of our young offenders institutions or prisons was more than that of sending them to Eton or of giving them their own personal full-time tutor and that the cost of their criminality adds several times to the annual cost of their incarceration, the public would not be as retrograde as they sometimes seem.
To expect the police to deal with that parlous state of affairs is unfair and unrealistic. It is notable that the massive reduction in criminality in New York was achieved by a near doubling of the police force. Its police force was originally roughly equivalent per capita to ours in London at present. When we realise that the direct cost of crime to this country in the most recent year for which we have records was £65 billion, for us to continue with the current extraordinarily modest accretions of manpower to the police is bizarrely short-sighted.
The cost of doubling the size of the Metropolitan Police would be well under £1 billion, but we are discussing an annual direct cost to society of £65 billion. If anything like the savings experienced in New York as a result of reduction in criminality and in damage and anxiety to citizens were achieved in London, we would save not £1 billion but £10 billion or more.
Lastly, I shall say a word about law-making. During last year's debate on the Queen's Speech, I suggested that the flow of legislation promised to us was liable to be counter-productive. We had already had about 15 criminal justice Acts since the present administration came to power. I looked up the legislation for 1902. Primary legislation took up 147 pages of small A5 sheets. Interestingly enough, it included the first Licensing Act, a subject with which we shall now grapple again. Secondary legislation took up 976 small sheets. For 2001, which is the most recent year for which the Library could give me records, primary legislation took up 2,063 pages; while

525
secondary legislation took up 10,693 pages; a total of nearly 13,000 pages. That is roughly 25 times more than in 1902.
Things have changed, but we are now legislating with a voluminousness and complexity that has become totally self-defeating. It is self-defeating for us, because so much legislation is not scrutinised at all either here or in the other place; and it is self-defeating in the extra burden that it places on those who are supposed to use it. Let us consider the police. Every new piece of criminal legislation with which they must deal wraps up the police force in an ever-greater subjection to bureaucracy. It confuses and deters the magistracy. Out in the streets of this wonderful country, more and more people have given up—they have ceased trying to understand what we are doing in their name— and they do not pretend even to understand the broad purport of the legislation which pours forth from this place like so much sophisticated effluent.
The Licensing Bill which thumped onto our desks last week totals nearly 200 pages. The first crucial landmark Licensing Act consisted of 12. The Bill includes—I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take note of this—a "Framework" for future guidance which is 11 pages long. Clause 177 will entitle the Home Secretary, in effect, to fill in the substance of the Bill itself. All the crucial criteria for the operation of the Bill are to be provided, not by way of statutory instrument, which we can at least in theory challenge, but by way of guidance, which we cannot. This is a recipe for the final side-stepping of this Chamber and the other place. That should not be accepted.
However inconvenient it may be, we should say to the Government—and, indeed, to ourselves—that too much legislation is counterproductive; that too much law makes for more unlawfulness; that the more complex the law the less (and the less fairly) it will be implemented; that trying to manage a democratic society by legislation will eventually make it unmanageable; that imperfect laws which are accepted are better than sophisticated laws which are not; and that w here we, the legislators, cannot understand our own legislation, the public certainly will not do so either. In dealing with the legislation to come, I hope that we will be able to make some impression upon it.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I welcome very warmly the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we need a strong, eloquent bishop of prisons who talks about compassion. We had one, and I am glad to see that we now have another.
I should like to make some broad comments about the direction of the Government's policies in criminal justice generally, particularly in relation to the first and third of the six Bills listed this morning, and I should also like to say something about balance. Much has been said about balance and, as the Bills were enumerated earlier, it struck me that the anti-social
526
behaviour Bill has a title that we could never have accepted here 15 years ago because laws against anti-social behaviour were the prerogative of the totalitarian countries under the thumb of the former Soviet Union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, our historical memory can be very short.
I am reminded of a talk with the chief prosecute r of a former communist country not so long ago. We asked, "How many acquittals do you have?". He said, "That is an odd question, but I shall find out". He sent someone away, who came back and whispered in his ear. He said to us, "Well, out of the last 5,000 cases we had two people who were acquitted. Of course", he said, "if we had more acquittals than that it would suggest that the police were arresting the wrong people. Our police are very good and they never arrest the wrong people".
The Government talk about rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. I am not sure whether that includes the two children referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, today—disturbed children needing compassion— who were sent to prison in our name and who killed themselves there.
I should like to talk about three other rebalancing acts. The first is between the criminal justice system and other ways of responding to social disorder, family breakdown, drug addiction and conflicts in communities. Governments make choices about where their resources are spent. There is a path that can be taken where the criminal justice process grows ever larger, where more and more social problems are swept up into the machinery of police, courts, prisons, and more and more small time nuisance and petty criminal behaviour is dealt with through the criminal system.
Unfortunately, I fear that that is the path the Government are taking— more and more prosecutions. No doubt there will be targets and that to reach the targets the CPS will be prosecuting more and more poor confused souls who break windows or steal cans of beer from upermarkets—prosecutions that will not be in the public interest at all.
The most effective and cost-effective way to deal with low-level anti-social behaviour is through social measures. In the excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on 27th March this year, the House looked at the balance between punishment and prevention; at prosecution versus an appropriate social intervention. Figures were brought before the House which showed that, compared with very similar countries, our per capita spending on health and education is lower and on the machinery of crime control is higher.
If the Government were really serious about effectiveness and about reducing crime and the number of victims of crime, they could well have considered a quite different proposition—that is, that prosecutions should be brought only when they are in the public interest, and that the very large number of pathetic, troublesome, addicted people, whose crimes are petty and whose problems are huge, should be referred to social agencies for action.

527
I remember well some 20 years ago that most distinguished Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, speaking of his conclusions after he investigated the Brixton riots of 1981. He said:
"There can be no criminal justice without social justice".
The second rebalancing I wish to refer to is the balance between prison and non-prison sentences, an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made some very cogent points. The statement in the White Paper, Justice for All, that,
"prison must be reserved for serious, dangerous and seriously persistent offenders",
is very welcome. However, that admirable statement cannot be implemented merely by saying it. It requires an enormous amount of action. One major action that it requires is to make the alternatives to prison more visible, more credible and more clearly effective.
In the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill 2000, we legislated for a national probation service and for a change of name of the community penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, argued that these measures would make them,
"truly effective and credible alternatives to custody".—[Official Report, 3/7/00: col. 1287.]
No-one can claim that this has been the outcome. The opposite has been the outcome.
Community penalties have fallen in their use as alternatives to prison and increased in their use as alternatives to each other. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has already mentioned the article in The Times on Tuesday by the very distinguished and scholarly Chief Inspector of Probation, Professor Rod Morgan. He makes it clear that probation and community service—I have never been able to get my tongue around the new names and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for not using them—are now being used not for those on the borderline of prison but for those who would in the past have been fined. This is a very expensive business and a totally non-cost-effective use of resources.
Community penalties are delivered by the Probation Service. I used to be very much in favour of a national probation service. I envisaged that a national service would get rid of local variations and weaknesses in the provision of community sentences, and would enable talented probation staff more scope. I imagined that there would be a strong high-profile chief probation officer who would be on television and in the newspapers frequently, pointing out the successes of community service orders and probation work, reporting how satisfied local people were with the work done and reporting how happy victims were to see a useful outcome as the result of an offence. I imagined that there would be a central, strong research office looking at results and publicising outcomes.
I now believe that I was quite wrong. The National Probation Service does none of those things. The result of abolishing the local probation structures and pulling all the probation services into the Civil Service has been that the good local services that did those things have been swallowed up by Home Office
528
bureaucracy and have all become invisible. No one is promoting community sentences and trumpeting their successes. I therefore urge the Home Secretary to have another look at the National Probation Service and think about the possibility of a reconfiguration. The work of supervising released and life-licence prisoners, managing risky people when they leave prison—I am sure it is being done very well at the national level—should continue to be done by the National Probation Service. It is my view that the provision of credible community punishments will be successful only if there is a strong local base. That aspect of the work should be returned to local areas.
That leads me to my third rebalancing suggestion, which is about the relationship between the national and the local in criminal justice and the relationship between meeting national targets and dealing with crime successfully in the places where people live and where they experience it. The Minister for prisons and probation recently made a speech warmly welcoming the achievements of the Probation Service in reducing re-offending by 3.1 per cent. No one would wish to question such an achievement, even while wondering what those figures actually mean. But for the people living in areas where crime blights their lives, the meeting of such a national target is completely meaningless. Crime is experienced locally. There are targets that might mean something to the people who experience that crime.
It is clear that, rightly, the Government want to have an impact on those areas where crime is worst and where people cannot afford the protective devices, nor the insurance policies that we have to protect ourselves from crime. Targets, for example, might be the number of residents in such an area who say, "I feel much safer than I used to"; the number of elderly people who decide that it is possible to go out at night to the local community centre; and the number of young people who have committed crimes, have apologised to their victims and made the victims feel that they have been listened to and understood. A place where many people who appear in court, are convicted and go to prison is not necessarily a safer or a happier place.
The deeper penetration of the criminal justice process into more anti-social acts can have the opposite effect. Local people begin to feel that they are not responsible for what happens around them. When anything has to be controlled the police should do it; when disapproval has to be shown towards certain behaviour the courts will do it; when anyone has to be corrected and made to reconsider their behaviour, the probation officers will do it. The more low-level antisocial and petty criminal behaviour that we hand over to the criminal justice system and the more young people who are dealt with by the official agencies, the more we weaken the capacity of local communities to take responsibility and exercise social control. I urge the Government to reflect on whether the approach that they are taking will lead to a safer society. I fear that it will lead to a more controlled and a more fearful society.
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was certainly an argument for the life peerage of the Cross Benches. "Lovely" is all I can say! I also want to say "lovely" to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. He rightly drew attention to the vital role of rehabilitation in prisons. If we do not rehabilitate prisoners, they will return to prison. It is as simple as that. My historical sense draws me to remind him of a contrast. The only time that the whole of the Episcopal Bench voted as one was on a case in the 1830s when it was proposed to remove the sentence of capital punishment from those who wrote their names on London Bridge. All the Bishops voted against its repeal. What a pleasant contrast that was.
I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Goldsmith, start their pupilage again, sitting in awe in the chambers of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. She gave them all a lecture. All governments, not only this one—sometimes even that of the noble and blessed Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, used to call her—need lectures on the difference between the rights of individuals and the liberty of the subject. The liberty of the subject cannot be stopped except by order. Rights have boundaries.
By nature, this Government is a bossy and an illiberal government, and worse so than most. One only has to look at what they are trying to do to the licensing laws. Instead of saying, "Let pubs open", they produce reams of regulations about how people should do this, that and the other and how the local authorities are to organise matters. One only has to consider their attitude to hunting. It has nothing to do with cruelty; it is about bossing people about and salving the conscience of Gerald Kaufman, an act in which no government should ever indulge.
The Anti-terrorism. Crime and Security Bill was riddled with illiberalities. The football hooliganism Bill was riddled with illiberalities. Now they say—this may not be accurate—that they want to carry-over Bills from one Session of Parliament to another. That is another way of making life easier for our lords and masters so that they can boss us about. In these Houses we should stop our lords and masters, however clever they are. No one is cleverer than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I say that with complete truth and no irony whatever. They must be stopped and held to account.
It is crazy to believe that we need any more criminal justice Bills. Since I have been in your Lordships' House we have had umpteen millions of them, one after another. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, says that crime is falling. As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, if crime is falling what is wrong with the system. "No, crime is falling so we have to abolish double jeopardy; we have to allow hearsay evidence; and we have to allow records of previous convictions to be allowed in evidence".
530
It seems to me that the fault is not so much in the law as it stands, but in the way in which it is enforced. There have been horrendous cases of miscarriages of justice. People have been let out after 25 years in prison because the police have hidden evidence. We had the case of that pathetic man whose name I cannot remember, but whose features I can, who was accused of killing someone. He was let out only after serving 15 years but died six months later. The other day we had a case in which a man had said that he did not do it—and he had not done it—and so wrongly stayed in prison for another 10 years. There have been miscarriages of justice.
So the Government now suggest that we should make it easier to make mistakes and convict such people. But what is hearsay evidence other than gossip? Let us assume for the sake of argument that someone came up with DNA evidence showing that the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four were guilty. Would the Crown dare to prosecute them again? Of course it would not, and rightly so, because those might be regarded as political crimes.
A very learned friend of mine—whom I would not dream of identifying as he said this in the social context of a conversation—said that although the police had a perfect defence against the charge of institutional racism in the Lawrence case, it was the one defence that they could not run. It was, "We are always as inefficient as this in our murder inquiries". Cases such as that of Damilola Taylor make one believe that there may be some truth in that. The CPS has not done us all that well. I cite Taylor again and I cite Burrell, both very high-profile cases.
We should not in any circumstances make it easier for people to cover up their mistakes. However, that is what the abolition of the protection against double jeopardy and of the right to trial by jury would do. We should not abolish the right to trial. by jury in any circumstances, either at the top, in fraud cases—because the Government are so patronising and believe that the plebs are too incompetent to understand fraud trials—or at the bottom. The Government are actually saying that the legal profession cannot get its act together and make the case sufficiently good to stick. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, the abolition of these liberties is a sure and gentle way to tyranny.
The other day, between half past twelve and one o'clock, I heard a rather interesting interview on the wireless with a man who had been a community policeman in Windsor. He said that in the rather grotty areas of his beat there had been a lot of the unpleasant, nasty and mucking-about sort of crime such as the banging of doors, graffiti, the harassment of old people and general shouting and mayhem. He used to go round his area on a bicycle and crime levels had decreased. When he retired, however, the police were not getting convictions and crime levels rose. His job had been to prevent crime.
The Government rightly complain about anti-social behaviour. I did not know that fly-tipping was not illegal. I had not realised that spraying something

531
nasty about someone on a white wall with a spray can from Halfords was not illegal. I had thought that such behaviour was illegal.
We have to stop people doing those things. However, we shall do so by ensuring that they are caught. We do not need to change the law. It is already not legal to spray the word which Kenneth Tynan used on television in relation to the Lord Chancellor on a white wall; that is illegal. However, we have to catch the chap doing it. If he is caught, he may not do it again. Extra legalities will not stop him. Fly-tipping is already illegal, as I know to my own cost. There are beds, lavatories and other bits and pieces of detritus at the edges of my woods at the end of the A246 and the A247, but I cannot catch those who put it there. I wish I could catch them. I wish that Plod could catch them, but he cannot. The problem may be slightly worse because of something called a landfill tax which makes it more expensive to put things into landfill.
We have to get a grip of the forces of law and order. We have to get a grip of the police who in many cases still assume that 30 days' sick leave is the right of any policeman. We have to get a grip of the Prison Service so that it does not allow drugs to run riot in prisons. We have to get a grip of our present system rather than abolish the ancient and well-established rights and liberties of British subjects for which we have fought and died for so many hundreds of years.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot be present at the end of the debate, for which I apologise to noble Lords. My reason is much less impressive than that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. May I, however, take the opportunity to wish her luck with her Hamlyn lectures. It is indeed a great honour to have been asked to give them. My reason is simply that I have to be in Cambridge tonight on behalf of the Inner Temple, of which some of your Lordships may have heard, and I do not feel that I can let them down.
I, too, want to return to the figures given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at the very beginning of his speech. I think that those very remarkable figures should have informed the whole of this debate. The fact is that all forms of crime have decreased steadily since the Government came to power in 1997, as they had done even before then. The Government are entitled to take credit for that, for sure it is that they would have been given the blame had it been the other way round.
The figures are remarkable. According to the British Crime Survey—to which reference has already been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—crimes of violence have decreased from 3.7 million in 1997, to 2.9 million in 2001, a decrease of 22 per cent. Burglary, of all things, has decreased from 1.6 million to under 1 million—990,000—in 2001, a decrease of 39 per cent. Even vandalism has decreased from 2.9 million to 2.7 million, a decrease of 6 per cent.
532
The figures may seem surprising: they are surprising only because we are so used to thinking in terms of recorded crime. Recorded crimes of violence have indeed increased—the number has doubled since 1997—but the figures for recorded crime mean almost nothing in this context, and they are certainly no guide in identifying trends. The reason is that only half of all crimes of violence are reported at all, and less than half of those are recorded by the police.
Recording practices are constantly changing. Thus, what appears to have been an increase of 8 per cent in recorded crimes of violence last year was in fact—and should have been shown as—a decrease of 5 per cent. So the levels of recorded crime which often appear in newspapers as showing an incipient crime wave mean nothing. What is left is the survey, which shows beyond any doubt that there is no evidence of a crime wave; indeed, quite the opposite.
I turn to the obvious question asked by so many: why do we need a new criminal justice Bill at all? Unless it be—this is only a tentative suggestion—that the Home Office, faced with two massive new reports (the massive and impressive reports of Sir Robin Auld and Mr John Halliday) feels that it ought to do something about them. Why do we need all these new provisions that are said to redress the balance in favour of the victim—provisions that are bound to prove controversial as they proceed through this House, when what we really need, and what would do the victim far more good than anything else, is a better rate of detection? That is the key point. Detection was scarcely mentioned, if, indeed, it was mentioned at all, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I echo very much what was said by my former pupil—if I may refer to him as such—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I must have taught the noble Lord well as he keeps on anticipating what I am about to say. He did it in the Iraq debate and he has done it again today. In future, I shall have to try to speak before rather than after him.
I repeat the figure that the noble Lord gave. Of the 5 million recorded crimes last year, less than a quarter were detected. That is not just a one-off result. Detection of recorded crimes has gone down steadily since 1997. I refer to an obvious point: unless criminals are detected, how can they be brought to court? Before we point the finger too critically at the courts and at their procedures. let us do what we can to increase the rate of detection. What would be the best way of doing that? Again, it is obvious; it is to have more police on the beat and to have police who are better able to detect crimes.
I turn to another point and echo what was said by the right reverend Prelate in his remarkable maiden speech. When I became a judge there were 42,000 men and women in prison. We thought then that if the number increased to 45,000, it would be the end of the world. Here we are with 73,000. I regard that total as a national scandal in the full sense of the word. How has it come about? We all agree that there are people in prison who ought not to be in prison. That is easily said; it is often said. And it is true. But there is a perhaps more significant explanation. More and more

533
defendants are being sent to prison for longer and longer. I take the example of the crime of causing death by dangerous driving. When I became a judge the going rate for that crime was a fine or, in a bad case, a prison sentence of perhaps nine months or a year. I refer to the leading case of Guilfoyle in which the judgment was given by Lord Justice Lawton.
I tried just such a case at the Old Bailey at the end of the 1970s that involved a young man returning from a rugger dinner. He had had a lot to drink and his car mounted the pavement killing three women whose three husbands were walking immediately behind them. It was an awful case. I worried about the sentence for a long time. Finally, I sentenced the man to either a year or possibly 15 months. It was certainly not more than that.
A few years later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, then Lord Chief Justice, gave new guidance in the case of Boswell. He said that a year was not enough and that, for a bad case, the sentence should be two years or more. Parliament then intervened and increased the maximum sentence from five to 10 years, so judges felt that they had to follow suit. Now sentences of five, six and even seven years are common. I do not necessarily criticise those sentences. However, I point out the insidious way in which sentencing practice has led to increased sentences over the years. There is almost a form of inflation in that regard. I refer to an increase in the length of a certain sentence from one year to six or seven years in a period of less than 25 years. The same is true of other areas of the law.
If Parliament continues to create new crimes, to raise maximum sentences and to contrive new ways of increasing sentences that have already been imposed, the prison population is bound to increase with all the deleterious consequences to which the right reverend Prelate referred. What can be done to decrease the prison population? The proposal, as I understand it, is that in serious non-violent crime such as drug dealing, fraud and the rest, half the sentence will be served in the community. That has been tried before. It did not work, and I do not like it. I consider that it constitutes a deception of the public. The public think, and are entitled to think, that when a man is sent to prison for four years, that will actually mean four years, subject only, of course, to remission for good conduct.
My solution is much more radical and I believe that it may be worth trying. I would want to persuade the judiciary—I would even compel them, if it were at all possible—to determine the sentence they would impose in any given case under the existing guidelines and then cut that sentence in two. I believe that that could work. Of course, it would be criticised as sending entirely the wrong message, but it would be an honest message. It would make people serve what they appear to be sentenced to. I believe not only that it would work hut that a strong government could put it into effect. Quite how one would persuade the judiciary to do that is a subject we would have to consider but that should be the objective. Something of the sort was tried as an experiment in Germany some years ago. I do not have the details. All I remember is that the effect
534
on the crime rate of halving sentences was imperceptible. I shall leave to another occasion what I intended to say about double jeopardy.
I say, finally, that one of the objections I have to this method of legislating is the kind of piecemeal codification that it appears to involve. I happen to be a great supporter of codification of the entire criminal law. It was suggested in a brilliant draft prepared by Professor Sir John Smith some years ago. I am glad to note that Sir Robin Auld agrees entirely with that view. There is a task worthy of the Home Office to which it should set its mind. What we have at the moment is the worst of all possible worlds: codification bit by bit. The criminal law ought to be accessible to the intelligent layman. What we are getting at the moment—piecemeal codification—is exasperating beyond belief to the professional and is wholly inaccessible, and therefore wholly incomprehensible, to everyone else.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is daunting to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I am no lawyer; I am an ordinary member of society who looks to the protection of the law. As such, however, I am convinced that the decent, secure society we all want to see can be built only by a holistic approach to positive social policy and will not be achieved by law and courts alone.
For this, a transparently consistent value system is essential. I fear we cannot have a decent society if greed, selfish opportunism and damaging social irresponsibility are too often the name of the game at the top of the social pyramid while we preach social responsibility to those at the bottom faced with a desert of deprivation.
We need practical and generous support for the deprived young. We need to listen to them in our heartbreaking council estates, rather than have a too ready overreliance on punishments and penalties with all the attendant danger of institutionalised criminalisation in increased numbers. Of course life on those estates is hell for too many, not least ethnic minorities, the elderly, the frail and the vulnerable. But let us get to the origins of the social disease so that we can cure it rather than just reacting to the symptoms. That is the way to durable protection of the community.
Last weekend, like many noble Lords, I was saddened by some of the media reaction to the death of Myra Hindley: the culture of the mob of centuries ago. Do we believe in redemption and rehabilitation? Are we determined to find the potential for good in people and build on that, however grim the challenge that presents itself? Myra Hindley's crimes were truly terrible. Or is our civilisation in danger of imploding in a catastrophic lack of self-confidence?
With their large majority our Government have the opportunity to lead us into an age of penal enlightenment. If they have the confidence to take that road they will deserve our full unbridled support
Much of our coming year will be taken up with deliberations on the administration of justice. As a layman, I hope that we will constantly keep in mind

535
certain pillars of our legal culture as we have painstakingly built them in our social history. Citizens are innocent of any alleged crime unless and until they are proved guilty. Court proceedings should therefore concentrate on the evidence concerning the crime in question. In reaching a verdict, what may have happened before must never be allowed to take the place of hard proven evidence.
However, in deciding an appropriate sentence, the situation is altogether different and obviously the past becomes highly relevant. We need to make the needs and plights of victims far more central to our social policy. But that is not the same as overplaying the role of the victim in deciding how to treat the criminal. Objectivity is essential. Having said that, it is good to see restorative justice coming into its own. That makes a great deal of sense. There is a lot to be said for bringing delinquents face to face with the consequence of what they have done.
It has been a long struggle in history to establish our society based on freedom and justice. Those freedoms, especially in an age of terrorism, could be too easily eroded. We must be vigilant and remember all the time what has made our civilisation worth protecting. In recent years, the coming to light of past miscarriages of justice inescapably presents us with a challenge.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has told us that the prison system is in crisis. That argument is underlined by the work of the Prison Reform Trust, by the recent riots in Lincoln and by the wise words of the Lord Chief Justice, and it has been powerfully put today in the outstanding maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
According to the Howard League for Penal Reform's statistics, since May 1997 the prison population has increased by 20 per cent—more than 12,000; from over 60,000 to over 72,500. Sixty-four per cent of our prisons are overcrowded. The number of women in prisons has risen from 1,500 or more in 1992 to 2,600 or more in 1997 to almost 4,500 last month; an increase of 180 per cent in the past 10 years.
Last month, 11,732 young people under 21 were in prison in England and Wales. Of these, 2,981 were under 18. At the beginning of last month there were 13,095 remand prisoners in England and Wales; a 12 per cent increase over the previous 12 months. Yet significantly in the year 2000, less than 50 per cent of male remand prisoners and only 36 per cent of female remand prisoners went on to prison sentences. Indeed, 23 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women remanded in custody were acquitted or proceedings against them were terminated early.
There are disturbing variations across the country in the rate of custodial sentences imposed. In Lincolnshire, 0.8 per cent of offenders are sent by magistrates to prison. In Greenwich the rate is 31.6 per cent. That must inevitably raise questions about any increased presumption to remand offenders into custody in so-called high crime areas.
536
England and Wales have the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe; 134 people per 100,000. The cost to the taxpayer per prison place in the last financial year was more than £35,784, yet in the year 2001–2002 the Prison Service failed to meet six of its own key performance targets. For example, only 46 per cent of prisoners met the purposeful activity target. In Belmarsh, the average time of such activity per prisoner was only 11 hours per week. How does that dismal record assist in rehabilitation?
Suicides have been tellingly described in the debate. There have been 80 suicides so far this year in prisons in England and Wales; sadly, two by young people under 18. That figure is up from 72 in the whole of last year. How can that record be acceptable in a civilised society?
I turn to reconviction. Fifty-eight per cent of prisoners released in 1997 were reconvicted of another crime within two years. Thirty-six per cent went back to prison. For 18 to 20 year-olds the figures were 72 per cent and 47 per cent respectively. Little wonder that the Social Exclusion Unit has noted,
"Prison sentences are not succeeding in turning the majority of offenders away from crime".
As my noble friend Lord Corbett has argued, the priority must be rehabilitation. Anything else amounts to wasted lives and economic nonsense, particularly if the system is counterproductive and produces hardened criminals, with all the consequent costs to society.
It is clear that there must be a huge change if the policy commitment—I do not doubt that it exists— to the prison system is to become effectively positive. It will require strong leadership and a new culture, and it will cost money. But we cannot afford not to invest that money if we are not to be swamped by the costs of social disruption aggravated by a penal system that is helping to generate those costs. Education and training for prisoners are indispensable priorities.
It is also clear that as a priority we must develop a wider range of constructive alternatives to prison. In this context we all know that many of those in prison should not be there at all. Inadequacy, psychiatric illness and family breakdowns are frequently the real issues. We are increasingly concerned about the protection of our children from sexual harassment and abuse. That must be right, although we must be careful not to produce a neurotically inhibited society in which warmth, affection and freedom for our children have no place. That too would be a nightmare.
In this context, the Howard League for Penal Reform and a number of leading children's charities have emphasised how vulnerable children in prison are. Too many have suffered physical and sexual abuse; half have previously been in care; and the majority have been assessed as having special needs. Those children require more, not less, protection from the state than children in other institutional settings.
In our preoccupation with protecting children, we must be honest with ourselves about the paradox. We must face the uncomfortable fact that the United Kingdom has recently been criticised by the United

537
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for the treatment of children in our criminal justice system. Its concern included: our low age of criminal responsibility—10 years—which is much lower than in most European countries; 12 to 14-year olds being routinely deprived of their liberty; increasingly high numbers of children in custody at earlier ages for lesser offences and for longer sentences; the absence of adequate protection and help in young offender institutions; the poor staff/child ratio; high levels of violence; bullying; self-harm; and, tragically, suicide.
I should declare an interest as honorary president of YMCA England. We are doing an increasing amount of what is proving to be encouraging work with young prisoners. I asked the national secretary for a few points that I might cite. I shall share them with noble Lords. He wrote:
"The work maintains a primary focus on the young person.
"We like similar organisations use our expertise and network of opportunity in various fields including housing, training and positive recreational activity in order to provide resettlement for young people leaving prison, through in our case 150 centres, 7,200 bedspaces and 2,500 training places.
"We are able to build relationships with young people while in prison prior to working with them post release.
"Our independence and non-judgmental style means we are approachable in a way in a which the prison is not.
"We work in prisons in a way which is nationally significant and locally relevant.
"Organisations like ours are able to make a major positive impact on the culture within prisons".
The Government are determined to be tough on crime and, as we heard again in this debate, on the causes of crime. But what are the causes? Too many who should know better would still have us believe that the cause of a crime is simply the person who commits it. 'That superficiality is unworthy of a civilised society. The real causes and origins include poverty, deprivation, exclusion, inadequate parenting, broken families, abuse, poor education and the rest. There are no shortcuts. If we want to succeed, we must have an holistic social approach. I wish that the gracious Speech had emphasised that—I know that my noble friends on the Front Bench understand that—as much as it emphasised a crackdown.
We desperately need policies that reflect self-confident, civilised values and which, at the same time, are based on sound analysis, experience, common sense and what has proved to work in place of policies that extravagantly pander to prejudice.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I conclude with one anecdote. I referred to my role in the YMCA. We have a former chief constable who has done outstanding work over a considerable period with some young offenders in our programme. He tells the story of how he was talking to a young offender who was about to be released when the young offender began to weep. He said to the young offender, "Why are you weeping? You are about to be released''. The offender said, "Because I am frightened. This is the first time in my life that anybody has cared for me, spoken to me, discussed my life with me and begun to
538
discuss the future with me. It is the first opportunity that I have had to begin to understand myself as a person".
That says a great deal about the chief constable and the youngster; but it also says a very great deal about our society. The challenges are complex and we shall be judged by how we deal with the complexities, not by the oversimplifications that may tempt us.
5.4 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, regarding crime and the attempt to deal with it, one revealing comparison, as has already been mentioned, is our poor performance against other European states. First, there is the inconsistency when our Prison Service is compared with those elsewhere. We spend less than our European partners on health and education but we spend much more on prisons. Yet our recidivism level has not been reduced as a result of that increased expenditure. Nor has it decreased below the European average.
Secondly, there is the anomalous relationship between custodial and non-custodial sentences. For a number of years, there has been a steady application of non-custodial sentences, but they have not effected a proper reduction in custodial sentences. They have even coexisted with a significant rise in the number of custodial sentences and with a large increase in the number of prisoners, from 46,000 in 1991 to more than 72,000 at present, with a predicted figure of 83,000 by 2008. Despite the availability of non-custodial sentences, there are still too many—both below and above the age of 17—who are in prison for minor crimes and who should not be in prison at all. Far too many young people are still detained and in the majority of cases, as several noble Lords have stressed, their detention is as futile as it is counterproductive.
Thirdly, paradoxically enough, there is even the worrying anomaly, or its prospect, relating to the pursuit of much better practice. The Government already seek improved practice within prisons. Their aims include better education, improved employability and reduced drug and alcohol dependency. However, those schemes will work properly only if the vast number of prisoners is reduced. Otherwise, resources will remain too overstretched for prison staff to fulfil all of those objectives.
The Government may say that prison numbers will now really begin to come down and will do so following the substance and measures of co-ordination between the services currently proposed in the Queen's Speech. Certainly, that direction is much to be welcomed, not least where new guidelines for sentencing policy are concerned. The Government should also be encouraged to build upon and develop further their successes, which may have recently proved their worth. Those include the youth justice supervision scheme and, to some extent, detection and training orders.
During the passage of this year's criminal justice legislation, as has already been emphasised, there is likely to be much cross-party co-operation and good

539
will. No doubt there is also consensus about the fact that no constructive purpose can be served through political wrangling or jockeying for position. Previous mistakes, when made in office by both the Labour and Conservative Parties over criminal justice, have coexisted, if ironically so, with well-meaning intentions and quite often with the implementation of sensible short-term expedients. However, broadly speaking, the mistakes and failures of both political administrations have derived from an apparent unwillingness or inability to form proper long-term plans which could be carried out with patience and determination.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others have pointed out, such effective long-term plans must go well beyond legislation itself, however much that can and should be improved and co-ordinated. Through education, employment, the home and the community, the challenge must also always be to deter, guide and inspire in order to promote well being and to prevent crime in the first place. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester encapsulated that objective when he referred to the culture of demanding compassion. I join with others in congratulating him on his extremely good speech.
How should the Government and the criminal justice system proceed to make matters better, and a lot better? There must now be a much sharper focus. The past 30 years have witnessed the steady development of size, cost and crisis within the Prison Service. At any time over that period, we have been told by every government that their policies were working and that overall results were improving. Overall, however, they were never improving. This time, we should make sure that they actually do so. That must mean a constant focus on the evidence about whether the situation is really improving and, if so, which combined measures rather than others are causing it to do so.
Connected to that, and secondly, our criminal justice service must be prepared far more than it is to analyse, adjust to and learn from not only the evidence of the effect of its own practices but also that from a variety of different sources. Not least is such useful information disseminated through research bodies, including the institutions associated respectively with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, whose excellent contributions we have just heard.
Within the United Kingdom there is the guidance which comes from the Scottish criminal justice service. Per head of population, much better results are now produced in Scotland than in England and Wales. Among many public servants who have assisted that process, I want to mention, in particular, the Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, Mr Clive Fairweather, who retired last month.
As already indicated, comparisons should always be made between our performance and that of other countries. Good guidance can, of course, often come internationally and from a number of different European states. Curiously enough, and despite their
540
recent civil war, certain states in the former Yugoslavia already reveal encouraging criminal justice results which, in several respects, stand to give good guidance to ourselves and to other European states. Two such are Slovenia and Croatia.
The Croatian service provides a clear example. It has comparatively low numbers of prisoners per head of population and it demonstrates comparatively high levels of civilian prisoner rehabilitation. And, of course, the process of shared information will work in each direction. As chairman of the UK Parliamentary Group for Croatia, and as a Council of Europe parliamentarian, I was able to introduce our own Home Office overseas service to the Croatian prison service. That has led to the establishment of a training centre by Zagreb for the training of prison governors and other staff.
It goes without saying that the attainment of best practice in the field of criminal justice, as well as all others, must come from a full assessment of relevant sources, including those within international comparison and co-operation. In this context, and as a British parliamentarian who addressed the issues of drugs, community stability and the problems facing young people both here and overseas, I pay tribute to the significant achievements of Tim Rathbone, who died earlier this year.
In summary, current poor results from criminal justice lower our reputation for competence nationally and internationally as they undermine confidence and morale within the country. The Government's intentions to do much better are to be welcomed. The aims must include a dramatic reduction in reoffending and in the prison population. The means must not he confined to legislation. They should also bring in the home, education, employment and the community in order to prevent crime in the first place. This time, the resolve must be to achieve proper results where the past 30 years have failed, and to do so for the benefit of our own stability and, by example, for the benefit of that elsewhere.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, criminal justice is very much at the top of the Government's agenda for this Session. That is understandable. Crime is a cause of a great deal of public distress and alarm. I refer not only to violent crime but also to the kind of minor crime that makes some parts of our native cities intolerable places for many people who live there: vandalism, graffiti, noise and drunken behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, made an admirable speech on that subject.
This has been a valuable debate. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf on the subject of elections to your Lordships' House. But I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about the legislative process. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said about that. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was an extreme example of bad process when we ended up with more than

541
300 government amendments in your Lordships' House—some of them important amendments introduced at Third Reading.
I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with interest and a good deal of sympathy. However, I believe that the real answer to the problem that he raised about over-reaction in self defence is to replace both murder and manslaughter with a single crime of culpable homicide, carrying a maximum, but not a mandatory. penalty of life imprisonment.
We very much welcomed the speeches on prison issues from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, in his admirable maiden speech, from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, from my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and from the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We also welcomed the speeches on probation and other issues from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and on sentencing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
I turn briefly to the subject of civil justice. There is not much primary legislation in the Queen's Speech on that subject. I do not complain about that because in the last Session we had two big Bills: one on commonhold and one on land registration. Furthermore, the Government are now making use of regulatory reform orders to achieve some technical legal reforms; for example, in connection with the rule against accumulations and the law on the execution of deeds and other documents. I consider that to be very much the kind of issue that is appropriate for a regulatory reform order, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf will agree with that.
Finally, we on these Benches have continuing concern about the working of the conditional fee system in civil actions. Given two years' experience of the system. I should like to see the Lord Chancellor's Department carry out a full review of how it is working.
I return to the subject of criminal justice. We have what I believe can only be described as a "jumble" of Bills, some, but not all of which, have been published. There is, first, a courts Bill. We shall support a single administrative structure for the Crown and magistrates' courts, but we believe that it is necessary to have a high degree of devolution to local management committees. The present magistrates' courts committees work well and ensure local input. It is essential to maintain those local links in any new system.
Then there is the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. Again, we support that in principle. At a time of organised cross-border crime, it is very important to maximise co-operation between the judiciary and the police in different countries, especially in the European Union. We welcome the extension of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts to prosecution of terrorist acts committed outside the United Kingdom by or against United Kingdom nationals. We welcome the mutual application of driving disqualifications within the European Union—surely something that is obvious and, indeed, long overdue.
542
The right of hot pursuit is the most controversial element in this Bill, although I suspect that it will not be much used in relation to the United Kingdom because it is more relevant to the land borders of the mainland states. We shall not object to the right of hot pursuit in principle, but it must be without firearms and it must involve surveillance and not powers of arrest or detention or anything that would require a judicial warrant in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to assure us that that is the case.
We support the objectives of the anti-social behaviour Bill but we doubt how effective the process will be. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced orders which have had a distinctly limited effect, Antisocial behaviour orders—ASBOs—have been used only some 200 times a year and are expensive to obtain. Parenting orders are used even less, and the child curfew orders, of which we were highly critical at the time of the debate on the Act, have not, in effect, been used at all.
Fixed penalties have attractions for minor offences. They save time and bureaucracy for the police and leave the offender without a criminal record. But they raise a number of difficult questions which will require answers. First, who can impose the fines? And—perhaps a particularly difficult question—will they be effective against young people who cause many problems of this kind but who clearly will not be in a position to pay the fines? If that is the case, can any substitute be provided for a fixed penalty in those cases?
I hope, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, that the Government will encourage the use of acceptable behaviour contracts for children and young people who show signs of becoming troublesome, as pioneered by Islington Borough Council.
Then there is the Extradition Bill, which introduces the European arrest warrant within the European Union and takes some steps to simplify and speed up extradition in non-EU cases. We welcome that in principle. The United Kingdom's extradition process is exceptionally slow by comparison with most foreign states and provides too many opportunities for delay. I remember one case where someone was fighting extradition to Hong Kong. He was detained in prison for a period of six or seven years. That was a far longer time in prison than he would have served if he had agreed to go straight back to Hong Kong.
In principle, we believe that it should be as easy to send residents of the United Kingdom for trial in another EU state as it is to send a resident of England for trial in Scotland.
The European arrest warrant will make it easier for-the United Kingdom to obtain extradition from other states—in particular, Germany and Austria—which until now have refused to extradite their own nationals. But in order to justify the use of the European arrest warrant we need to have confidence that the extradited person will have a fair trial in the state to which he is sent. There are problems in some states with, in particular, interpretation facilities and

543
with legal aid. We believe that the Act resulting from the Bill should not be brought into force until there is an effective agreement on minimum standards across the European Union.
The sex offenders Bill is welcome. We would be wrong to convict of rape a man who reasonably believed that consent to intercourse had been given. But we accept that unreasonable belief in consent should not result in an acquittal. We also welcome the Government's decision not to open the paedophile file to the public.
The draft corruption Bill again is clearly welcome. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to confirm that the Bill will cover corrupt acts involving Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House, who clearly are the holders of public office.
I turn to the Criminal Justice Bill, described by many people as the "flagship Bill". I have to say that if this is the flagship, it cannot be much of a fleet. This is not the occasion for a Second Reading speech, especially as the Bill—and a massive Bill it is—was only published today. But it is controversial, to say the least.
There are a number of aspects of the Bill that should be welcomed, such as making it harder to avoid jury service. We agree that the Crown Prosecution Service should be involved at an earlier stage and should take over from the police the responsibility for charging.
We believe that greater assistance for victims is desirable, although many steps do not require legislation: for example, segregating defence and prosecution witnesses within the court building; laying out the courtroom so that the prosecution witnesses cannot be intimidated by the defendant's friends in the gallery; and some new sentencing powers—for instance. "custody minus"—are innovative and helpful. But the Government intend to challenge four long-established principles of criminal procedure. First, they will extend the right for the prosecution to use hearsay evidence; secondly, they will allow evidence of previous convictions to be disclosed in many more cases than at present; thirdly, they will create exceptions to the double jeopardy rule; and, fourthly, they will exclude jury trials in some cases.
It is not surprising that this challenge has roused a hornets' nest and that these proposals have been attacked from all sides of the House by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Mayhew, by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I do not propose to add anything to what has been said on the first three proposals. That will be a matter for the Second Reading and subsequent stages of the Bill. But I shall say something briefly about juries. The jury system is central and essential to our system of criminal justice. That is not because jurors have some special wisdom that is not given to judges. I do not believe they have. Non-jury courts for serious offences can work well. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, the Diplock courts in
544
Northern Ireland have operated with remarkably little criticism. Juries are vital because people feel they own the jury system. They feel that criminal justice is the justice of the people and not the justice of the elite. Any limitation on jury trials is unacceptable if it damages public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is the test that must and will be measured against the government proposals.
I finish by talking about a few things that are not in the gracious Speech. First, we regret that there has been no change in the law of corporate manslaughter. The law should be extended to make corporate bodies liable where the death has been caused by a serious failure on the part of the corporation as a whole, even if that results from the accumulation of minor failures by a number of individuals, none of which is itself sufficient to justify a charge of manslaughter against the individual responsibility.
Finally, I raise two more fundamental issues, not for the first time because they are points that have been made on many previous occasions from these Benches. We have long argued that the Lord Chancellor should cease to be responsible for the appointment of Queen's Counsel and the judiciary. Year by year it becomes more obvious that that role is inconsistent with the Lord Chancellor's role as the Minister of justice. This is not intended as any criticism of any individual who has been appointed by the present holder of that office or his recent predecessors. All those people appointed are unquestionably fit to hold the offices to which they have been appointed. But the process must be seen to he independent of the holder of Cabinet office.
The noble and learned Lord took a wise step in creating a Judicial Appointments Commission to monitor the appointment process. That commission is doing good work. It has produced a valuable and not wholly uncritical report. But the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission should be the first step only and should be followed by a transfer to it, or to a replacement body, of responsibility for the appointment of judges.
The other fundamental issue is the separation of the legislative and judicial function of your Lordships' House. We are of course moving towards reform of your Lordships' House. Whatever shape that reform takes, I believe that within a few years, if not at the beginning, your Lordships' House will lose its role as the supreme court of the United Kingdom. That separation has already been supported in public speeches by the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and by his colleague the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. I believe that that separation is right. It is inevitable, and it will come sooner rather than later.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I know that your Lordships' House is eagerly awaiting the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I shall therefore keep your Lordships' period of anticipation as short as possible by saying the minimum necessary in my closing remarks.

545
First, I congratulate the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on his outstanding maiden speech. It was not only a very moving occasion; but he made a series of remarks, of considerable perspicacity, about the state of our Prison Service. I just warn the right reverend Prelate that advertising himself as the new representative of the Bishops' Bench on prison matters might well lead to adverse remarks being made should he ever choose to absent himself on the occasion of a debate which touches on this highly sensitive subject; and as the right reverend Prelate will be aware, there are many occasions in your Lordships' House to consider Home Office matters.
I begin by reminding your Lordships' House that at the end of July we considered the White Paper that lay behind not only the Criminal Justice Bill but, I suspect, a number of the other measures that will represent the Home Office contribution to your Lordships' debates this Session. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, if I refer to a paragraph that I contributed to your Lordships' debate:
"As I understand it, the organising theme of the White Paper is to marshal all the component parts of the criminal justice system into a successful integrated force. I think that that is a wholly admirable objective. Indeed, it is only common sense. If the police do not successfully do their job of detecting crime, the courts will not have any prisoners to try. If the CPS is not properly resourced and does not do its job of bringing the right charges in relation to the right people, prosecutions will fail in the courts. If the courts are too biased towards the accused, many victims will not get justice. Equally, if they are too biased against the accused, we will find ourselves living in a totalitarian society. If we do not get our sentencing policy right, we will never rehabilitate criminals.
So all these parts are crucially linked together. If one of these links in the chain fails, all the others will be mortally wounded. So, the philosophy behind this White Paper has to be the right one".— [Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1246.]
In his closing remarks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, kindly said:
"He"—
by which the noble and learned Lord meant Lord Kingsland—
"said that the philosophy underlying the White Paper, which he described as right, was marshalling all of the component parts of the criminal justice system into an effective fighting force. I would not quarrel with that description of one of the very important foundations of the White Paper".—[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1250.]
So, your Lordships are entitled to ask the noble and learned Lord to what extent the programme that the Government have laid out reflects the aspirations of the White Paper.
We have just had sight of the Criminal Justice Bill, and I have barely had a chance to look through the index. I have, incidentally, already noticed that the Bill is 273 clauses long. From a superficial reading, it seems that the main body of the Bill deals with procedures in criminal courts. There are, of course, also certain sentencing matters, and your Lordships have already heard the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on certain changes in the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.
However, as I understand it, the thrust of the Bill is court-related. So, your Lordships are entitled to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of
546
Thoroton, about the other component parts of the aspirations set out in the White Paper. They are essential to ensuring that the system of criminal justice delivers what we would wish of it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, touched on one of those component parts, when he talked about the rate of detection. Your Lordships are entitled to hear more from the Government about their plans in that area. We read little about it in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Then again, there is the question of the CPS. As far as I understand it, the Government do not intend to entertain an inquiry into the aftermath of the case R v Burrell. There is no doubt that important questions arise out of it over the way in which the CPS operates and from its relationship with the Law Officers, something to which my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell so eloquently drew attention. The noble and learned Lord made a speech of conspicuously high quality, as one would expect from one of the great Law Officers of the post-war era. Your Lordships are entitled to know more—if not today, in the immediate future—about the conclusions that the Government draw from the recent conduct of the CPS in that regard.
At the other end of the spectrum were the cogent and germane remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, about the probation service. The Government, rightly, aspire to reduce numbers in our prisons, on the one hand, and, on the other, to introduce sentences that are effectively rehabilitative. In order for that to be achieved effectively— I take entirely the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern—it is vital that substantial resources be directed towards the probation service.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may not be able to deal with that matter today, but I am keen to know the Government's future plans in that respect. Certainly, the Government's rhetoric suggests that probation is a crucial part of their vision of a successful criminal justice system. If that is so, the Government must explain to your Lordships exactly how that will be resourced.
Every Home Secretary is presented with the not inconsiderable temptation of populism when dealing with matters of crime and punishment. I am sure that every Home Secretary is equally aware of the dangers of giving in to it. They are dangers not only of principle but of common sense.
Populist solutions to criminal justice problems, while having short-term attractions, will, invariably, fail in the long run. There has been a theme running through some—not all—of the Government's remarks that much of the problem faced by the criminal justice system today can be solved by reducing—if not eliminating—the opportunities for what the Government might be pleased to call clever defence lawyers to exploit the court system. Many of those clever defence lawyers feature on the Liberal Party Benches, and I greatly admire their skills.

547
I hope—I am sure—that the Government will not give in to that temptation. First, as I said, it will not work. Secondly, it is wrong in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to authoritarianism in an Armani suit. I must confess that the image of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, does not spring immediately to mind, when I reflect on that observation. At any rate, he appears today to be the Milan representative of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, or wherever Mr Armani plies his trade on earth.
Therefore, it is legitimate for the Opposition Front Bench to remind the noble and learned Lord that these great components of our court system—jury trial; not putting in evidence other than that which is before the jury relating to the particular case that is under review; the refusal to entertain hearsay evidence; the rules of double jeopardy—are legal principles that were hard-won in our constitutional history after brave battles fought by doughty lawyers. They have stood our criminal defence system well for several hundred years.
It strikes me as being a bit rich for a Government who are, after all, elected for only a few years—although their mindset may be somewhat different—to come along and simply jettison all those great principles. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will pay particular attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, in that regard. It may well be that ill-prepared prosecutions play a considerably greater part in the acquittal rate than the existence of all these opportunities for defence lawyers.
A number of other important issues have been discussed today. I applaud the Government's intention to introduce anti-social behaviour legislation, although I entirely share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the difficulties of solving such problems simply through the criminal law. The fact of the matter is that we did not have such problems as a society 50 years ago because children were brought up in a different way by families and were educated in a different way in schools. And so the kind of behaviour that manifests itself by the arrival of a child's mid-teens was hardly visible 40 or 50 years ago.
While the aspirations of anti-social behaviour legislation are wholly admirable, I am sure that the Government will be bearing in mind the context in which they are legislating and will think carefully about their relationship to their wider legislative programme.
My biggest concern of all about these legislative measures relates to the European arrest warrant. That may come as a surprise to those noble Lords who have heard me make speeches on other European matters in your Lordships' House. But there are two matters of deep concern about that piece of legislation which are likely to make it the most controversial Home Office measure of the whole Session. It will be manifested in the form of the Extradition Bill which is now in another place.
548
The first concern is that the European decision which lies behind the measures which will appear in the Extradition Bill was made without the participation of any democratic national legislature or indeed by the European Parliament. It was conceived by national civil servants sitting behind closed doors; endorsed by COREPER sitting behind closed doors; and finally rubber-stamped by the Council of Ministers sitting behind closed doors. It is an example of intergovernmentalism in the European Community at its worst. It is the worst of both worlds. The legislation is neither endorsed by national parliaments, nor by the European institutions which, for all their weaknesses, would at least have achieved some public debate.
The result is that under the Extradition Bill we will be presented with a virtual fait accompli. That has mattered less in the case of most European legislation because most of it touches on commercial interests— interests which do not go to the heart of the liberties of the citizen. But here we are going to be asked to extradite people on the basis of some crimes abroad which are not crimes in this country. Furthermore, we will be asked to do so without knowing whether or not the fundamental protections in our criminal law will be respected in those countries to which British citizens will be extradited.
I, for one, consider that unacceptable. I suspect that there will be many Members of your Lordships' House sitting behind the Government Benches who will also find it unacceptable. The great difficulty for the Government is that there is little they can do about it because the damage is already done; the agreements have already been made in the European Community.
Whatever the outcome of our deliberations on the Bill, it is crucial, in future, that, in considering intergovernmental decisions made by the European Community, your Lordships' House has the earliest possible warning from the Home Office about what it is up to, and that your Lordships' committees have the power to ensure that Home Office Ministers appear regularly in front of them to give an account of the progress of discussions and deliberations with the other member states, otherwise, noble Lords will once again be presented with precisely the same terrible dilemma as they will discover in the new year.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has become chairman of the European Union scrutiny committee. He now has the challenge—to which I am sure the noble Lord will be equal—of making sure that the committees exercise this power over government Ministers in future to make sure that intergovernmentalism operates as democratically as other forms of legislation in this House.
I have one final reflection—on the question of drugs. Perhaps the most original contribution that my right honourable friend Mr Letwin has made in another place as Shadow Home Secretary has been to examine, intensely and creatively, the difficulties that lie behind solving the dreadful problems of drug-taking in our country. The recommendations that he has made have, in my submission, not been taken seriously by the Government.

549
The best way to solve much of our crime problem—burglary in particular—is to solve the drugs problem. One of the most effective ways in which we can get on top of this is by following the advice of my right honourable friend. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and his colleagues will look very seriously at what has been achieved by Mr Letwin and will report back to this House.
5.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, your Lordships have covered an exceptionally wide range of important subjects in high-quality debates over the past live days. Today, we have heard a notable maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and a distinguished contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the quality of the statute book.
The gracious Speech has at its heart a balance between rights and responsibilities: the right to feel safe in our own homes; the right to justice; and the responsibilities that we have as citizens to respect others and the environment in which we live. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer outlined in his opening remarks, reform of the criminal justice system is key to achieving this balance. We need to ensure that the system is refocused on its basic purpose: to reduce crime and deliver justice to victims, witnesses and communities. But that must not be at the expense of the rights of the defendant. The criminal justice system must certainly convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. The presumption of innocence is at the heart of Article 6 of the European convention, and we firmly believe that our reforms do nothing to impair that principle.
In dealing with contributions to the debate, I turn, first, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He certainly provided the most fetching image of the debate when he declared his pride in hewing coal at the same coal-face as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. But my prize for the most entertaining speech goes unquestionably to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I comforted myself when listening to his attack on the Government with the reflection that the noble Earl almost certainly has a healthy disregard for all governments.
I return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Dealing first with previous convictions, when he studies the Bill as published, he will discover that judges will have a discretion to let juries hear about defendants' previous convictions and other misconduct where relevant to the case and provided that their probative value is not outweighed by their prejudicial effect.
On the matter of double jeopardy, the abolition of the rule will apply only in very rare circumstances, but we do riot believe that offenders who have committed very serious crimes should be able to escape justice where there is compelling new evidence of their guilt.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. How many cases does he foresee as likely to happen?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it will be a small number of cases. Of course, I do not predict a specific
550
number. But no matter how many these cases are, they are an affront to justice if there is compelling new evidence of guilt and they are not retried. An important consideration will be whether the evidence could reasonably have been available for the first trial. There will also be the safeguard that a defendant will be retried only where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that there is new and compelling evidence and that a retrial is in the interests of justice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain how, if the Court of Appeal has already reached this decision, the defendant can thereafter have a fair trial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever with that. The Court of Appeal is acting as a sieve to decide whether it is proper that there should be a further trial. The evidence will appear to be compelling. It will be made absolutely plain to the jury at the trial that they must assess the evidence for themselves, and it will be challenged. But it must appear to be compelling.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. the right to elect for jury trial in either way cases will remain. The noble Baroness said, wrongly, that we were going to abolish jury trial in serious cases. Not so. Our proposals are confined to serious fraud cases and very complex and lengthy cases that the judge thinks would be unduly burdensome for the jury to try. It will also apply to cases of jury intimidation. No doubt, your Lordships will wish to scrutinise these provisions closely in Committee. But I do not think that they amount to the end of the world for legal verities. On the contrary, they are limited and well-judged proposals. We will demonstrate that by argument in Committee.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in her unavoidable absence, that her opposition to the Bill is not made good by generalised castigation. The expressions she used were, "authoritarianism", "unworthy of this Government", "loss of enthusiasm for civil liberties" and even, "receding into comfortable middle age". I plead not guilty to all these unparticularised charges. We will make good by argument in Committee the case for these limited changes. Those who trumpet a liberal position must always be on guard against falling into the conservative error that no change is ever possible in setting the balance between the protection of the public interest and the protection of the interests of the individual.
We can achieve the improvements that the criminal justice system so desperately requires only if all the relevant agencies work together towards a common purpose. The Courts Bill will bring the administration of all the courts below the House of Lords—civil, family and criminal—into a new single. modern organisation accountable to Parliament through my department and offering a better service to court users.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on one point. He talks of the need to maintain local links. I agree. The new agency will combine the best qualities

551
of the Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Court Service. A strong centre will set a framework of clear national standards and strategic direction. It will work in co-operation and partnership with local court administration councils. These councils will not be mere consultative bodies. Their role, which will be embedded in statute, will be to involve fully the local community—meaning magistrates and others—in decision-making, including on key issues such as the location of services and court facilities. The councils will enable decisions to be taken at a local level wherever possible, so improving local accountability and responsiveness to local needs.
The agency will also embody a degree of what is fashionably called earned autonomy. The better performing areas will have more freedom to innovate, with less intervention from the centre and a light-touch inspections regime. The centre will be left freer to concentrate on areas where performance is poor, there exercising a greater degree of control and ensuring that best practice is spread.
New structures that facilitate rather than hamper agencies' attempts to work together will be complemented by an entirely new case progression system. Often, administrative changes to delivery on the ground can achieve as much as—and perhaps even more than—legislation, if there is the will to promote and accept cultural change. That is the aim of the case progression project, led by my department, which will see that cases progress more quickly and more smoothly through the criminal justice system. Judges will assume overall supervision for case progression. The judge will agree with both sides at the outset what the issues are, what action is required and within what time-scale, so giving case progression a clear structure, timetable and momentum. Together with clearer responsibilities for all involved, tough enforcement of case progression targets and more certain listing so that cases go ahead when planned, this will help us to bring more offenders to justice, give victims and witnesses a better deal and cut down on delay.
We remain as firm as ever in our belief that delay in the criminal justice system is the biggest impediment to justice. As Lord Denning famously said, "delay turns justice sour". Delay reduces the commitment of witnesses, gives further opportunities for witness intimidation, demoralises victims and plays into the hands of the guilty, who wish only that cases will go away. Tackling delay has been a success story since 1997. Magistrates' courts' waiting times have been reduced by 20 per cent. Delay in the youth courts has fallen from 87 days to 57 days last year. We have cut the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 to 63 days.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister famously said:
"tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime".
Let me add that being tough on crime means being tough on delay in the prosecution of crime.
Convicting the guilty is not the end of the story. Sentencers must have adequate means at their disposal to make the punishment fit the crime. The Criminal
552
Justice Bill will reform the sentencing process. Those who are a danger to the public, who commit violent or sexual offences, must expect stiff prison sentences. Those who persistently offend must also expect to face a prison term. The Sexual Offences Bill will make this crystal clear. In particular, it will ensure that those who prey on children will face tougher sentences. I know that child protection agencies support the creation of a new offence of "grooming" a child. I welcome the support also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, last Wednesday for our moves to give children greater protection.
The Government's position on sentencing is clear and will be reflected in our reforms. Protecting the public from violent, sexual and other serious offenders is our priority. But the courts must strike the right balance between the need to deal effectively with serious and violent crime and the need to keep prison as a last resort in other cases. The Home Secretary and I have twice now issued statements to this effect. In doing so, we have been echoing the words of the Lord Chief Justice: imprisonment only when necessary and for no longer than necessary.
I assure the right reverend Prelate that we shall recognise that rehabilitation and crime reduction are as important as punishment as aims of sentencing. He will see that enshrined as a statutory purpose of sentencing in the Criminal Justice Bill.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that our doubling of magistrates' sentencing powers is not intended—I say this loud and clear—as a spur to send more people to prison for longer. The new sentencing framework will encourage full use of tough new community sentences, aimed not only at punishment that is proportionate to the crime but also at preventing reoffending, and encouraging rehabilitation.
The Criminal Justice Bill will establish a sentencing guidelines council to promote greater sentencing consistency, and to ensure that local justice does not mean unequal justice.
Both the Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill will stay faithful to the principle of local justice. This legislative programme puts the interests of local communities at the heart of the Government's reforming agenda with measures to tackle anti-social behaviour. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, put it so well last Wednesday: such behaviour makes people's lives almost unbelievably hard to endure; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the same point. We all have a responsibility to respect our neighbours and our environment. Anti-social behaviour orders already provide a powerful weapon in the fight against persistent and serious anti-social behaviour. For that reason, the Government will do much more to address such issues, especially as regards those who ignore their responsibilities, with new measures in the civil and in the criminal law to tackle truancy, aggressive behaviour, vandalism, litter, graffiti, and nuisance. Every local authority will have a comprehensive plan to tackle anti-social behaviour, tailored to the specific needs of that community. That will involve public, private, and voluntary sectors to the full.

553
Some mention has been made of House of Lords reform. It is a subject about which your Lordships remain fascinated—and rightly so. However, only the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, spoke specifically on the matter today, although the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, made some observations in that respect. As the gracious Speech said, we look forward to considering the report of the Joint Select Committee. But, first, we await completion of that report, followed by the free votes in both Houses that we have promised. We all recognise what a vexed issue this is. The Joint Committee has already been working on the matter for four months. That the report has not yet been completed should not detract from the fact that this Government have progressed much further down the road of reform of this House than any of their predecessors.
However, I noted with interest the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that your Lordships' House makes its unique contribution to the legislative process because it is not elected. We have
554
certainly always taken the view that one of the most important questions to be asked of any proposal that any proportion of your Lordships' House be elected is what effect that would have on Parliament as a whole, and on this House's role in the legislative process. Composition should flow from consideration of this House's proper role and powers, and not dictate it.
The legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech furthers the Government's radical programme to reform and modernise public services. It is an enabling agenda. It removes the barriers that frustrate those agencies working together in the interests of service to the public, whether in the criminal justice system, the National Health Service, or in education. It is a programme designed to protect rights and promote responsibility. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain.
House adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.

  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Eighth Report
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Eighth Report
  Drug Abstinence Orders
  Drug Abstinence Orders
  Temple Mills Maintenance Facilities
  Temple Mills Maintenance Facilities
  Railway Overbridges
  Railway Overbridges
  Safety Cameras
  Safety Cameras
  New Car Registrations
  New Car Registrations
  Apsley House
  Apsley House
  Disabled Children: Local Authority and NHS Support
  Disabled Children: Local Authority and NHS Support
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Nutrition Information: Catering Establishments
  Nutrition Information: Catering Establishments
  Local Council Children's Homes: Staff Qualifications
  Local Council Children's Homes: Staff Qualifications
  Class Size
  Class Size
  Primary and Post-primary Schools: Funding
  Primary and Post-primary Schools: Funding
  Employment: Cumbria
  Employment: Cumbria
  Veterinary Risk Advice
  Veterinary Risk Advice
  Animal Disease Control Legislation: Advice and Assessments
  Animal Disease Control Legislation: Advice and Assessments
  Rural Affairs
  Rural Affairs
  Rural Regeneration
  Rural Regeneration