Sitting of 17 October 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] Considered; to be read the Third time.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
  That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Flood Alleviation
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on Government investment in flood alleviation measures. [72342]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Flood management is a devolved responsibility and my answer relates to England only, where total Government funding on flood defence has risen from £312 million in 1997–98 to a projected £564 million in 2005–06. That is a substantial increase and is proof of the Government's continuing commitment to maintenance and improvement of flood defences.
  Mr. Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and acknowledge the significant increase in investment that the Government are putting in. Although I accept that his answer relates to England, I can assure him that the Welsh Assembly has funded a feasibility study in
  444
  Monmouth which will hopefully lead to flood alleviation measures and prevent further flooding such as that which occurred in the past two years.
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two main points. Despite assurances from the Association of British Insurers, certain people find that they are insured with a company—with Lloyds as the underwriter—that has not necessarily followed the same agreement with the Government. A constituent of mine, Dr. Jana Horak, was insured by Britannia Building Society and has been refused insurance twice. Will my hon. Friend also consider whether the Environment Agency could have more powers in relation to the tributaries to main rivers, which are often the cause of flooding?
  Mr. Morley: I am pleased to hear that flood defence schemes are going ahead in my hon. Friend's constituency; I am sure that that will be a great relief to his constituents. In that respect, I am somewhat surprised that there is a problem with insurance. The ABI announcement, which we thought helpful and constructive, said that insurance would continue to be provided by ABI's members in areas where flood defences may not exist at the moment but are planned within the next seven years. In fact, even in areas where there are no plans for flood defences, such issues will be looked at case by case. I suggest to my hon. Friend that his constituents should shop around the various companies. I know that a great many companies accept the commitments that the Government have given; they continue to provide that insurance, and we continue to work closely with the ABI. I should also point out that the chief executive of the ABI will speak to the associate parliamentary group on flooding at the Palace of Westminster at the end of this month. That will provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to put questions directly to the ABI.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: The Minister will recall his visit to Uckfield, in my constituency, two years ago this week, after the terrible flood that caused so much damage there. He will also recall the pledge that he made then, and which the Prime Minister repeated: that the Government would take action to prevent future floods. However, he will know that in spite of the extra money that he has mentioned, the Environment Agency is not proposing any significant plans to prevent future flooding in Uckfield, thereby making many homes and businesses uninsurable. Before we meet the agency next week, will he remind it of those pledges and say that doing nothing is not an option?
  Mr. Morley: I am aware of those pledges. In fact, I visited Uckfield on a number of occasions, and I want progress to be made on reducing flood risk. The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that severe technical problems exist in Uckfield in terms of an appropriate flood defence. The narrowing of the river, and the role of the road bridge and of the mill, give rise to difficulties. It is difficult to overcome those technical problems, but despite that the agency is looking at immediate measures to try to improve the flow of water through Uckfield. Of course, it is also looking at a longer-term strategy through the catchment plan study. The hon. Gentleman

  445
  will also be aware that some of the new building that has taken place in Uckfield in recent years has not been carried out on a particularly appropriate site.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend convey my deep appreciation to the Environment Agency and the flood defence committee in my constituency, following the horrific floods more than two years ago in South Church and West Auckland? Some £4.5 million was spent, and the thoroughness of their planning and the way in which they consulted local people and local authorities was exemplary and much appreciated.
  Mr. Morley: I am very pleased to hear that comment from my right hon. Friend. I received a very detailed representation from his constituents about the terrible impact of those floods at the time, which demonstrates the social and personal consequences of flooding. I am pleased that the schemes are going ahead, however, and I am particularly pleased about the way in which local communities are being involved in the consultation, planning and discussion of future flood defence schemes. I hope that that is effective and that it reduces the risk that his constituents have faced over recent years.
  Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that, of course, the increased contribution to flood defences is welcome in global terms, but the insurance industry is still concerned about the lack of specifics? Will he take note of the example of Scotland, where not only is proportional expenditure on flood defences growing at a faster rate than in England, but there is a statutory obligation to report flood defences? Insurance companies in England are complaining that they have insufficient information about flood defences, which they have to glean from local newspaper reports. As a result, premiums are higher and the threat to insurance cover is greater. Does he not recognise that statutory reporting would give the insurance companies the opportunities that they need to provide competitive premiums, rather than everybody paying higher premiums across the board while some people run the risk of not being covered at all?
  Mr. Morley: I certainly accept that information is crucial in ascertaining risk, and that ascertaining risk determines insurance premiums and insurance availability. I do not close my mind to any of those approaches. The ABI has talked about such measures in discussions with us, and we are willing to consider them. I want to emphasise, however, that we have a good dialogue with the insurance companies and a major forward capital investment plan. We are making our information available, which is very much appreciated—as is the extra money—and we are very much on track to reduce substantially the risk of flooding in this country, although no one, in any circumstances, can guarantee that floods will not happen.
  Mr. David Drew: Can my hon. Friend enlighten me on the discussions that the Select Committee had more than a year ago on the idea of paying farmers to allow their land to flood naturally as
  446
  an effective means of flood protection? In what way might he influence possible changes in the planning system to ensure the introduction of a genuine precautionary principle, so that we do not build on a flood plain and end up with many of the risks that, only too often, have come to fruition?
  Mr. Morley: I was impressed by the quality of the Select Committee report, which considered flood defence strategy in depth. We accept that there is a case for looking at a range of sustainable measures in relation to flood defence. One of them could be reinstating flood meadows and flood plains. Recently, I opened the Washbanks scheme, which is one of the managed realignment schemes whereby landowners have either sold their land or entered into countryside stewardship agreements, as part of a sophisticated and sustainable approach to defending our coast, shores and rivers, which produces an environmental and, in some cases, an economic gain, too.
  Mr. John Hayes: The Minister will know of grave concerns in many constituencies, including mine, which have, in effect, been designated as at risk from flooding, according to the Environment Agency flood plain maps. That is despite highly efficient internal drainage, good flood defences and no record of recent floods. Surely it is common sense that such assessments take proper heed of such factors, and not just of topography, to assuage the fears of householders, businesses, insurers and economic investors.
  Mr. Morley: It is certainly the case that if people are in a flood risk area, it does not necessarily mean that the risks of flooding are very high. It is important, however, that people who are in a flood risk area are aware of what those risks are. That is part of the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign. Interpreting that is part of our dialogue with insurance companies. We, with the Environment Agency, are investing in much more accurate digital mapping in relation to flood risk. Again, that helps people to understand the risk, which should mean that people do not face difficulties with insurance cover for the future.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Pugh. Sorry, Mr. Hayes has a further question.
  Mr. Hayes: I accept what the Minister says about discussions with insurance companies but, as he will have heard earlier from the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), that is by no means universally successful. I am surprised that the Minister did not mention obliging local authorities to carry out strategic flood risk assessments, which would have been a better answer, if I might say so. The problem with those assessments is that they are largely unfunded, they are not always done in areas where the local authority has the resources or the wherewithal to commit to carry them out quickly, and the maps are still in existence. Until those flood plain maps are withdrawn, economic investors, local people and, as we have heard, some insurers will continue to believe that areas with no risk, in real terms, of flooding—and no record of flooding—

  447
  are dangerous places to live in, to invest in and to insure. That needs to be dealt with urgently. The Minister has a responsibility to assuage those fears.
  Mr. Morley: The insurance industry is a free-market industry, and people are free to shop around and to get the best quote and the most appropriate cover. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel that we should somehow interfere with that market mechanism.
  Local authority assessments are not really suitable for insurance companies in relation to such issues, but digital mapping most certainly is. In my experience, the main insurance companies are well aware of how to interpret the risks shown in flood-risk mapping. I am a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament and I am not aware of widespread problems in obtaining insurance in Lincolnshire. The problem should be put into perspective. More information is certainly important and realistic interpretation is absolutely vital. We will continue our dialogue with the insurance companies and others to make sure that the risks are understood.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Pugh again.

  Recycling
  Dr. John Pugh: If she will make a statement on the role of doorstep collection and taxation measures in increasing recycling rates. [72344]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The answer remains the same. The Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently completing a study on waste. As part of this, it is considering what mechanisms and instruments will best help to achieve our aim of increasing household waste recycling.
  Dr. Pugh: Does the Minister recognise that many councils are currently stretched to find the resources to set up doorstep recycling schemes? Despite a very co-operative public in my constituency, the local council is forced to run plastic recycling schemes only in areas that can draw upon specific and additional grants, such as those for neighbourhood renewal. Such areas are not always the best ones for high-volume recycling. Will the Minister undertake to look into this specific problem?
  Mr. Meacher: Of course, I am very concerned about levels of recycling, including kerbside collection. To reach the challenging targets for recycling that we have set, our view is that all authorities—or certainly most of them—will have to adopt kerbside collection.
  I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about funding. In the spending review 2000, we increased spending on the environmental protection and cultural services part of the revenue support grant by £1.1 billion in the third year over baseline. In the spending review 2002, we increased that provision by a further £670 million for the three years to 2005–06. Final decisions on additional funding will be made when the strategy unit's report is published.
  In addition to that, we have just made allocations of £140 million under the local authority recycling waste minimisation fund. Of 196 bids, 112 were successful and
  448
  £50 million has been distributed. The hon. Gentleman's local authority should have the resources necessary to meet the targets.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: One of the most interesting pieces of taxation designed to encourage recycling recently has been the decision in the Irish Republic to introduce a tax on plastic disposable shopping bags. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 1730 in my name, which now receives the support from dozens of Members on both sides of the House, calling for such a tax in this country. Will he give us an idea of whether he is considering the introduction of such a measure in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Meacher: We have been watching closely what has happened in Ireland. I understand that there has been a 90 per cent. reduction in the use of plastic bags. In this country, the figures are quite daunting. Eight billion plastic bags are used every year, which, on average, is about 135 for each person. Therefore, reducing that figure would be very worthwhile. A plastic bag tax is not the only way of dealing with the problem, but I assure my hon. Friend that the strategy unit has been to Ireland, talked to those involved, and will certainly be considering this point in its report.
  Mr. David Lidington: Although we all support the idea of increasing the collection of goods for recycling, the Minister will surely accept that that does not finish the process. Recycling is accomplished when one has an economic use for the product to be recycled. The Government have just signed up to new European regulations, which will come into force in a couple of years, on the disposal of electronic and electrical goods. However, we know that there are some products—the plastic casings from video and cassette recorders, for example—for which there is no available use at the moment. What does the Minister intend to do in the intervening few years to try to encourage the private sector to develop alternative uses for some of those materials, so that we can avoid what happened with fridges and ensure that the entire system is in place when the new regulations come into force?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has just answered his own question. There are two or three years before 2005–06, when the directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment comes into force, and one means of ensuring that the technology is put in place is the pressure exerted by the directive. It is right that electrical and electronic goods should not be landfilled. That is not an appropriate form of environmental disposal. It is clearly right that such goods should be recycled and reused.
  The difference in the case of fridges is that the regulation became operative throughout the European Community on day one, which was 1 January 2002, whereas a directive that has to be transposed gives industry much more time properly to accommodate it. That is exactly what we intend. We have already had extensive discussions with industry, and I shall ensure that there are appropriate reprocessing uses for all those electrical products.

  Organic Action Plan
  Joan Ruddock: What progress she has made with the organic action plan; and if she will make a statement. [72345]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Work is continuing on the 21 points in the organic action plan. It is a plan for the whole food chain, and a number of stakeholders, including retailers, have work in hand to take forward the plan's objectives. In DEFRA we are focusing on amendments to the organic farming scheme, on organic standards for the UK and on setting up a new organic advisory committee.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their commitment on this issue and their positive responses to the organic targets campaign. We now have in place a plan and a significant target but no time frame. Will my right hon. Friend therefore introduce measures to make it necessary to achieve by 2010 the target of 70 per cent. of organic produce to come from British producers?
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the organic action plan, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), launched on 29 July. It has been universally well received and we certainly intend now to put it into place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has rightly said, there is a commitment to increase to 70 per cent. the market share of UK-grown organic products, which is more than double the current level of 30 per cent.
  It is reasonable, however, that there is a time scale within which it must be achieved. It is not for the Government unilaterally to pick that deadline; clearly we must consult the industry and the British Retail Consortium about what is practicable. I chair the organic action plan group and, at the next meeting, I shall be raising the deadline as a major item on the agenda because I entirely agree that, for the plan to be successful, there must be not only a target but a deadline by which it must be achieved.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the National Assembly's decision this week to extend organic stewardship for farmers in Wales. It is a very welcome step. Is he aware of the threat that inadequate labelling of genetically modified food poses to the organic market, both for farmers and consumers? Will he take this opportunity to clarify at the European level the Government's position on what will happen with GM labelling and its relationship to an important and growing organic market in this country?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes; it is an important issue. Let me make it clear that the Government strongly support a framework of labelling and traceability to the fullest extent that is practicable and workable. We support the proposal, which is probably being discussed at this very moment in Luxembourg, for a 1 per cent. threshold for the labelling of adventitious GM presence in non-GM products.
  450
  The issue to which the hon. Gentleman may be referring, which is much more difficult, is the labelling of GM-derived products. As I said, I am strongly sympathetic to the argument that we should have the fullest and most appropriate labelling for the consumer. The problem is that there is no distinguishability in DNA terms between GM derivatives and non-GM derivatives. For example, that is the case with highly refined maize oils. Apart from that logistical problem, if there is an insistence on labels, despite the issue of traceability and very long supply chains that often start outside the European Union, they could not be guaranteed and could be seriously misleading to the consumer. We must bear in mind that constraint.
  Mr. David Kidney: Once again, news from a major retailer this week tells of another increase in sales of organic produce, the majority of which is provided by imports. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, see that farmers are holding back from converting to organic farming because they fear that by the time that they have converted, the price premium will be lost to them? Can his Department reassure farmers so as to persuade more of them to undertake the conversion?
  Mr. Meacher: That is a very important issue. My hon. Friend is right that the major multiple retailers are being very helpful in trying to increase sales of organic products. Without seeking to make a commercial plug, I can say that Waitrose and Sainsbury's are seeking to increase import replacement in respect of organic products, which is very helpful.
  On my hon. Friend's question about farmers converting, we have now extended the organic farming scheme to ensure that farmers who have converted can enter into five-year agreements to observe the environmental conditions of the scheme in return for payments. We have also very substantially increased conversion aid for top fruit production. For top fruit conversions, we are now proposing to pay £600 per hectare per year for the first three years and £30 for the next seven years. We are considering long-term payment commitments to encourage farmers to initiate conversion, with the assurance that they will continue long enough for conversion to be well worth while commercially.
  Mr. James Gray: The Government constantly talk about their support for organic farming, but the reality is rather different. Some 70 per cent. of organic food is imported, only 4 per cent. of UK farmland is handed over to organic production and the funds available for conversion are wildly inadequate. The organic milk price is now below the non-organic price, so a number of milk producers are going the wrong way and switching back to non-organic production. As to GM, the truth is that this Government are going to allow the planting of GM maize crops within 200 m of organic ones, with the serious risk of cross-fertilisation. Does the Minister not understand that we do not need any more focus groups, initiatives, launches, leaflets or committees? He was on

  451
  about committees again a moment ago, but what the people of this country want is decent, British-produced organic produce at a decent price.
  Mr. Meacher: It behoves me to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, as I believe that that was his first appearance there. If it is to be characteristic of all his appearances, I can see that we are going to have a lot of fun.
  What the hon. Gentleman did not say is that while the total sums available for organic farming are still relatively small, they are hugely increasing on the level that we inherited. The amount provided this year is £20 million, but when his Government left office, it was half a million pounds, so it does not behove him to criticise us. That amount may not be enough, but I would have hoped that, as we have increased it 40 times in five years, we might get some congratulation from him. I am very keen to see an increase in UK-grown organic production. I repeat that the organic action plan, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), launched two or three months ago, has gone down extremely well in all sections of the organic industry. We are pressing the issue as fast as the industry believes seriously possible.
  On GM, the separation distances to which the hon. Gentleman referred were those operated by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, SCIMAC—the biotech industry—on the basis that they would be sufficient to prevent cross-contamination. In the event of three years of the farm scale evaluation trials, no organic crop has lost its certification as a result of the GM trials, but of course this is a serious issue, which we are further considering.
  I repeat that £20 million is now going into organic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked six or seven questions; I shall answer only three or four, but it he wants me to go on, I shall be glad to do so. We are putting £20 million into organic production this year. That figure will rise in the next two or three years to at least £23 million, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a vast improvement on anything that his Government could do.

  Sugar
  Dr. Vincent Cable: What recent assessment she has made of the impact of the sugar regime on (a) UK consumers and (b) developing country exporters. [72346]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The Government fully support the case for reform of the EU sugar regime, particularly in respect of price and market access.
  Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that the present system is extremely attractive to large beet growers and to the company which has a virtual monopoly of processing, but is extremely damaging to consumers, taxpayers and, above all, large numbers of very poor people in low income countries, who are trying to sell into a world market where the price is a third of that in Europe? As the first step to the reform which he
  452
  acknowledges is needed, will he join me in supporting Oxfam's demand for an immediate 25 per cent. cut in quota production?
  Alun Michael: The UK is a leading advocate of the need for sugar reform, and I acknowledge that the current regime distorts international trade, and that that is to the detriment of many potential developing country suppliers. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on a number of occasions and he is right to do so. The specific proposals from Oxfam need to be dealt with by international agreement, and we will continue to press for that agreement and for the change and reform of the system.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the Minister is aware, the UK is not self-sufficient in sugar production. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out, it is not just a matter of rich farmers in East Anglia who are no longer making a profit. The issue affects all the add-on jobs in sugar beet factories, transport, haulage, subcontracting and other service industries, where many jobs are at stake. Will the Minister bear in mind the key point that this country is not self-sufficient in sugar production?
  Alun Michael: Of course we are concerned about the sugar industry in this country, but it is unacceptable that the EU prices are currently three or four times the world level of prices. That is why early decisions are needed on the reform, so that all interested parties, including those in this country and in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the preferential suppliers—are able to plan ahead. We need the reform to take place as quickly as possible.

  Sea Fishing Industry
  Lawrie Quinn: If she will make a statement on her assessment of the prospects for a sustainable sea fishing industry in the North sea. [72347]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is our aim in the current common fisheries policy negotiations to achieve a more sustainable sea fish industry, and that key objective underpins our approach to the negotiations.
  Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend will be aware that tomorrow the Whitby and district fishing training school will be opened for the first time, allowing 10 new apprentices to get the training onshore that they need for the key skills in the industry. Does he agree with the director of the school, Mr. Tony Hornigold, who said in the Whitby Gazette:
  "People have said fishing is a dying industry. It's not a dying industry, it's a changing industry."

  453
  In that spirit, will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity in the new year to come and meet those apprentices and people from the industry, to discuss the vibrant and sustainable industry to which they can look forward in the years to come?
  Mr. Morley: I agree that with the changes that the industry faces, there are still a great many opportunities, and fish is still a premium quality product for which there is a high demand from consumers. We should not say that the industry does not have a bright future. The fact that 10 apprentices are undergoing training demonstrates that there are young people who see their future in the industry. That is why my Department was glad to support the training initiative financially. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my warmest congratulations to everybody who has been involved in setting up the training centre in Whitby. I was invited, but I am sorry that I cannot be there because of my diary commitments. I would like to come there on some future occasion and speak to the apprentices and the members of local industry.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Why has the Minister so lost the confidence of the fishing industry that industry leaders were forced to describe his performance and that of his Scottish counterpart this week at the European Council as "surreal"? What justice, if any, has he secured for distant water fishermen? How can he have taken a decision that could cost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry without any appreciation of the financial consequences to the fishing communities? Why does he accept hook, line and sinker the Commission's proposals without considering the consequences to a mixed fishery? Why has someone of his long experience so taken his eye off the ball? How has he become the David Seaman of the fishing industry?
  Mr. Morley: At the recent Council meeting I met representatives of the UK industry—the Scottish, English and Irish sectors—along with my counterpart from the Scottish Executive, and what we said to the industry was identical. There was not the slightest difference in our approach, which is a common, agreed approach, so what I find surreal is to say that there is a contrast. The reality is that we broadly support the Commission's proposals because many of our fish stocks are in a desperate state and we cannot ignore that. I made it clear to the industry that I do not discount the impact of whatever conservation measure we take, as I have repeatedly said, and I also fully recognise the problems presented by mixed stock fishery management. I am trying to find an effective, long-term and sustainable way of bringing about the recovery of those of our stocks that are under the most stress, particularly North sea cod, and take into account the views of the industry, which will be fully engaged in the process.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on progress with the midterm review of the CAP. [72348]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP are
  454
  continuing and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is vigorously pursuing the UK interest in reform at every opportunity.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I think that every informed commentator now accepts that some change in the CAP is necessary, but will the Minister acknowledge that current levels of farm income are unsustainably low and that the uncertainty about the time that it will take to obtain a deal on CAP reform is exacerbating the situation? Obviously, the Secretary of State has urgent business in another place today, but it is vital that the Government keep the House advised of the details of the changing aspects of the policy as they evolve during the coming months. Will the Minister assure us that statements will he made as soon as any details are known, and will he also ensure that whenever CAP reform is secured it will be secured as efficiently and expeditiously as possible and that it will be done in a way that gives the UK farming industry a long-term, stable future?
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asks a series of detailed questions. We certainly want to keep the industry and the House informed. The Government believe that reform is necessary and, of course, the low level of farm incomes is a matter of concern. We want to help the UK farming industry to reform so that it has a sustainable future that is more linked to the market than to subsidy. With regard to timing, we have argued that the proposals that we welcomed in general terms do not go far enough or fast enough. Speedy reform, so that the industry knows where it is, would have our support, but we cannot determine the speed at which decisions are made.
  Kali Mountford: During the summer, I met olive producers in Greece who told me about the perverse incentive in the system that encouraged them to store many litres of olive oil at only a couple of euros a barrel, which is then sold in this country at a reduced quantity so keeping prices here artificially high. Do not such perverse incentives militate against the proper production of food of the right quality and quantity and lead to higher prices for British consumers?
  Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She gives an example of perverse incentives that result in higher prices for consumers without particularly helping the sustainability of agriculture in this country or in other parts of Europe. It is important that we deal with these matters, and that reform takes place quickly, in advance of the enlargement of the European Union.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the leaked document published in The Guardian, which suggested that the Government had abandoned the issue of the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy before the extension of the EU, and had said that there would be no changes of significance until at least 2007? As an attempt to explain the seriousness of the situation, will the Minister tell us how

  455
  much EU and British funding is spent on dumping surplus food, and how much greater that surplus will be when the EU is extended?
  Alun Michael: I shall deal simply with the story to which the hon. Gentleman refers. No, it is not an accurate story, and the Secretary of State has written to the newspaper refuting it. There is no truth in it.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the successes to date in reforming the common agricultural policy have been nothing short of pathetic? Does he agree that it is about time that we set British farmers free from welfare dependency, and that it would be in the farmers' interests to have a stable future, free from subsidy? Surely scrapping the CAP and letting British farmers stand on their own feet would be in their interests and in the interests of my constituents, who want cheaper food immediately.
  Alun Michael: It is interesting that Conservative Members were cheering some parts of my hon. Friend's question. They clearly want subsidies simply to be removed without anything being put in their place, which is an interesting shift in attitude. There are both domestic and international reasons why we must seize the opportunity to achieve a comprehensive shift in the focus of the common agricultural policy. I agree with my hon. Friend that progress has not been swift enough. It is necessary to meet the challenges of enlargement, to underwrite the EU's position in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and, more importantly, to make our agriculture more competitive and sustainable, and to ensure that our rural economies can flourish despite the challenges ahead. I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State has written to The Guardian about this article, will she come and tell the House exactly what she has said? As she is not here today and we have no explanation for her absence, may I wish her a speedy recovery if she is ill? If she is not, may I ask where she is?
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Secretary of State is at the Environment Council, and has written to the Opposition to tell them that she is there looking after British interests. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not care about British interests, but we do, and the Secretary of State does. It would be ludicrous for Members of the House to ask the Secretary of State to come and answer at the Dispatch Box every time a newspaper gets a report wrong.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Mark Field: If she will make a statement on the auditor's qualifications regarding her Department's accounts. [72351]
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The Comptroller and Auditor General's report dated 26 February 2002 drew attention to a number of weaknesses in financial systems which have since been
  456
  addressed. It must be remembered that the report refers to the preparation and audit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's resource accounts for 2000–01, which took place during a very difficult time for the former Ministry, and subsequently the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The foot and mouth outbreak was at its peak, machinery of government changes were in progress, and many of the Department's staff were redeployed to help deal with the exceptional increase in work loads which arose during that period. Nevertheless, steps have been taken to address the issues raised and, in particular, to embed resource accountancy into systems for budgetary control and financial management.
  Mr. Field: They say that a week is a long time in politics, but I must confess that, having tabled this question three months ago, I had to rack my brain to work out what it was that I was trying to get to the bottom of. I am not sure that we have got any closer to the answer after the Minister's response. Will he tell the House how the unquantified future costs of foot and mouth disease will be taken account of in future accounts?
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to some matters related to the outbreak that have led to, for example, discussion about invoices and submissions for payment. They give rise to a contingent liability, which will be disclosed in the published resource account. The precise figures cannot therefore be given until they are finalised.

  Flood Defence Schemes
  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: What guidelines she gives to flood defence schemes in flood plains. [72353]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): DEFRA provides a wide range of guidance to promote the development of economically, technically and environmentally sound and sustainable solutions to flood management and coastal erosion problems. It has been developed over the years, through extensive consultation, and is kept under constant review in the light of research and other policy developments.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows about the Parrett catchment project in my constituency. The Environment Agency, which is charged with the work of flood defence in my patch, is finding it harder to understand where it is going. The Parrett catchment project is presenting schemes and ideas that step on the Environment Agency's toes. Will the Under-Secretary please ensure that there are clear lines of understanding about who is responsible for what in my constituency? We are beginning to reach the stage when people, especially landowners, are worrying about who is in charge of flood defence schemes in Bridgwater and west Somerset.
  Mr. Morley: There is no confusion about who is in charge of flood schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Parrett catchment strategy, project

  457
  and study is a good example of bringing together local people and the wide range of different groups with different interests. In the past, those differences led to severe conflict in the area. It has been resolved by bringing people together. All groups and individuals who have been involved in the Parrett catchment initiative deserve credit. Of course, they are entitled to present ideas. Some may not be feasible; some may be long term and others may be relevant to the strategies for improving flood defences in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  The Environment Agency is considering some of those ideas, but ultimately, it will present the plans, and my Department will scrutinise them to ascertain their environmental impact, the cost-benefit analysis and whether they are technically suitable.
  Mr. David Heath: I fully support the Parrett catchment project, which, as the Minister said, is doing an extremely good job of bringing together disparate voices in the Somerset levels communities and perhaps showing a way forward for the rest of the country in inland flood defence.
  Earlier, the Under-Secretary referred to the use of land for water retention. I believe that a significant problem remains. Of course, it is possible to use stewardship schemes, but will that constitute a sustainable income for farmers in future? Can the Under-Secretary assure farmers that they will have a sustainable income for sustainable practice on the levels?
  Mr. Morley: It should be made clear that a stewardship scheme is not meant to be an alternative subsidy to the CAP. We are trying to move away from production support. The idea of stewardship schemes is recognising that farmers have land management skills and can provide a wide range of benefits, of which water management could be one. The payment reflects the job that they do. It will be geared to that commitment. I have made it clear that I believe that there is scope for that. We have to examine each scheme on its merits because, in some cases, water retention schemes require large areas of land and they may not be the solution to flood control.
  However, the Somerset levels area, which is internationally important, is already in an environmentally sensitive areas scheme and has a range of different support structures, which could be integrated to achieve a range of benefits, including nature conservation, sustainable farming and flood defence. The Parrett catchment scheme and group are playing an important role in that.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. George Osborne: What procedure exists for calling on the use of the armed forces in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [72354]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The armed forces would be alerted immediately if a case of foot and mouth disease was confirmed. The procedure is set out in DEFRA's
  458
  interim contingency plan, which is published on DEFRA's website along with an electronic mailbox for comments.
  Mr. Osborne: I thank the Minister for that answer. When the permanent secretary of DEFRA appeared before the Public Accounts Committee earlier this year, he confirmed that the 29-day delay in bringing out the Army in last year's foot and mouth outbreak was because the Prime Minister's authorisation was not forthcoming. What would the Prime Minister's role be in any future use of the Army in a foot and mouth outbreak? Can he be kept as far away from the process as possible?
  Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Anderson report, he would know how crucial the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in co-ordinating the total Government response, and how successful that was.
  I recall well, having lived through the foot and mouth epidemic in the days of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the original call for the use of the Army. People did not understand the way in which the Army role would be played. Those calling for the immediate use of the Army thought that it would be used simply to cart animals around, dig holes and undertake the sort of work that plenty of contractors could do. The value of the Army is in logistical control and command, in which it has particular skills. The time to bring it in is when the size of the epidemic justifies that. I should say that the Army was put on alert within days of the outbreak.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure that we do not have to call out the armed forces again, that we do not have to kill hundreds of thousands of animals and that we do not have to pay £3 billion in compensation, is to develop a suitable foot and mouth vaccine and then routinely to vaccinate livestock throughout Europe?
  Mr. Morley: I certainly agree that the vaccine will clearly have a greater role to play in the future control of epidemics. Indeed, vaccine technology has advanced from the date of the last outbreak to where we are now. Within the contingency plan we recognise that more work needs to be done on vaccine development. The Anderson report and the Royal Society report recommended that emergency vaccination should be moved up the options agenda. That is exactly what we will do in our future contingency planning.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister confirm that the clearest lesson from all the foot and mouth inquiries that have reported has been that the State Veterinary Service needs to be as strong as possible? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the moratorium on hiring state vets has been lifted?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I can confirm that the moratorium has been lifted. The SVS is an important part of our response to any sort of disease control. It provides advice on the prevention of disease as well.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that yesterday, at the Select Committee,

  459
  the author of the Royal Society report, Sir Brian Follett, was openly critical of the Government's efforts in scientific terms to improve animal welfare and to counter diseases that threaten the livestock industry. What will the Minister do to respond to Sir Brian's sage criticisms?
  Mr. Morley: We will respond in detail, especially to Sir Brian's report, which was a very good piece of work. We accept the main thrust of the recommendations. I have not seen the details of his comments at the meeting of the Select Committee, but I will make a point of reading them. There is a debate at the Royal Society that will involve Dr. Anderson and myself. I am ensuring that all the members of the Select Committee will receive an invite to attend if they so wish.
  Mr. David Lidington: One thing that came out clearly from Dr. Ian Anderson's report was the inadequacy of contingency planning in this country compared with the plans put in place in, for example, the Netherlands. The Minister has referred to the Government's interim contingency plan. Can he say now, 12 months after the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease, and nearly four months after the Anderson report, when he expects to make public the Government's final contingency plan that can he open to public discussion and debate in the House?
  Mr. Morley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Anderson report said that the outbreak that we experienced in this country was unprecedented on any international scale, and that no country's contingency plan was in a position to cope with an outbreak of such a type and on such a scale. In fairness, that should be recognised.
  We recognise that we must re-write our contingency plans. We must rethink many of our approaches given the experience of the epidemic. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have produced our immediate response, which is the interim strategy, so that we have a strategy in place. We are under way with the definitive strategy and contingency plan, which will be uprated. It will change because that is the nature of it. That involves a great deal of consultation and discussion. That is right and proper because we want to be open and transparent about this. We intend to bring forward the completed conclusions as quickly as possible and to encourage as much involvement and debate as possible.

  Animal Infections
  Paul Flynn: What recent assessments she has made of the effects of the transport of animals on the spread of infection. [72355]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Department has carried out preliminary veterinary and economic assessments of the 20-day standstill rule on animal movements and these are published on the Department's website. A
  460
  comprehensive cost benefit analysis and risk assessment is now being commissioned, as recommended by the inquiries into the foot and mouth disease outbreak.
  Paul Flynn: Is not it true that the main reason why foot and mouth spread more rapidly here than in any other country was that between the time of infection and the time of its detection, infected animals went to at least six marts, possibly coming into contact with 1 million other animals? Is not it right that the Government encourage farmers to use other methods of selling animals, such as through the internet, videos and direct sales, as they did during the foot and mouth crisis, rather than by making journeys to market? Is not it outrageous of the Opposition, who demand better methods to ensure that foot and mouth does not return and spread and that other infections do not come to this country, to oppose the Government on a sensible moderate scheme for the 20-day rule and to support farmers who flagrantly break the rule?
  Mr. Morley: I agree. The 20-day rule is an essential part of disease control strategy. It was recommended in the Anderson report and the Royal Society report. We have modified the details of the 20-day rule to take into account the real burdens on farmers in relation to the patterns of their animal movements. However, as I said to the industry, there is no going back to the situation pre-FMD. There will have to be movement controls.
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is commissioning an independent risk assessment to consider whether 20 days is appropriate or whether other amendments could be made in the light of representations. However, the rule is essential. The disease was spread by widespread animal movements and, in the case of Northern Ireland, by illegal sheep movements. So we must have tight controls. The Opposition's position on the 20-day rule in last night's debate was irresponsible. They did not recognise the real need that in order to combat disease there has to be action by all concerned. That means the Government, local authorities and agencies, but the livestock industry must play its part as well.
  Mr. Roger Williams: What answer would the Minister give to farmers in my constituency who think it illogical to have lax controls at airports and sea ports, where few resources are committed to prevent foot and mouth entering the country, while farmers are continually hamstrung in their livestock businesses by a rigid 20-day rule, which makes their business unviable?
  Mr. Morley: To be blunt, for some it is just an excuse. Controls at entry are important. We do not discount them and take them very seriously. Indeed, we have just committed an extra £1.5 million for additional checks at points of entry. We are considering all methods to ensure that we can strengthen controls at all borders and in all areas through which meat travels to enter this country. The truth is, however, that whatever we spend and whatever we do, we cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee that some disease will not get into the country. In that respect, although we recognise that we must play our part in border controls, and we will, the livestock industry must play its part as well. Movement

  461
  stops are an essential part of that. Those people who are not prepared to accept them put the whole livestock industry at risk. Given the fact that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill, the industry must recognise the need for it to play its part in minimising the problem.

  River Avon (Water Extraction)
  Mr. Robert Key: What agreement she has reached on water abstraction from the upper reaches of the Hampshire Avon; and if she will make a statement. [72356]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): In June this year the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Office of Water Services and
  462
  Wessex Water agreed a programme of measures that will reduce abstractions in three areas, including the upper reaches of the Hampshire Avon.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister, his officials and all the agencies involved for coming up with a compromise solution. However, does he agree that it is not the long-term answer? The problem is replicated around the country. The simple answer is that we are all wasting far too much water. We are transporting it, abstracting it and throwing it away. Will he do all he can to ensure a public education programme to stop wasting water?
  Mr. Morley: I can give the hon. Gentleman a bit more reassurance than that. He will probably be aware that it is our intention to introduce a new water Bill that will focus very much on abstraction control and statutory requirements to ensure that water is not wasted and is used properly. I am sure that he will welcome those measures and I look forward to his support when we introduce the Bill.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [Unallotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Affordable Housing". Followed by a debate entitled "Crisis in Nuclear Power and Development of a Sustainable Energy Market". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
WEDNESDAY 23 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of the National Lottery".
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 24 OCToBER—Continuation of the debate on local government finance formula grant distribution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Followed by a debate on control of asbestos in the workplace on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 25 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day] There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 29 OCToBER—Debate on motions relating to the Modernisation Committee report on reforming the House of Commons and the Procedure Committee report on parliamentary questions.
WEDNESDAY 30 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Enterprise Bill.
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER—Debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business the House will prorogue on Thursday 7 November and the new Session will begin on Wednesday 13 November.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 23 October the second meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe will take place to consider the Third and Fourth Report of the United Kingdom representatives to the convention.
Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. As he is all too aware, as a result of the re-imposition of direct rule in Northern Ireland, a ministerial team of five is now accountable to this House for what they do in Northern Ireland. In the light of that, is the right hon.
464
Gentleman prepared urgently to look at the allocation of time for parliamentary questions, particularly for Northern Ireland, but also for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, given that that Minister has an enormous range of responsibilities that are of direct interest to hon. Members and their constituents? I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that this is an urgent matter. I am sure that it could be agreed through the usual channels very rapidly, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it is very important that the House exercise its responsibilities with regard to the ministerial team in Northern Ireland given the regrettable change of circumstances.
While I acknowledge that the Leader of the House has now given further time for the local government finance formula debate—a matter that he, and you, Mr. Speaker, know greatly exercised the House when we saw that debate shrinking—can he give us any guarantees about the length of time now available for that important debate, as there must still be a long list of Members wishing to participate in this important matter? While I do not in any way want to diminish the importance of asbestos as a subject, it might be worth reconsidering whether asbestos really should encroach on the time available to debate the local government finance formula. Is the Leader of the House prepared, even at this stage, to look at the matter again and allow more time for local government even if it is at the expense of an immediate debate on asbestos?
On 29 October, we are to have a debate on the so-called modernisation of the House. Sadly. as the Leader of the House knows, because he chairs the Modernisation Committee, this is not a matter that has been agreed by all parties, as used to be the case in the past. I understand that he is presenting a number of proposals that have not been agreed to. Is it too late, even at this stage, for further discussions? When will we see the wording of proposals arising from very controversial suggestions by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman at the very least guarantee that when we have a debate there will be not just ample time for it but, equally important, an opportunity for votes to take place on matters that remain controversial?
May I appeal, even now, to the Leader of the House? We are very keen to discuss topical questions here, as their lordships are already able to do in the other place. Indeed, I understand that their opportunities are to be extended even further—opportunities that we have never had.
I should like more agreement to be reached than has been the case hitherto. Is it too late? When will we see the right hon. Gentleman's proposals?
Mr. Cook: Let me first say what a relief it is to see the architect of the AS-level still in his place. I will not disguise that from him, given the prominent part he played yesterday in the trouncing of his leader—
Mr. Forth: I did not say a word.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman did not need to say a word. He played a prominent part nevertheless. There was concern on these Benches about his welfare

465
overnight; we are delighted that he did not wake up to find that his appointment was "not worth the paper on which it was written."
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland. I congratulate my two colleagues who have been appointed to the Northern Ireland team: I am sure they will pursue their task with great diligence. We will of course look at ways of ensuring that the House can be kept fully aware of decisions they make, and that they are held accountable.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two questions about the questions rota, suggesting that more time should be allowed for questions on Northern Ireland and to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have to say that the time is finite. I am happy to look at ways of providing more time, but I need to hear proposals for less time to be allowed to someone else. Allowing more time for some matters means allowing less for others, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would not like time to be taken from the time allowed for the Leader of the House to answer questions. We are happy to consider the suggestion, but these are difficult issues and I have to strike a balance between the different Departments whose representatives must give answers to the House.
I am pleased that we have found additional time for the debate on the formula for local government. The House will recall that it was raised with me during business questions in July, and that I took the initiative by saying that there must be a debate. I regret the fact that Tuesday's debate shrank, although I do not regret the fact that we heard three very important statements which I think we all agree that we had to hear. We have acted to provide for a further debate on the Floor of the House. We will ensure that the time is protected, and that at least three full hours will be allowed.
Mr. Forth: Three hours?
Mr. Cook: Three hours on top of the hour that has already been provided amounts to a substantial wodge of time.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we drop the asbestos debate. I would not want him to get into any more trouble than he is in already with his leader, and I should perhaps draw his attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to us requesting a debate on asbestos on the Floor of the House. He may wish to consult with the Leader of the Opposition about the withdrawal of that letter, but I personally advise him to keep quiet about the matter.
It is, of course, never too late for further discussions about modernisation. I immensely enjoy the discussions I currently have during every hour of my working day about the modernisation proposals; but there comes a time when it is necessary to reach a decision. This matter has been before the House for nearly a year, and I think it is time for a decision. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that when we decide on, in particular, sitting hours, there will be a free vote for the Opposition as well as for us.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I suggest that a debate on the funding of democracy would offer the
466
right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) another chance to give us the opportunity of hearing his forthright views? There seems to be a curious amount of amnesia on the Conservative Benches in relation to state funding. It appears to have escaped Conservative Members' notice that the Conservative party has received £20 million from the taxpayer since its defeat in 1997.
If we are to preserve and enhance the reputation of politics, Parliament and Government, is it not extremely important for us to face up to the issue of state funding of democracy? Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the IPPR report, which I understand the chairman of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has already endorsed? Is it not urgent that we look at this? We surely cannot wait for the Electoral Commission to complete its work on this, which I understand may take 12 to 18 months. Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is a widespread perception that politics is being grossly influenced by the way in which large donors of various sorts seek to gain influence and access? In particular, will he look at the report in today's Financial Times, the headline of which is
"Tory donor 'urged Duncan Smith to ditch chairman'",
as a clear example of a way in which this can cause great concern and suspicion among the electorate? Can he be sure that no donor will try to ensure the departure of the Conservative spokesman because his performance is always so enjoyable in the House?
Mr. Cook: On the funding of political parties, I understand the anxieties to make progress, but it would be valuable for us to have the report of the Electoral Commission. After all, the House appointed the Electoral Commission to advise us on such matters. It will have important weight and authority in its contribution to the debate. I saw the report from IPPR and will study it with care. I also heard the director of IPPR being interviewed on the radio, in which he made the telling observation that the first Prime Minister ever elected with help from state funding was Lady Thatcher who benefited from Short money while in opposition, as indeed the Conservative party rightly and properly does today. That money is there to make sure our parliamentary system works better. Since that party already receives state funding I wish that it would adopt a rather more open approach to the debate on other parties.
I saw the article in the Financial Times. I am in no position to verify it since, sadly, I was not invited to attend the meeting between the Tory donor and the leader of the Tory party. I hope I carry with me all members of the shadow Cabinet when I say that if any Tory donor should suggest to the leader that he sack any of them, the appropriate course is to show him the door.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does The Leader of the House share my view that undemocratic quangos are capable of undermining Government policy? For example, although North Derbyshire tertiary college was due to be closed or have its name changed, the jobs were to remain according to a tin-pot undemocratic quango called the Derbyshire learning and skills council. That promise has not been kept. As a result

467
negotiations are already under way about sending people down the road on to the dole queue. It is high time that the Minister responsible for further education dealt with this matter to make sure that promises made by that tin-pot quango are kept.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his comments in his characteristic trenchant way and they will be heard vigorously in Derbyshire as they have been heard here. I am not in a position to respond in detail to the particular points that he raised, but I shall make sure that the Minister at the Department for Education and Skills has them drawn to his attention.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I ask the Leader of the House—as someone who is trenchant in his defence of the rights of Members of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive, and someone with a modernising agenda—to encourage Ministers to respond far more promptly to letters of inquiry from Members of the House of Commons? In early July I wrote to Health Ministers about a most important public health matter in Sutton Coldfield and this morning, more than three months later, I had a response. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind that a three-month delay is far too long and that civil servants and Ministers must ratchet up their agenda the importance of responding promptly to Members of Parliament when they raise important issues with them.
Mr. Cook: Of course, as Leader of the House I can only concur with the general sentiment that Members should have a reply to a parliamentary question or letter as quickly as possible. However, I invite the House to bear in mind the real pressures, particularly on the Department of Health. Questions to the Department of Health, and indeed many other Departments, have increased by about 50 per cent. in recent times. I know that the Department of Health is increasing staff resources to deal with the problem. We shall certainly endeavour to make sure we give as early advice as we can, but as mature members of the political community we must recognise the real pressures involved.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the matter is not fully cleared up this afternoon by the Defence Secretary, could there be a statement next week on the Congressional Budget Office report, which purports to say that Britain has committed 10,000 troops and £5 billion to a war against Iraq? Specifically, the CBO assumes that
"two-thirds of a British air wing would be part of the Heavy Ground force, as well as British naval contingent of 21 ships, as in Desert Storm."
The CBO's estimates of the costs
"incorporate the assumption that the United States will provide limited logistical support".
There ought at least to be comment on that, most properly from the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister.
Mr. Cook: I think I can help my hon. Friend to clear up the point now. First, there is no such commitment by the British Government. Secondly, the paper from which he quotes—as he has fairly indicated—is a paper not from the American Government but from the Congressional Budget Office. To be fair to the
468
Congressional Budget Office, it makes it perfectly plain that these are its assumptions and not British Government commitments.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I return to Northern Ireland? Quite rightly, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland used the first possible opportunity to make a statement to the House on Tuesday about the suspension of the devolved institutions. It is clear that, this time, we could be in for a long haul, because previously there have not been two additional Ministers appointed. In the circumstances, may we have a guarantee from the Leader of the House that there will be a full debate on the crisis in Northern Ireland before the House rises?
Mr. Cook: May I respond first to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, because I anticipate that he may be the first of a number today to raise it? Time between now and the date of prorogation that I have announced—7 November—is very tight. It is extremely important that we fulfil the commitments that we have, which we willingly accept, to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders for Opposition days, of which there are a number outstanding. We have four Bills, to which there will be Lords amendments, before we rise. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to anyone else thinking of asking the question, that there is no time for additional debate between now and prorogation.
On the general point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, we are fully seized of the gravity and importance of this development. I have no doubt that, over a period of time, the House will return to the question of Northern Ireland; whether in debate or in statements remains to be seen. Certainly the House will be right to expect to be fully involved. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he has done everything possible to keep the House informed.
Mr. Tom Watson: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the role and activities of IPPR? In the aftermath of its report proposing a cap on donations to political parties, IPPR makes no comment on its own uncapped donations from the corporate sector.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a robust point and I should be surprised if a letter from the IPPR were not winging its way towards him by tomorrow. I can only say to him that there are aspects of the report that do not immediately commend themselves to the Government or, I suspect, to any other party in this Chamber.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The discovery of a Republican spy ring at Stormont—in the wake of the raid on Castlereagh police station and the arrest of suspects in Colombia—in addition to the ongoing violence on the streets of Northern Ireland has produced a huge decrease in support for the Belfast agreement. This was confirmed this morning in a BBC report in which a poll indicated that only 56 per cent. of people now support the Belfast agreement, as opposed to over 70 per cent. in 1998. Further to the request of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), could I appeal to the Leader of the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the circumstances that made

469
untenable the continuance of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers within that Assembly?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of the developments to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Indeed, in his statement on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stressed the fact that events at Castlereagh and in Colombia had contributed to the decline in confidence in the peace process and the structures for Government in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend said in his statement, the time has come when those who are participating in the peace process must decide whether they are committing themselves wholly to that track. If the peace process is to succeed, paramilitaries on both sides must recognise that the case for violence and for trying to resolve these issues through violence is over, and that now is the time for all to commit themselves to the peace process, and solely to the peace process.
Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday a cross-party group of Members of Parliament presented a petition at Downing street calling for tougher regulation on fireworks? We understand that the Government have made announcements this week on bringing in new regulations, which we welcome. Would it be possible, however, given the sheer volume of people who signed the petition, for a Minister to come to the House to detail the new measures that the Government wish to introduce to deal with antisocial behaviour connected with fireworks?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue that is about to become very topical. There can be no Member of the House who has not, at some time or other, seen a constituent who has suffered injury from fireworks. My hon. Friend is correct that the Government have made proposals for controlling fireworks that are most prone to abuse or to cause injury. Those measures will, I believe, take effect from next year, and there will be opportunities for the House to consider them as the Government bring forward measures to implement them. In the mean time, I am sure that all hon. Members will use the press in their constituencies to consider how to provide the publicity to ensure that those handling fireworks recognise that they are potentially very dangerous explosives that must be handled with care, responsibility and judgment.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the courtesy of the House being informed if a Secretary of State cannot be here to answer questions is observed in the future, as it was not observed today? Will the Leader of the House also please reconsider the Modernisation Committee debate on 29 October? It is not essential that that issue be debated on that day; it is essential that Northern Ireland be debated very soon.
Mr. Cook: We have to make our own judgments as to what is the best allocation of time, and I think that the House will want to address a number of modernisation issues. As a matter of fact, it is essential that we have a debate on modernisation before proroguing, otherwise the House will be sitting until 10 o'clock on Thursdays in the next Session, because that order is sessional and must be addressed. There are reasons of necessity why we have to have a debate before the House rises.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I am advised that those on the Opposition Front Bench were informed that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be absent. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, she is attending the Environment Council in Europe, which has very important business relating to this country. If she were absent from that meeting, I suspect that she would be criticised by the House for coming here rather than going to Brussels.
Keith Vaz: The Leader of the House is aware that this week the Irish people will be voting in a referendum on the Nice treaty. Although not wishing to interfere in that process, many of us hope that they will vote yes. Bearing in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in the enlargement process in his work as Foreign Secretary and its importance to the rest of Europe, could time be set aside for a debate next week, or at least before the House rises, so that we can debate how to champion the cause even further?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend tosses me what I think is a firework that I must handle with care and responsibility. As he rightly says, the Irish public would quite properly resent any outside interference in their process. On enlargement, however, I have no difficulty in saying to my hon. Friend that the Government wholeheartedly support the enlargement process and have been one of the champions arguing for enlargement and the access of the countries in central and eastern Europe.
I think that we in the European Union are inclined to underrate the extent to which the possibility of membership of the European Union has helped those countries transform their economy and alleviated some of the longstanding ethnic tensions that they have realised they have to put behind them as a condition of membership. These are welcome developments. Given the painful decisions that those countries have taken, it remains incumbent on us to ensure that those decisions are rewarded with membership.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and, in particular, the delays in providing guidance? Is he aware that there is a problem with the rationing of photodynamic therapy for patients suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration, or AMD? My constituent, Jack Tolley, of Bladon, is going progressively blind. His general practitioner has recommended him for treatment, but the Oxford eye hospital says that it cannot carry it out because the funding from his own primary care trust is not there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is particularly iniquitous because patients in Reading are funded for that treatment at the Oxford eye hospital. He may like to know that the North East Oxfordshire NHS PCT has said that because

471
"resources per capita … are the lowest or next to lowest in the country. For this reason we need to make invidious decisions about treatment priorities which are due to inadequate resources."
Could we have an urgent debate and early guidance from NICE so that people who are going progressively blind do not have to wait for their treatment?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the controversy to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Plainly, the sooner it is resolved the better, from everyone's point of view. I have two general observations. First, we set up NICE precisely because it is surely right that it should be the scientific and the medical experts, with some independent assessment, who come to a judgment. These are not matters that we are qualified to judge and they are not suitable to be resolved on the Floor of the House. Secondly, I hear the hon. Gentleman's complaints about poor funding. Of course, it is the Government's understanding that we have to make further progress in raising funding within the national health service. We have carried through a massive increase in funding since we inherited the record of the previous Conservative Government. At the Conservative party conference, the Conservative leadership said that it was not committed to matching our increases in health spending. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can support his leadership in refusing to match our spending and at the same time complain that we are not spending enough.
Andy Burnham: Will the Leader of the House consider timetabling at the earliest opportunity a debate on the future of United Kingdom manufacturing? He may feel a sense of déjà-vu, but there have been profound changes within our industrial base, and Parliament is in danger of failing to respond to those changes. In the past year, there have been forced large-scale redundancies in Leigh and 1,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, the latest due to the closure of the Bentwood textiles factory, which has led to the loss of more than 300 skilled jobs. That raises real issues about the future of the UK textile industry and whether the European Union tax regime is working in our national interests. There is real concern out there about both the ease with which companies can seemingly relocate away from the UK and the quality of the redundancy packages offered to people when such relocations occur. I urge my right hon. Friend to give hon. Members the opportunity to air those concerns on the Floor of the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Cook: I am distressed to hear of the experience that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency and I fully understand that the matters that he has raised must be of grave concern to his constituents. I am aware of the interest on both sides of the House in a discussion of manufacturing. It is a matter that has been aired before. I draw attention to the fact that we are rapidly approaching six full days' debate on the Queen's Speech, which traditionally provides an opportunity to discuss industry and the economy. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may wish to consider whether these are matters that could be pursued in that context.
Richard Younger-Ross: Would the Leader of the House make a statement prior to the
472
modernisation debate on the possible impact of the modernisation on the working hours and income of the staff of the House and the police? He may be aware that it is feared that those staff may well end up worse off after that modernisation process.
Mr. Cook: If there are concerns on income, that is a matter that can be pursued through the usual negotiating channels, which are well developed within the House of Commons. I am sure that the House of Commons Commission will be willing to consider any bona fide and genuine concerns that there might be—I say that as a member of the Commission. However, I am not immediately aware that there would be a significant impact on the hours of the staff. If he is referring to the Modernisation Committee's report, it is true that we make a vigorous case for thinking that the House would be wise to start earlier in the day than at present and that that would have a consequence for when we conclude our business at the end of the day. We do not go so far as the Opposition, who suggested that we should sit from 9 am and stop at 5 pm, but we are suggesting 11.30 am until 7 pm.
We also recommended that, because a number of hon. Members will wish to continue working on the premises, catering and other facilities such as the Library should remain open. so I would not apprehend any immediate and sharp reduction in hours.
Alan Simpson: I return to the issue raised by the Father of the House during business questions. My point relates to the article by Oonagh Blackman in today's edition of The Mirror. We might want to take issue with the basis on which the US Congressional Budget Office speculated on the costs of a war against Iraq. The following statement from its report ought to cause this House real concern:
"Only the British have thus far indicated their intention to contribute troops."
We have had a succession of statements, from the Prime Minister and other Ministers, saying that the UK has not made any such commitment. Either the US Congress is being misled, or information is being withheld from this House. May we ask the Prime Minister to make it clear to this House whether there is any grounds at all for the certainty with which this commitment of UK troops is referred to in the report to the US Congress?
Mr. Cook: There is no commitment made, and can be no commitment made, because no decision has yet been reached. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said to the House—I fully support him in this policy objective—it is the objective of British foreign policy to make sure that it is progressed through the United Nations. At the moment, there are discussions within the United Nations on what resolution might be approved, and I think it may well be possible that those discussions will result in a resolution. At the moment, no decision is required of us, and no commitment has been made by us. Military action is not imminent; nor is it inevitable. I very much hope that, at the end of the day, we will succeed through the United Nations process of satisfactorily disarming Saddam Hussein and removing his ambition for weapons of mass destruction. However,

473
we also need him to heed the UN obligations that he has previously had put upon him, and any fresh UN resolution that is adopted.
Mr. James Clappison: Will the Leader of the House keep an open mind as to the allocation of time for debating local government funding, given the concerns expressed by Members, the interests of their constituents, the scale of the proposed changes to funding, the effect on local services, and the interests of those such as the chairman of the Hertfordshire police authority, who wrote to Ministers and MPs saying that, in due course, changes in funding will result in the loss of 300 police officers in Hertfordshire? These are very big changes. Can we find sufficient time, so that all these anxieties can be heard?
Mr. Cook: Yes, although I am aware that my right hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed to the House that no local authority will be worse off. Of course, there is room for debate as to who is best off in terms of the increased amounts. Having said that, I admit to the House that I see no realistic possibility that I can provide satisfactory time on the Floor for every Member who wishes to make a contribution, through a speech, to this issue. It is simply not possible to reconcile that with the finite character of time. I have twice tried to provide generous time for this debate. On Tuesday, that opportunity was waylaid by the need for statements; it will not be so waylaid next Thursday, when a second opportunity will arise. I believe that, in all fairness, we have tried hard to provide adequate opportunity for the House to ventilate this subject.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that—despite the impression given by the shadow Leader of the House—the Modernisation Committee has done everything possible in the past year to try to reach a consensus? Is it not true that some of his friends on the Labour Benches wanted to go much further in respect of matters such as the modest overspill proposal? People such as me believe that we should have a five-year Parliament, with all legislation being introduced in a sensible, phased way over that period. That would ensure a better programme, better scrutiny and better legislation.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in the Select Committee. He is absolutely right—we have sought whenever we can to achieve consensus. All members of the Committee will accept that I have made real efforts to get as many members on board as possible. There are one or two areas on which we disagree—that is not surprising—but we have achieved substantial consensus on the way forward.
On the issue of carry-over to which my hon. Friend refers, I stress that I do not see it as related in any way to increasing the volume of legislation before the House; I see it as necessary to make sure that the House can do a proper job of scrutiny. The real problem in scrutinising Government legislation is finding enough time in which to do it. If we want more time to do it, we must have a
474
longer time-horizon. That is the value of carry-over to the House, and it is for the House's sake that we should adopt it when we meet on 29 October.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that about six of his ministerial colleague, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, attended the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg at the end of August. He will further know that that international conference debated and discussed some of the most vital issues affecting the future of our globe. Surely the House should have an opportunity to discuss these important matters. Bearing in mind the fair point that he made about the pressure on business between now and Prorogation, will he assure us that the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House, if not before then immediately after the beginning of the new Session?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is realistic in understanding that we cannot debate the matter before prorogation, but I assure him that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen for the House to have an opportunity to question her and discuss the matter, and that the issue of a statement was contemplated. The House will always be faced with the problem of catching up after three months in which it has not been sitting. Indeed, we saw that on Monday when we had three statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tuesday."] Sorry, Tuesday. Those statements could not be moved and necessarily took precedence over any other statement. I would argue that that is a very strong case for the House coming back in September instead of the system whereby we do not meet for three months. Had we come back in September, I am absolutely sure that there would have been a statement on Johannesburg.
Kevin Brennan: Would the Leader of the House, in his mission for modernisation, consider investigating the modernisation of the television facilities available in the House to allow hon. Members to receive digital television channels, especially those such as BBC2 Wales or BBC Scotland, which will allow us to monitor the media in our nations and regions? Would that not have the additional merit of allowing people—such as those hon. Members who were lucky enough to be in the Wales Office last night—to watch some top-quality international football?
Mr. Cook: One of the advantages that I have as United Kingdom Leader of the House is the ability to support whichever team is doing best, and I congratulate the Welsh team on its success. I shall convey to the House authorities my hon. Friend's comments in relation to television services.
Pete Wishart: First, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a Government statement on the Government's response to the Anderson inquiry on 5 November, as leaked today to Plaid Cymru? Secondly, he is no doubt aware of a little local difficulty concerning the proposed change of membership of the Committee of Selection. He is aware that this is due to the increasing frustration felt in the minority parties about lack of access to Committees and

475
institutions of the House. Must we continue to oppose that as private business, or will we be given an early opportunity to debate our grievances about the treatment of minority parties at the hands of the House?
Mr. Cook: I am very much aware of the grievance of the minority parties on the question of appointments to Committees. The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded on the matter on several occasions, and I will continue to look for a solution to it. There will be plenty of procedural opportunities for him to make his point.
On the Anderson report, the Government will, of course, respond to it, and that response will be shared with the House. It is unusual, however, for the Government to respond as soon as the leak is out and before the report has been published.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I return to the story in the The Mirror about the war bill? Although I welcome the Leader of the House's positive comments on the United Nations route, I must point out the importance of this issue to the House. If the document concerned says that President Bush has been guaranteed that Britain will send troops to fight a United States-led war and makes other explicit statements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) referred—in addition, the Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the cost to this country might be £5 billion—it is imperative that the House has the opportunity to question a Minister or the Prime Minister on the matter. We have been told time and again that no decisions have been taken, but the Americans appear to think that they have been. Five billion pounds is a lot of money, and we have outstanding public sector pay claims, such as those from the firefighters and the nurses, and I am sure that that money would cover much of their claims.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been of deep concern to a number of my hon. Friends. I can only repeat that the Congressional Budget Office is, of course, entitled to come to what assumptions it wishes, but those are its assumptions. They do not reflect any commitment that has been given by Her Majesty's Government, nor could we make any commitment until we take a decision, and no decision has been taken on action. I very much hope that it will be possible for us to succeed in getting the UN to pressurise Iraq successfully to accept its obligations to the UN. Every sane Member would accept that that is the best way forward, but it depends on co-operation from Iraq.
As to opportunities to debate the issue further, I draw the House's attention to the fact that there will be a debate on defence today and that there will be another in two weeks' time. There are plenty of opportunities for Members who wish to do so to press the Ministers responsible for defence for clarity on this matter. However, I think that those Ministers will confirm what I have said to the House.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the private finance initiative so that the House can have the benefit of the lively debate that we saw at the Labour party conference? Perhaps the Government could explain the
476
motion that was so enthusiastically adopted by that conference. If he finds time for that debate, will he arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to open it, so that we can hear the Government's argument at its best and hear a repeat of the bravura performance at Blackpool?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's point was rather laboured. I am always happy to listen to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or, indeed, to any member of the Treasury team. They will also be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues if they wish to nominate which hospital or school projects in their constituencies they would like to have halted because they do not approve of the PFI process.
Vernon Coaker: I welcome the modernisation proposals that my right hon. Friend published over the summer, but will he tell the House what progress has been made with respect to the use of Westminster Hall for debates on issues that cut across Government Departments and that a range of Ministers could attend? Would not a good start be a debate on youth policy to which many Ministers could be brought together to answer questions on that important topic?
Mr. Cook: I aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. Indeed, he wrote to me some time ago, and I am pleased that we have been able to respond to the demand from Members—and from Ministers responsible for this issue—by proposing that there should be an opportunity for cross-cutting questions on youth policy, embracing the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. As more work is done in Whitehall on a cross-departmental basis, it is right that the House should adapt its procedures so that we can also maintain cross-cutting scrutiny. I believe that our proposal for change in Westminster Hall will be helpful. We will work with the Chairman of Ways and Means to try to find an early opportunity in the new Session when we can put into effect that proposal for questions on youth policy in Westminster Hall.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Is it not unsatisfactory that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have yet been to the House to explain or justify their decision to put more than £600 million of public funds at risk in the form of emergency loans and guarantees to the virtually bankrupt private nuclear energy company, British Energy? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have such a statement as soon as possible?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, we will have a full opportunity to explore these issues next week. Once again I say that, if we had regular September sittings, such questions would not arise, because I am sure that we would have had a statement at the time. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises will be debated next week, but it surely could not be responsible of any Government to allow a major nuclear energy installation to face the possibility of insolvency, with all the consequences that would have for the safety and

477
security of our constituents. In those circumstances, it surely was right for the Government to act to make sure that nuclear safety is maintained.
Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on compensation for the victims—the soldiers and now the families—of the atomic tests in the Pacific in 1950? I am sure that he is aware that the Prime Minister supported a private Member's Bill in 1990 demanding compensation for the victims of those tests. As we are now in government, I am sure that the Government will be eager to ensure that justice is done for those victims.
Mr. Cook: The Government are always eager to make sure that justice is done, and my hon. Friend may want to put those points to my colleagues from the Ministry of Defence who will be taking part in the subsequent debate.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement.

Housing Benefit
1.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the reform of housing benefit.
I am today publishing a prospectus, "Building Choice and Responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit", which sets out our proposals. The system that we have inherited is complicated, costly to administer, vulnerable to fraud and difficult for tenants to understand. For too many people, it means endless form filling and delays in payment. It is often a factor that prevents people from making the move from welfare into work.
Currently, we expect local authorities to reassess 4 million individual claims every year, whether they have changed or not. Nearly 2 million pensioners whose circumstances rarely change are expected to fill in a 40-page form every year just to renew their housing benefit. Local councils are compelled to deal with a bewildering array of overlapping rules for tenants in the private rented sector. That cannot be right. We need a system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands—one that supports work and cuts the risk of fraud. The Work and Pensions Committee and the Audit Commission have highlighted the need for change, as have many outside observers. It is time to get on with this reform.
It is clear that we need to break fundamentally with the past and bring in a fairer, simpler system, so we propose to introduce standard local housing allowances for private rentals, initially in 10 pathfinder areas. The allowance will be flat rate and based on area and family size. The amount paid will, as now, be income related. It will be paid directly to the tenant, except where vulnerable tenants are unable to manage their own affairs or where substantial arrears have built up. No one will be worse off when those pathfinder schemes start next year. In fact, tenants who find a suitable home with a rent less than the standard allowance will be able to keep the difference. That puts the decision and responsibility in their hands.
The reforms will build on the steps that we have already taken to improve administration and to begin the process of restructuring rents in the social rented sector. It is our intention to roll out reforms nationally and to develop ways of bringing in the social housing sector. That will be carefully informed by our assessment of the initial pathfinder areas, where we will work closely with local authorities, landlords, tenants associations and advice agencies.
Consultation will be led by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), for whose work on these proposals I am very grateful. The reformed system will offer greater simplicity and certainty for tenants and landlords, extend tenant choice and responsibility, dramatically cut delays and support our wider aims of improving public services, tackling poverty and extending opportunity.
As they are simpler, standard local allowances will speed up the claims process, which will reduce the uncertainties that people face as their circumstances

479
change and will make trying a job a more attractive option. Furthermore, later this month, throughout the country we will start to introduce a rapid reclaim facility for when a job does not work out. We will also remove the need to make a new claim when someone gets a job. Housing benefit will simply run on until the in-work rate is calculated.
We are taking other steps to improve the service for everyone. Jobcentre Plus clients will be able to make claims over the telephone, and from next autumn pensioners will no longer have to fill out a new housing benefit form every year.
We are committed to working in partnership with councils to improve performance through clearer standards and increased accountability. We are already seeing progress. In March, we set out clear standards for housing benefit performance. We will build on that by providing £200 million for training and modernisation over the next three years to help councils that are committed to improvement. We shall also challenge poor performance and stand ready to intervene where local authorities fail to deliver an acceptable service.
It is also crucial that we crack down on fraud. This package of reforms will do just that. First, it will simplify the housing benefit system in order to free resources for the fight against fraud. Secondly, the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants to set high rents will be removed. Thirdly, we are providing £60 million to support the tighter checking of claims, stopping fraud getting into the system in the first place.
The Government are committed to taking action against rogue landlords who abuse the system. As soon as parliamentary time allows, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to legislate to tackle the minority of rogue landlords and boost our drive against poor conditions. It is also important that tenants understand their obligations to behave in a neighbourly way.
As we made clear following the introduction of the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Government are considering housing benefit sanctions as part of our wider strategy to tackle nuisance neighbours through stricter tenancy agreements and improved antisocial behaviour orders. By making tenants responsible for payment of their rent, the reforms that I am announcing today reinforce the link between rights and responsibilities.
In conclusion, reform of housing benefit is essential. The proposals combine simplicity and streamlined procedures with greater individual choice. They offer a better deal for tenants, landlords and local authorities. We must now work together to make them a success.
Mr. David Willetts: Housing benefit does indeed need to be reformed. Successive Governments have promised to do it but none has really succeeded. The dilemma is whether to pay benefit for actual rent or make a standard payment of a rent allowance. Sixty years ago, Beveridge devoted an entire chapter of his great report to precisely that dilemma and revealingly entitled it "The problem of rent". He concluded that it would be better to make a standard payment, provided that rents in different areas had already moved close together. I think that he was right, and that is clearly the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding.
480
Let me ask the Secretary of State about the scale of his proposals. This Government have all too often proposed welfare reform, only to fail to deliver. About 4 million people are claiming housing benefit. How many claimants does he expect to receive housing benefit in the new way, after he has implemented the pathfinders? Is he committing himself now to proceeding straightforwardly to a complete national scheme after the pathfinders have been implemented, or is there to be a small number of pilots, after which the evidence will be scrutinised before a decision is made on what to do next? We need to know whether the gap between hype and reality that has so frequently dogged the Government's commitment to welfare reform is going to be in evidence yet again on housing benefit.
I should like also to ask the Secretary of State about the detail of the pathfinders. Will he assure the House that they will cover different parts of England? As he well knows, what might work in low-rent areas of the north may not necessarily work in parts of the southeast, where rents are much higher. Is there a danger of going back to the old days of two different housing benefit regimes—one for social housing tenants and another for private tenancies? His proposals currently appear to cover only private tenancies. Will he try to drive down rents in the private sector while those in the social housing sector continue to increase? How will he fix rents for existing tenants, especially if he says that none of them is to lose?
Perhaps most important of all, what about the serious problem of people trapped in dependency because of the incredibly high rates of combined withdrawal of housing benefit and income support that they now face? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at those very high tapers—sometimes over 90 per cent.—which trap thousands of people in benefits, or will the tapers be off-limits?
The Secretary of State went on to speak about the linking of housing benefit to behaviour. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must salute the imagination of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the author of that idea. We approached it in a constructive spirit when his private Member's Bill went into Committee—perhaps the Liberal Democrats did not, but my hon. Friends certainly did—and we will approach it in a constructive spirit again. But that was the proposal from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. What has happened to the original proposal that was made by the Prime Minister, which linked child benefit to behaviour? Is that still on the agenda, or has it been dropped? Has the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the House in order to drop an idea proposed by the Prime Minister, and instead to support an idea proposed by the former Minister for Welfare Reform, who was removed from his post? Has the Secretary of State decided that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is right and the Prime Minister is wrong? We would like him to make that clear.
While we debate these ideas for the future, there is an immediate crisis in our housing benefit system in many parts of the country, especially in London, where it is close to collapse. Does the Secretary of State accept that there are people who are homeless on the streets, having been evicted from their houses by councils whose own failure to pay housing benefit is the source of the

481
problem? We welcome practical proposals, including those made by him today, to tackle that problem, but the Secretary of State did not refer to one of the reasons why housing benefit administration is close to collapse. Ministers have produced more than 400 housing benefit circulars since the Government took office in 1997 and local authorities simply cannot keep up with them.
May I take this opportunity to urge the Secretary of State to consider our straightforward and practical proposal simply to change the regulations once or twice a year, so that local authorities do not face a stream of changes? We have also suggested that the Benefits Agency should, in the last resort, take over responsibility for housing benefit from local authorities that are clearly not up to the job. I hope that the Secretary of State will also consider those practical proposals to tackle an immediate crisis.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman implied that we were the first Government to try to get to grips with the problem since Beveridge. He might have given us some credit for grasping the nettle. I listened in vain throughout his remarks for a basic comment about whether the Conservative party thinks that our proposals are the right direction for reform or the wrong direction. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome the move towards greater personal responsibility and choice for tenants; the tenants who will benefit from our reforms will certainly do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. As I said in my statement, we propose initially to roll out the proposals in 10 pathfinder areas. We wish to extend the approach nationally, but clearly we must learn from the experience of the pathfinders in so doing.
As regards the number and the proportion of recipients of housing benefits who are affected, there are 4 million claims and about 20 per cent. of those—800,000—are in the private sector. We hope to roll the scheme out to between 5 and 10 per cent. of that case load through the pathfinders, so the hon. Gentleman can see that the number of people affected will be substantial. He asked whether those are pathfinders or pilots. We want to get on with rolling out the scheme.
In selecting the areas to be the pathfinders, yes, we want to ensure that not only the various regions of England, but areas in Scotland and Wales have the opportunity to try the new approach. The criteria that we will apply in selecting pathfinders is that they include a mix of high-cost, low-cost and medium-cost areas; we want to include substantial rural areas as well as urban areas; we want them to be in different parts of the country, and they need to be areas with a substantial case load of private rentals. We shall approach a number of authorities as soon as we can to see whether they are able to take part.
With regard to the Government's performance on housing benefit, I cannot help but refer to the utter shambles that we inherited and the Opposition's failure to take responsibility for the awful mess that they bequeathed us. We have invested in tougher action against fraud in the form of the benefit fraud inspectorate, we have sent help teams around the country and we have intervened in a number of local
482
authorities—for example, we have substantially addressed the backlog in Hackney. Moreover, the ombudsman's recent report noted that complaints to him about housing benefit administration were down by a quarter.
I do not deny that a great deal more needs to be done to improve the efficiency of administration and to crack down on fraud, but our proposals will help us to achieve that end. We are putting resources and investment behind our commitment to efficiency and modernisation. Not only have we allocated £200 million from next year to modernise IT and to train staff, but £60 million has been explicitly dedicated to measures to combat fraud.
The key point is that these proposals will help. They make the system clearer and more straightforward and they remove the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants in setting high rents. This is a big step forward towards tenants in the private sector who are dependent on housing benefit having some of the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us take for granted.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), for the work they have put in behind today's statement, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the courage and determination that he is now showing in reforming housing benefit. Had some of that been shown five years ago, he might have been announcing the completion of the reform rather than its commencement.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that when his statement is reviewed it will be seen as the abolition of the last vestiges of serfdom in our welfare system, and that instead of directing how claimants spend their money it will give them the freedom to spend it themselves?
Will my right hon. Friend give us some assurance about how the reform will be rolled out in the pilot areas? Will all claimants in the private sector be brought into the scheme, or will they become part of the scheme only if they wish to move or have to move?
Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome for the measures. With regard to the timing of their implementation, earlier steps were taken on modernisation and tackling fraud and rent restructuring measures are now under way for the social rented sector, but we are now getting on with these measures as quickly as we can.
With regard to how the reform will be rolled out in each of the pathfinder areas, our intention is that all private rentals where tenants receive housing benefit will be part of the pathfinder, except, as I said, where people are vulnerable and unable to manage their affairs or where there are substantial rent arrears. Another protection that the House will be interested in is that it makes sense for the initial payment to be made directly to the landlord, but thereafter it will be the responsibility of the tenant.
I am not sure whether I would describe the measures in exactly the same terms as my right hon. Friend did, as the abolition of serfdom—I would be proud to have played a leading role in such a cause—but they certainly

483
extend rights, responsibilities and opportunities to tenants in the private rented sector that they have been denied in the past and that the rest of us take for granted.
Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for grasping a nettle that his two immediate predecessors signally failed to grasp. It is all the more welcome that he has brought forward the proposals today. The aims that he set out are entirely laudable and many of the proposals, such as pensioners not having to reclaim within five years, are entirely sensible, and we shall welcome and support them. However, I have two fundamental concerns.
First, a political party recently said that it was proposing to complete the Thatcherite agenda. I had assumed that that was the Conservative party, but I hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to use housing benefit sanctions for antisocial tenants, which sounds good, macho and as though the Government are on the side of the decent against the antisocial, but in practice the consequence will be to move the problem around rather than to deal with it. Would not the money that these measures will cost be better spent on the many schemes around Britain that are working now to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour? These measures will simply move the problem around when it has already occurred.
I have some serious concerns about rent restructuring. I get the impression that the Secretary of State lives in a world in which tenants are faced with a wide array of choice properties at decent prices, and that they pick and choose, then haggle to set a decent rent with the landlord. Well, it ain't like that, and I think that, deep down, the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Many tenants are price takers, and have little choice. They have to take what they are offered or they have to lump it. The Department's own research shows that shopping-around incentives have been a complete failure; they simply do not work. Tenants are not free choosers among a range of choice properties. Does the Secretary of State not agree that tenants will be forced to live in the cheap rent, ghetto part of town because they will not be able to afford to live in the decent part?
If the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is for the standard allowance to be set at the reference rent—effectively, the maximum rent—how will the pilot schemes tell us anything? Half the people will be paying less and have some free money—and will say thank you very much—while the other half will get what they are getting now. So what will the pilots actually teach us? With rents as they are, there is a real danger attached to the flat-rate payments. Rents still vary far too much, and people will be forced to move because their housing benefit does not cover their rent. That will mean children leaving their schools, and people moving away from members of their family who can provide child care. It will also disrupt employment. If the measures do not have the effect of causing people to choose different properties, what is the point of them? If they do, will they not "ghettoise" and distort people's lives?
Mr. Smith: It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are no part of the reformed agenda. That was an hysterically negative response to our radical proposals. I would caution the hon. Gentleman against lecturing me on the world I live in. My home in my constituency is on an
484
estate where people are sick and tired of neighbours from hell making their lives a misery, day in and day out. This Government can take pride in linking rights with responsibilities, and if housing benefit has a part to play in the wider measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, so much the better.
On the hon. Gentleman's speculation about people being worse off, I said in my statement that no one will be worse off as a consequence of these proposals. Indeed, those whose rent is below the reference rent level will be better off. In resisting these proposals, the hon. Gentleman would condemn those people to the unfairness of having less money for their housing costs, just because they live in a cheap area. There is nothing liberal or democratic in his remarks if he would prefer to leave poor people ensnared in an incomprehensible state bureaucracy, rather than putting some power in their hands. I believe in empowering poor people, and that is what these proposals will do.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the Secretary of State explain a little more about how his proposals will deal with private landlords who exploit the current system by not maintaining their properties, which, in effect, encourages antisocial behaviour and, as a result, accelerates neighbourhood decline?
Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's commitment to tackling not only rogue landlords but the wider syndrome of degeneration, especially in some of our urban neighbourhoods. As I said, I believe that these proposals make a contribution to tackling those problems because they put more power in the hands of tenants and less in the hands of the bad landlords. They will make the situation clearer for tenants and landlords than it is at present. At the moment, when a tenant is deciding which property to live in, they are effectively shopping in the dark without knowing how much money they have in their purse. Under these proposals, they will know how much money they will be taking to get the best deal. It is right that we should extend to them the opportunity to express a choice in these situations. Of course, there is a much wider agenda here, and, as I said in my statement, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting on wider measures to tackle antisocial landlords. We look forward to those measures being introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome the broad thrust of the Secretary of State's proposals and I look forward to reading the detail of the consultation paper. I especially welcome his desire to crack down on both rogue landlords and neighbours from hell. He will understand the healthy scepticism on Conservative Benches about the claim that the Government will introduce fewer bureaucratic measures than their predecessors. If they can achieve that, we would warmly welcome it and wish them well.
In my experience, many software systems that local authorities use to oversee the housing benefit system often break down and fail to deliver. Will the Secretary of State give guidance and advice to local authorities on the computer systems that they should use to ensure that they deliver the right result and that tenants can interact with them quickly and carefully?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. He made an important

485
point: IT software often leaves a great deal to be desired. A working group is examining the matter in partnership with local authorities. The roll-out of the pathfinders and their experience will provide important lessons about the way in which we can ensure that the system works properly and delivers the standards of service that we all expect.
The system is simpler because it makes poking around every nook and cranny of the assessment of every rent unnecessary. It should therefore be simpler for IT.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend referred to overcoming the complexity of claiming housing benefit under the current arrangements. Perhaps he could expand on the way in which the new measures would achieve that. Does not Jobcentre Plus operate as a method of assisting claimants by drawing people together who are seeking both benefits and employment? Will it assist matters to close jobcentres such as that in Eckington in my constituency? My right hon. Friend saved it in the past and may consider the position again. How will people in those circumstances find it easier to gain access to the provisions that we are considering?
Mr. Smith: As I said, the simpler system will be more user friendly and make it easier for people to claim their entitlements. The wider proposals to which I referred involve replacing approximately four forms that people must currently complete with one form. We will enable and encourage making claims by telephone. Jobcentre Plus will be able to handle those claims. As the scheme is rolled out across the country, it will become a genuine one-stop service for those who are seeking work as well as benefits.
My hon. Friend referred to a specific jobcentre. My ministerial team and I will be pleased to talk to him further about its future.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The development is welcome from the point of view of the Social Security Committee, as it was. The hurdle of housing benefit prevented people from getting off benefit and into work, and it was one of the biggest items of unfinished business since the Government were elected in 1997. This morning's announcement constitutes a significant step forward, which I welcome.
I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that hon. Members would be wise to consider the detail carefully because it will make all the difference to whether the proposals are successful and fulfil the aspirations that he set out.
I want to make two brief points. First, I am slightly disappointed that the public sector has not been used for any of the pilots. I understand that the Labour party made a manifesto commitment to deal with private before public, but I hope that that does not mean that public is off the agenda for the rest of the Parliament. I would have been happier if the pathfinders had included some public sector research.
Secondly, when the Government introduced pension credit, they sensibly made it clear that the interface between housing benefit and pension credit would
486
prejudice no one. Will the Secretary of State comment on the second phase of the tax credit reform that will be introduced next spring and how it will interface with the proposals that he announced this morning?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome and for the work that his Select Committee does in this important area.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I too am keen to be able to include the social sector. Clearly we must have progress on rent restructuring. Given that that is predicated on an element of tenant choice, that too needs to be reflected in the social housing sector if the benefits are to be realised. As we roll out the pathfinders, we shall actively be looking for opportunities to involve the public sector. Far from that sector being off the agenda, it is very much on it in terms of the national roll-out of such reform.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was about tax credits coming in next April. We shall be examining carefully the interaction between the two factors that he identified, and we are mindful of the work that local authorities have to accomplish next year on housing benefit systems. It is especially important that there is careful consultation with the authorities that we are minded to approach as pathfinders to ensure that they are enthusiastic about taking on the job.
Ms Karen Buck: Beveridge decided not to proceed with fundamental housing benefit reform because of cost differentials in different parts of the country, which of course have increased dramatically over recent years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the scheme works effectively in high-cost areas such as London? The number of properties in the private rented sector that are available to people on housing benefit has halved in five years. One of my constituents was told that to look for a property while on housing benefit, it would be necessary to go to Dartford, Billericay or Brentwood, 40 miles from central London. The choice agenda is critical.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure also that poverty is addressed? The shortfalls between the housing benefit that is payable and actual rents in the Greater London area are a major cause of poverty, and in turn drive households into homelessness and into public sector housing. In the application of the policy, will my right hon. Friend advise me how it will increase choice by increasing supply in the private rented sector, how it will reduce poverty and how it will reduce the flow of households, especially families from the private rented sector, into homelessness?
Mr. Smith: I am certainly mindful of the particular problems that affect high-cost areas; indeed, according to outside-London terms, my constituency is a high-cost area. I am sensitive to the particular challenge facing people and authorities in London. That is one of the reasons why we want to ensure that pathfinder areas include a London authority.
As for poverty, through these proposals no one will be worse off, and a significant proportion of tenants will be better off. There is a wider challenge facing us on housing supply, and that is one of the reasons why the

487
Government have already substantially increased investment in social housing. As a consequence of the spending review, we are accelerating that investment still further.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to keep these matters closely under review and to examine what are the future options to ensure that the problems that she has identified, arising from a diminishing range of properties available to those in housing need in London, are effectively addressed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have time limited main business to protect this afternoon, in which many hon. Members wish to take part. I do not think that I will be able to call every Member who is trying to catch my eye on the statement. Brief questions and brief answers would help.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I was struck by the explanation that the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats, which was that an individual cannot be an intelligent purchaser unless he or she knows how much they have to spend. When the right hon. Gentleman is selecting the pathfinders, will he make particular efforts to cover an area where rents are variable geographically or seasonally? Will he take account of the need to cover effectively those whose incomes vary substantially during the year, such as seasonal workers or those who do not receive all the money that they should through the Child Support Agency?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my comment. It is not the first time that we have made common cause against the Liberal Democrats.
We will address the variable geography and incomes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Rent reference areas try to take account of that and we will work on the basis of existing areas. I agree that there are big issues to consider for the future and that we will have to learn from the pathfinders. I will try to address his concern when we select the pathfinders.
Glenda Jackson: The problem with housing benefit in my constituency, which is an area of high and rising rents and a diminishing number of properties, is not the speed in processing claims—my borough of Camden has two charter marks for excellence in that—but the gap between the level of rent set by the local rent officer and the rent set by the private landlord. What formula will be used to define a standard rent allowance? Many of my constituents who suffer most grievously are single people. How will they be helped?
Mr. Smith: I echo my hon. Friend's comments about the performance of her local authority. As well as castigating those that do poorly, it is important to praise those that make a difficult system work effectively.
The reference rent will be set on the basis of the present system, disregarding outliers and taking an intermediate level between the highest and lowest rents in the area. By putting the money in the hands of the
488
tenants and, as I said, by removing the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants in raising rents, it is likely that the reform will exercise some downward pressure on rents. That will help, although I do not want to overemphasise the effect.
Hywel Williams: The statement says that the allowance will be flat rate, based on area and family size. However, we need to address the particular housing costs experienced by people with disabilities, given that those are unrelated to area and family size. That was the subject of an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), which was given a sympathetic hearing by the Minister.
Mr. Smith: It is very important that the needs of disabled people are properly addressed. The reform will not alter the premiums and the support that they get from the disability living allowance. I shall keep an eye on the operation of pathfinders to ensure that disabled people's needs are properly reflected. There is no need whatever why disabled people should be denied the same choice and opportunity that is available to others. Indeed, they should enjoy it to the full.
Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents, who live in a high-housing cost, high-demand area, that they will continue to get a reasonable supply of private rented accommodation under the system? Many of us are concerned about that. In addition, will he intervene on local authorities that have proved themselves completely incompetent to deliver housing benefit? Islington council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats, has bizarrely signed a continuation contract with a company called ITNET, which over the past five years has proven itself incapable of delivering housing benefit safely and securely to anyone in my borough, so causing immense hardship.
Mr. Smith: Many landlords are also put off by the complexities and delays in the present system. The reform should help those who want to make their properties available.
We stand ready, however, to intervene. The directions that we have issued have had an effect and are in addition to the measures that we are taking on the help teams and in addition to the extra investment. In the final analysis, if the people who run an authority are incompetent, we can take it off them and get someone else to run it.
Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that his Department will examine the practice of some local housing authorities that stop the payment of housing benefit while they investigate tenants? That presumes guilt before the investigation is concluded and greatly worries many tenants.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and remind the House that every Conservative and Labour Member supported its proposals in Committee.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for welcoming the reforms. I shall certainly

489
look into the instances that he describes. We take the advice of the benefit fraud inspectorate on these matters and I shall make it my business to get a report from the inspectorate on the issue.
Andrew Bennett: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement in so far as it reforms bureaucracy, but I should like to ask him about the underlying principle. Over the past 20 years, less and less subsidy has gone into building low-cost housing and more and more has gone into the housing benefit system, resulting in bureaucracy and the poverty trap. A large amount of it has gone to unscrupulous landlords. Is it not about time that we put money back into low-cost house building as that would do a great deal to reduce the chronic hardship being suffered by so many people in this country who cannot get decent accommodation?
Mr. Smith: It is not an either/or as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. We need to increase supply and establish a fair and efficient system for supporting those who cannot afford their rent. The proposals are dedicated specifically to my hon. Friend's second point, and as I said, I think that they will encourage more landlords.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced substantial increases in social housing investment to address the first point that my hon. Friend raised.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the proposals reflect differentials in seaside resorts where tenancies are often for six months and where accommodation is at a premium during the summer months, but plentiful during the winter months? How will choice be increased? Will the proposals do anything to help landlords to find tenants who abscond owing rent that they are never able to recover and housing benefit, which those landlords then have to repay to local authorities?
Mr. Smith: On the second point, when arrears build up—eight weeks of arrears is normally the yardstick—we would reinstate direct payments, so there is that measure of safeguard for landlords. Variability of rents in seaside or other areas should be reflected in the way in which the reference rent is calculated. At the moment the proposals do not alter that, but in pathfinder areas those whose present rent is below the reference rent level and in that sense are penalised for living in a cheaper area will get the allowance up to the full reference level and will be better off as a consequence.
Mr. David Lepper: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and ask my right hon. Friend to say something about how he sees the new measures helping in particular young people under 25 in a high-housing cost area such as mine in Brighton and Hove? Under the current system, many young people are being priced out of the town in which they were born and brought up.
Mr. Smith: It is important that we address the wider questions of housing supply. The Government have
490
already amended the single room assessment basis for housing benefit, which has made some measure of improvement to the situation and we will continue to keep these matters under review.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: If we are to move to a system of flat rates, based in some way on current local reference rents, how will we overcome the problem that has already been referred to in high-cost areas such as London of the big and growing gaps which exist between the reference rents and the real level of rents that people are being charged? On the question of choice, as that is what the statement is about, how many landlords, once they know exactly what the standard rate is, are likely to charge less than that figure? Will it not mean that low rents will go up unless we deal with landlords who let properties in poor condition, by refusing to let them into the system?
Mr. Smith: It is very important that decent housing standards are enforced more generally through the legislative protection of those standards and the work of environmental health departments. The reference rents system works by taking a middle point between high and low rents in an area and that should address the relevant problems over time, but as I said in an earlier reply, I acknowledge that there is a particular problem in high-cost areas and we will pay close attention to it in future.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I apologise to the Secretary of State for missing the first 60 seconds of his statement. I also apologise in advance lest by saying that I broadly welcome the proposals I undermine support for them.
The proposals seem to be the logical and foreseen development of the rent reference system that I introduced. Action could not be taken immediately because the possible divergence of rents meant that the cost might be high. What cost does the Secretary of State envisage in extra benefit? Will he also assure us that local authorities will retain the discretion to pay above the standard allowance if that is necessary, for instance to enable an elderly mother to live near her family in what may be high-rent accommodation, but thereby avoiding the need to enter residential accommodation?
Mr. Smith: Obviously the cost will depend partly on the impact of the reforms on rent levels over time, but the extra amount that we anticipate for the pathfinders is around £20 million.
I can confirm that we do not intend to limit the discretion of local authorities that currently have that discretion, although we expect the basis of payment to come from the tenant except when there is good reason for that not to happen.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is there any scope for giving benefit to some who currently do not receive it, particularly in high-cost areas such as the one I represent? In my area an ex-council house can cost £850 a month, and a two-bedroomed flat in Apsley can cost £1,000 a month. As a result, the disposable incomes of some people such as starter teachers are extremely low. Giving such people housing benefit would increase incentives to work.
Mr. Smith: It is no part of these proposals to extend eligibility for housing benefit. As I said in my statement,

491
benefit will be income-related as it is now. We will of course keep such matters as tapers under review, but the short answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, we do not anticipate including more people as a consequence of the report.
Angela Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on tackling a complex but crucial area. Does he agree that tackling bad landlords requires work to license them, which I know is being done in another Department? Does he also agree that ensuring that direct payments are made to tenants is crucial to enforcing the rights and responsibilities agenda and empowering tenants? Should that not apply to social housing as well as private tenants?
Mr. Smith: I agree on both counts. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is to present proposals for tackling bad landlords. I am acutely aware of the awful situation facing many low-demand areas, and of the possible scope for effective licensing.
As for the philosophy underpinning the reform, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important for us to put power in the hands of poorer people. That is what the reform will do: such people will have more choice and, as my hon. Friend says, will be able to take more responsibility. As I have said, for the same reasons we should extend that approach to the social housing sector as soon as we can, and I am sure that the benefits will be just as great.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
2.4 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during an exchange on the so-called modernisation proposals, the Leader of the House made a slight error in describing the policy of the official Opposition on sitting hours. May I take this opportunity to put the record straight? We propose that the House sit at 9.30 am on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, suspending sittings for lunch at 1 pm or earlier and commencing the main business at 2 pm. The House would then continue to sit until 7 pm. The distinction is rather important, and I did not want to leave the inadvertent mischaracterisation by the Leader of the House uncorrected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that the House is obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that these matters will be further discussed on 29 October.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help us with the delays that we are still experiencing in the receipt of written parliamentary answers to questions? Yesterday I received an answer from the Ministry of Defence to a question that I originally asked to have answered on 25 February. I received a holding reply on 25 February and a substantive reply last night. I am being generous to the Ministry in describing it as a substantive reply because it did not really answer the question. Is it not unacceptable that it should take almost eight months for any Ministry, however hard-pressed, to respond to a question from an hon. Member?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On many previous occasions Mr. Speaker has said that he expects hon. Members to get prompt attention from Ministers. I am sure that by allowing that point of order to be expressed it gives further emphasis to the matter. Obviously, it is important that Members should be able to get their queries dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the hon. Member continues to experience extraordinary delays, he may wish to take up the matter with the Public Administration Committee.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could those responsible perhaps make some effort to ensure that information which is said to be placed in the Library of the House is in fact in the Library of the House? I have received many telephone calls since the answering of a question on 19 September from the press asking for information which subsequent inquiry has discovered has not yet been sent to the Library.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, it is an irritant to hon. Members if that occurs. I can only hope that by expressing this view from the Chair, Departments will take special care to ensure that what their Ministers say is being done is backed up by the action.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 114 and 116,
That—

(1) the proposal for a draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, being a legislative proposal relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 24th October at 2.30 p.m.; and

(3) at that meeting the Committee shall consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 4.30 p.m.—[Mr Jim Murphy.]

Question agreed to.

Defence in the World
[Relevant document: The Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001–02, HC914, on the Future of NATO.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
2.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This is the fourth of five themed defence debates planned to take place in the House in the current parliamentary Session. The title today is "Defence in the World". The House will have an opportunity at the end of the month to debate "Defence in the United Kingdom".
Any debate about defence today must begin with the appalling events of 11 September last year, echoed again by yet more innocent deaths, this time in Bali. The unprovoked and devastating attacks in New York and Washington, and the fourth, failed hijack, have dominated policy and thinking across the world and across this Government. They were clearly the most significant drivers in the work of the Ministry of Defence in the last year.
We are still dealing with the consequences of those events. They have included the deployment of British combat forces to Afghanistan and a review of our security and defence plans. I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm to the House our appreciation of the way both our armed forces and the civil servants within the Ministry of Defence responded to those considerable challenges.
We were faced with two immediate tasks in the wake of those attacks: first, we needed urgently to respond to the direct threat facing the United Kingdom and its interests; and, secondly, we needed to re-examine our policies and planning to deal with al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organisations.
The Government's defence policy was set out in the strategic defence review of 1998. It was rightly acclaimed at the time, and the past four years have demonstrated its resilience to events. The 11 September attacks, however, required us to undertake an urgent reexamination of our stance. They showed us that what might previously have been seen as potentially dangerous but distant developments now posed a direct and immediate threat. It also involved finding new ways of dealing with those threats.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the Government's wider counter-terrorist strategy in the House on 16 October last year. It embraced both immediate campaign aims and longer-term objectives. In the immediate aftermath of 11 September, we sought to prevent al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, and to deny it a base in Afghanistan. We also made it clear that we were determined, as part of our wider strategic goals, to bring the leaders of that evil organisation to account. More widely, we sought to do everything possible to work for the elimination of international terrorism as a force for change in the world.
Last month, we published a progress report on the campaign against international terrorism, setting out the United Kingdom's contribution to the campaign.

495
But we all know that international terrorism demands an international response. No one nation can defeat the many, disparate and well-hidden threats, of which al-Qaeda is only the principal. Moreover, no one nation is threatened in isolation. As last weekend's awful bombing in Bali demonstrated, we are in this together and we need to act together.
It is in that context that we are dealing with Saddam Hussein. At the end of last month, this House had the opportunity to debate the Government's response to the threat of Iraq and from its weapons of mass destruction. That Saddam Hussein is a brutal and cruel dictator is not in doubt. What has been at issue is the nature of the threat that he poses to us and to the middle east region, and what we need to do about it.
Saddam Hussein has spent years trying to build up his stores of weapons of mass destruction; he certainly strives to add nuclear capabilities to that arsenal. If we cannot ensure his disarmament, he will eventually succeed. If we were to underestimate the threat and fall for more of his duplicitous trickery, or simply do nothing, we would be guilty of a profound abdication of responsibility. Saddam Hussein must disarm.
Llew Smith: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances he would consider the use of nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hoon: I have set out to the House on a considerable number of occasions that it has not been the policy of this or any Government to set out the precise circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be used, not least because the purpose of retaining nuclear weapons is to deter. To set out precisely the circumstances in which we would use such a weapon would eliminate the effect of the deterrence. I am sure that my hon. Friend was aware of the answer that I was likely to give to him, as he has asked me that question before. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I am grateful for the opportunity of repeating it.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a slightly different matter, my right hon. Friend underlines that action should take place, if possible, in an international context—if, indeed, action is to take place in Iraq. Will he allow the House to be privy to the legal advice that the Attorney-General has given to the Government, some of which appeared in The Guardian last week? It would be helpful for colleagues in the House to understand the legal context and the legitimacy of any action that may or may not take place.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is a very experienced Member of the House and I am surprised that, after so long here, he still believes what he reads in The Guardian. I can assure him that there was not advice from Her Majesty's Law Officers. Moreover, he well knows that it is a long-standing convention that Ministers do not disclose the legal advice, or other advice, that they receive.
Glenda Jackson: Perhaps my right hon. Friend might clarify for me the Government's view at this moment, in this context, of an international community. He referred to the need for the international community to act together to tackle
496
international terrorism. On the issue of a strike against Saddam Hussein, it would seem that the international community has reduced to two sovereign states, namely the United Kingdom and the United States. Is he saying that this now constitutes the international community and that we will engage against Iraq if the rest of what I understood to be the international community stays where it is, firmly saying no to a pre-emptive strike?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view of the international community. Even a superficial reading of today's newspapers—[Interruption. I did say "superficial." A superficial reading of the newspapers would demonstrate that the international community is engaged in a discussion in the United Nations and, probably as I am speaking, efforts are being made to produce a new Security Council resolution. That is involving the Security Council and other members in trying to establish the clear view of the international community. With the greatest respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not often make common cause with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but on this question I do. The Opposition have previously called for a proper explanation of the legal basis on which pre-emptive action against Iraq might be taken. It is not usual for the Government to publish their legal advice, but there are precedents, and I submit that in these circumstances the precedent is a valid one. The new Bush doctrine on preemptive strikes is an important development in security law. The question of pre-emption is touched upon in the Government's defence policy document on the new chapter to the strategic defence review, and it is incumbent on them to establish that what they are proposing or contemplating has a clear basis in international law.
Mr. Hoon: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that this is a new development. If he checks carefully the use of the word "pre-emption", he will find it first referred to in the 19th century. I realise that that may be new for some Conservatives. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that there is a well-established 19th century doctrine of pre-emption based on the concept of self-defence, which allows a sovereign state to take action to protect itself in the event of an imminent threat. The document that he refers to, published by the United States Administration, is based firmly on that tradition.
Mr. Jenkin: I am delighted to hear the Government agreeing with the Bush national security strategy. However, the question is not whether pre-emption is a new concept but whether we are adjusting what we regard as an imminent threat in the new security climate. It is very difficult to establish what is an imminent threat. We want to be sure that what we judge to be an imminent threat is securely founded in international law.
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what he has just said, he will realise that he is arguing in a circular manner. He is now asking me to apply the principles of international law to a situation that has not

497
yet arisen. In those circumstances, he will understand perfectly well why it would not be sensible for me to answer his question.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State referred to the debate that we had on the recall of Parliament, but of course there was no vote on that occasion—[Interruption.] Well, there was no substantive vote on the deployment of British troops. The Leader of the House has suggested that there should be a substantive vote on the deployment of British troops. Indeed, the President of the United States has sought and received support from both Houses of Congress. Does the Secretary of State believe that there should be a vote before British troops are deployed into action?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have both set out the Government's position in this matter. It will obviously be resolved when and if that time comes, but as the time has not yet come, it is not necessary for me to answer that question at this stage.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that moving from the historic basis of our defence in the past 40 years—namely the principle of deterrence—to a principle of pre-emption is a minor step that does not need full explanation. Surely to goodness we need to have that debate, whether we agree on the principle or not; it is no good trying to tiptoe past it.
Mr. Hoon: On the contrary, I was not suggesting that there had been a change. I was suggesting that for the past 40 years we had lived perfectly comfortably with the concept of pre-emption and deterrence. If I did not communicate that clearly to the hon. Gentleman, I sincerely apologise, but that is the position.
Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the acts of terrorism that we have witnessed is a belief—almost certainly a mistaken belief—among Muslim communities throughout the world that they have been badly treated by the western Christian communities? Is not the worst way to deepen that suspicion and encourage more acts of terrorism to invade Iraq before there is a just settlement in Palestine?
Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept what my hon. Friend says. If he thinks very carefully about al-Qaeda and the appalling attacks that it has perpetrated over very many years, many of which have seen Muslims as its victims, he will realise that he is talking nonsense, if he will forgive me for saying so.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: How confident is my right hon. Friend that he will get the support of the United Nations? My colleagues and I receive many letters from constituents expressing their concern that we go through the United Nations.
Mr. Hoon: That is the Government's position and we are trying to achieve our policy on that. As I said when
498
answering an earlier question, we are using all our efforts to secure that international consensus behind our position.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: If hon. Members will forgive me, I wish to make a little progress. I shall give way again in a moment.
We want to achieve that end through the United Nations, without recourse to military action, but we must show Saddam Hussein that we have the resolve to act. Recent history demonstrates that he will not give up his ambitions out of the goodness of his heart. We have to show that we are prepared to back our words with action, however reluctantly. It is for Saddam Hussein to avoid conflict by agreeing to abide by United Nations resolutions, granting genuinely unfettered access to weapons inspectors and obeying international law. The Government have the resolve and the will to act if he is so mistaken as to put the world's determination to the test.
The issue remains a difficult one for all of us. No one takes these decisions lightly or without careful consideration of all the options. That is why it is so crucial that we have a clear policy underlying those options.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: President Bush has made it abundantly clear that if the United Nations does not act to punish Iraq, the United States will act alone, with or without UN backing. Does the Secretary of State agree with him? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that unilateral action against Iraq will fracture the international coalition? Now is the right time to stop using the words "international community", because only three heads of state support this war: Ariel Sharon and President Bush supported by our Prime Minister.
Mr. Hoon: Let me make it clear that there is no war and that the Government's policy has been consistently set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is that we will go through the United Nations and work within it to achieve that international consensus. Today, I have emphasised that that effort will be far more successful, and that efforts we make through the United Nations are more likely to be successful, if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime are aware that we are prepared to back that determination by the use of force if it becomes necessary.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to a United States Congressional Budget Office document, which clearly states:
"President Bush has been guaranteed that Britain will send troops to fight a US-led war."
It continues:
"The report, finalised on September 30th, says Britain is the only country that has said it will commit troops".
The document also gives a figure of £5 billion for our costs. When the Secretary of State was recently in Washington, did he discuss that report with the Congressional Budget Office? Has he seen it, has he got a copy of it and can he share it with the rest of us?
Mr. Hoon: I did not see that report and I have not read it, but I know that my hon. Friend understands the way

499
in which the constitution of the United States operates. It is important that I emphasise to the House that the report is based on the planning assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office; it is not a document of the United States Administration. I must make it clear that any reference to, or suggestion of, any specific offer of forces by the United Kingdom is simply wrong. That office is an organ of Congress; it is not part of the United States Government. Therefore, my hon. Friend and the House should not take what it states as truth because it is based on an assumption that that office has made.
David Winnick: If the international community says clearly that under no circumstances will there be military intervention in Iraq, why should the Iraqi dictator agree to the weapons inspectors coming back? Is it not clear that after four years—that is when they were thrown out—the only reason that he has agreed in principle now to the return of those weapons inspectors is the threat of possible military action? If there is war, the responsibility will lie with him.
Mr. Hoon: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend, who puts the point more forcefully and effectively than I did.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Opponents of the war have alleged that we may face a war on two fronts—one against al-Qaeda and one against Iraq. Will the Secretary of State share with the House his view of the extent to which the resources that one uses in a war against terrorists and those that one uses in a conventional war against a military power like Saddam overlap?
Mr. Hoon: I am about to deal with the development of our policy in the wake of the events of 11 September. It is clear that the basic assumptions in the strategic defence review were right—the need to be able to get forces quickly into a crisis, whether it is provoked by a conventional armed force or by terrorism. Clearly, we have refined those assumptions in the light of what took place on 11 September—the hon. Gentleman and I have debated this matter before—and I intend to deal with that in a moment.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not important to look behind the supposed agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) with the Secretary of State? The history is that the weapons inspectors were not thrown out; they withdrew. The basic trouble was that they were abusing their position as inspectors. They were reporting back to Washington. Some, although not all of them, were spies. In Operation Desert Fox, areas were targeted that the inspectors had recently visited. That is the cause of much of the bad blood and trouble.
Mr. Hoon: Whatever the precise circumstance of their withdrawal from Iraq—I do not think that we need detain the House long on that—the reality is that the inspectors were prevented from doing the job mandated for them by the United Nations. That is why it is so important that we secure a new resolution that will allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to any site and any place in Iraq. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes that led to their withdrawal in 1998.
John McDonnell: Will the Secretary of State explicitly clarify to Congress that the
500
Congressional Budget Office document is a fiction and that there has been no agreement on the scale of troop involvement? Also, as this relates to the cost of any war against Iraq, will he publish the figures for the scale of the costs of certain levels of engagement? For example, what would be the cost of 10,000 or 20,000 troops per week over a period of engagement? Furthermore, what would be the cost of the occupation of Iraq afterwards?
Mr. Hoon: Although I have not seen that document, as I made clear a moment ago—I am not suggesting that the document is fiction—I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that no specific decisions have been taken on any commitment of British forces and that the document is based on an assumption that has been made by the Congressional Budget Office as to the likely scale of effort and its cost. I see no advantage for the House or anyone else in publishing the sort of statistical information that my hon. Friend requests.
Geraint Davies: How important is it to have a simple resolution of the United Nations, not only to gain its acceptance, but to ensure that its terms can be delivered by Iraq credibly? If the resolution refers to persecution, accounting for the 600 people missing, oil smuggling and so forth, and includes clauses that could trigger a war, other members of the United Nations will not accept it and we will not get to the core of the issue, which is to get unfettered access for the inspectors and the decommissioning of weapons.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. As someone who spent much time in a previous ministerial position in the Foreign Office negotiating resolution 1284 at exhausting length and in exhausting detail, I recognise that a simple statement of the international community's position is necessary today, as well as an indication of the consequences in the event of that position not being satisfied.
Across Government, we have been set new challenges by international terrorism. We have set in train work to re-examine our defence policy and plans in the light of the terrorist threat demonstrated on 11 September. We consulted widely and openly. We published two discussion documents and ideas from individuals and organisations, including many valuable contributions from hon. Members and the other place. As a result, we published a new chapter to the strategic defence review on 18 July. It shows that the strategic defence review's emphasis on expeditionaryoperations working with allies was right, but demonstrates—crucially—how best to use our forces against a different sort of enemy: one that is determined, well hidden and vastly different from the conventional forces that we might have expected to face in the past.
One key area that we identified as needing urgent investment was what we call network-centric capability. I honestly wish that we did not call it that, but we did. Essentially, it involves linking our intelligence, analytical and offensive forces together, so that we can strike quickly when fleeting opportunities arise. This means that we will invest more in airborne sensors such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and more in the networks that assemble and process the data from the sensors. The precision systems that will hit the targets identified could include Tomahawk or Storm Shadow missiles, or

501
special forces, or the Apache attack helicopter, depending on what is the most militarily effective. This is already costing the country money. We have therefore addressed not only the adjustments that were needed to policy and capabilities, but the resources needed to implement them.
The results of the spending review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. By 2005–06, the defence budget will be some £3.5 billion higher than it is this year. That constitutes real growth of 3.7 per cent. over three years—3 per cent. in the year 2003–04 alone. That spending is to be focused on accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment.
I have already heard grumbling from the Opposition about defence spending, but it is worth noting that the Opposition spokesman cannot undertake to match our spending pound for pound. When the rhetoric is stripped away, the facts are simple: one cannot defend the United Kingdom with waffle, as he has sought to do. It is only this Government who are prepared to put their money where their mouth is on defence. That money is not for investing in the status quo. It will be used not only to procure cutting-edge technology for the armed forces, but to modernise the way we work as a Department, improve efficiency, and enhance living conditions for our armed forces. We may have more to spend, but we need to spend it better.
Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State advise the House as to the current strength of the British Army, and whether its being under strength is affecting its capacity to undertake all its duties?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still slightly short of the target set, but in recent months a record number of recruits have entered basic training. Although we still have some ambitious targets to satisfy, I am confident that we are taking the right decisions to enable us to move toward the manning totals for the Army and the other two services.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under the headline goals established to make the European security and defence identity effective, significant force improvements are required by all the participating countries. The United Kingdom is not doing too badly, and the French are doing exceptionally well through their five-year defence review. Will he therefore recommend to other European allies that they follow the French example, and if necessary bust the criteria of the stability pact to achieve the headline goals?
Mr. Hoon: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say something nice about France—there is hope for us all. I shall deal briefly with European defence matters in a moment, but he is right: it is vital not only that countries spend more on defence, but that they spend the money better. I do not know whether his question betrays support for the headline goal process, but I shall not push him too far, given his previous admission. We
502
have strongly supported that process in part because it is concentrated on capabilities—on a process of persuading our partners in the European Union to spend more on defence, and to spend it better.
It is important that our service men and women are equipped with reliable and effective weapons that are up to the demands that we place on them. Obviously, they should have full confidence in the equipment that they use. The House will be aware of the decision to retain in service the SA80 A2 weapons system. Modifications to the system have improved its reliability and made it among the best in the world. Those findings have been confirmed in a series of stringent trials. I want to reassure the House that Defence Ministers and senior members of the military have looked at the issue closely. I am fully satisfied that we have taken the right decision, that the SA80 A2 is up to the job, and that, as our service personnel see its capabilities properly demonstrated, their confidence in this vital equipment will be retained.
Of course, it is not just at our own national level that we need to organise our defence capabilities to meet the threats and demands of the new strategic environment. NATO is on track with its transformation programme, which will be the key element of next month's Prague summit. The alliance's command structure will be reshaped, and new capabilities and the proposed NATO response force will provide the cutting edge. As I said, we continue to work with our European partners to strengthen European capabilities under the European Union's headline goal, which we aim to have delivered by the end of next year.
Mr. Dalyell: As a former, albeit extremely junior, member of 7th Armoured Brigade, may I ask about the Challenger tank? Those of us who were tank crew in previous eras are understandably concerned at what we read about the problems with the Challenger 2, and the filters that might be required in the desert.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend refers to one of the lessons learned from a major desert exercise in Oman. It clearly demonstrated that, whatever the prevailing sand conditions, the Challenger 2 needs appropriate modification if it is to be deployed in such circumstances. I can assure the House that, in the event of so deploying a Challenger 2, it will be appropriately modified.
Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of evidence taken by the Defence Committee yesterday from Simon Webb, director of policy at the Ministry of Defence? We got the impression that Challenger 2s were sent out not to learn lessons about filters and how deployable they are in deserts, but to test whether they could get out there.
Mr. Hoon: There is no doubt that they got out there, but I am not sure that it is wholly sensible to draw the distinction that my hon. Friend draws. I doubt whether the House would regard it as particularly satisfactory for me to set out only those lessons learned that we intended to learn; the truth is that we have to learn a range of lessons from that experience, and I can assure the House that we have done so.
Our work over the past 12 months has been focused on one simple proposition: the need to defend the people of the United Kingdom, their interests and their allies.

503
We face many threats in an increasingly unpredictable world, but above all else we have to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The recent admission by North Korea that it has a nuclear weapons programme illustrates how critical that is. The terrible nature and power of these weapons in unscrupulous hands is such that there can be few more important challenges than protecting ourselves and our friends and allies from their potentially devastating impact.
Let us make no mistake: there are people who are more than willing to use such weapons against us. I have spoken of Iraq, but the possibility of any one of a range of terrorist groups acquiring a chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear weapon is far from fantasy. They are trying to acquire such weapons, and we cannot be certain that they will not succeed. In terms of the death and destruction that they can cause and the strategic effect that they can achieve, many of these weapons are neither costly nor even complex to manufacture.
Linked to the threat from weapons of mass destruction is that of ballistic missile proliferation. Such missiles pose a threat in themselves, but it is their capability to deliver WMD warheads that make them still more of a concern. Right hon. and hon. Members may therefore find it helpful if I say a few words about the work in the United States on the development of ballistic missile defence systems, and this Government's position on such systems.
The United States' withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty took effect on 13 June. Contrary to some commentators' expectations, that did not prove to be the prelude to a new strategic arms race. In fact, it coincided with the negotiation and conclusion of the Moscow treaty, under which the United States and Russia agreed to steep reductions in the numbers of their deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The US missile defence programme is gathering momentum, as Monday evening's successful test illustrates. In particular, the United States has plans for a test-bed in the Pacific, to be used to develop and evaluate options for a basic missile defence system capable of addressing the full range of missile threats. Developing effective ballistic missile defence is a hugely challenging task. Any system will inevitably have to develop on an evolutionary basis, as understanding increases of the technological and other risks and opportunities involved.
During the summer, US officials visited London and other European capitals, as well as NATO headquarters in Brussels, to set out possible approaches to missile defence and to repeat US willingness to offer protection to friends and allies. It is right that we recognise the potential contribution of missile defence to a comprehensive strategy to deal with the threat from ballistic missiles—a strategy that also includes nonproliferation and counter-proliferation measures, diplomacy and deterrence.
The close access to the US research programme that we already enjoy will be essential background to inform any decisions that we may wish to take on missile defence for Europe or the United Kingdom. Against that background, I want to make two points that I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have made many times before. The United States Administration
504
have made no specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. No formal request has been made to us for the use of RAF Fylingdales as part of the US programme.
If a US request for the use of Fylingdales—or any other UK facility for missile defence purposes—is received, we will consider it very seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. Since this subject is highly complex and one of considerable interest to the House, I have asked for some detailed analytical work to be completed on the implications of missile defence and its relationship with other elements of a comprehensive strategy against the ballistic missile threat. We welcome parliamentary and public discussion of the issues involved. I therefore intend to make available in the coming months further analytical and discussion material as our work progresses, and we will be ready to discuss these issues in the House at the appropriate time.
Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Secretary of State not just made a coded statement that Britain will take part in missile defence and will support the United States in this costly disaster—the proposed star wars in the sky—which will cost this country dear, and line us up ever more closely with the United States and all its interests, against the rest of the world?
Mr. Hoon: I do not recall saying that. I am sure, however, that if my hon. Friend has the opportunity to read carefully what I said, he will see that there was no code but a clear statement of the Government's current position.
Mr. Prisk: As the Secretary of State will recall, I have asked him about this issue repeatedly over the last year, and I am pleased that we are finally achieving a little parity. May I tease out a little more from him on what he described as the close access that the Government have enjoyed? Over the last year, in answering questions from me and others, he has said that there has been no direct involvement. Is he now saying that there have been links? Can he confirm that a Royal Air Force officer who is already operating and working at NATO is participating in the programme there? I welcome the progress, but I hope that he can be clear on the matter.
Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that at no stage have I misled the House on these matters. In answer to parliamentary questions, we have made it clear that a research programme has been continuing in the Ministry of Defence for some time on the technical matters to which I have just referred. The material to which I have referred and the co-operation that is enjoyed by the United Kingdom with the United States is about basic research principles. That has been disclosed to the House on many previous occasions.
Mr. Keetch: I am glad that the Government will, effectively, produce a dossier on Britain's potential involvement in national missile defence, and that there might be a debate. Can the Secretary of State tell us

505
when it might be? Will he assure the House that, if there is to be a dossier and a debate, we will have more time to look at it than we did in relation to the dossier on Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: The fair answer to that is that it will take place when we are ready.
Jim Knight: I have yet to make up my mind on missile defence. Does the Secretary of State agree that, when we have the debate, it is important to move away from the nonsense about star wars—with every respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—and recognise that there are three phases to a missile? Only one of those phases would involve interception in space, and I understand that that is the most difficult and the most unlikely to be developed. If we want a sensible debate so that people can make up their minds, let us do that, and not get wrapped up in strange media myths such as star wars.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his common-sense approach. Perhaps he might assist in advising some of my other colleagues on the circumstances in question.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State at least agree that those of his Back-Bench colleagues who are so opposed to taking action against Saddam Hussein, and who feel that Saddam should be left at liberty to go on developing ballistic missiles, should at least experience a belated conversion to ballistic missile defence? That might make their other recommendations a little more credible.
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friends heard the hon. Gentleman's observations.
Patrick Mercer: Ballistic missiles apart, can the Secretary of State guarantee that, as, when and if our troops are deployed into harm's way—from people such as Saddam Hussein—theatre missile defence will be in place to protect them in the same way that American, Italian, French and German troops have that protection?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated the matter before. I have answered that question on several previous occasions, and I am not sure that we will take the matter further. I will not give guarantees of anything, as, clearly, it would not be appropriate at this stage to make the kind of assumptions that he is making. I want to make progress, because I have detained the House longer than I should have done.
Away from the policy issues, our armed forces are involved in a considerable number of active deployments around the world. The Ministry of Defence has been extremely busy over the past year. However, given the draw-down in Afghanistan, and with major reductions in prospect in the Balkans, there is now a healthier balance between our standing commitments and the resources available. Our armed forces have done, and are doing, excellent work. Afghanistan is now a significantly different nation from the one that existed a year ago. Freedom of expression
506
and education has replaced the arbitrary authority of the Taliban regime. None the less, there is much work still to do in that country and, as the Prime Minister recently said, we will not abandon our newest ally until that work is completed. I am pleased to say that the Defence Minister of Afghanistan, Marshal Fahim Khan, will pay a visit to the United Kingdom shortly.
In the Balkans, we continue to support the international community's efforts to create new European states from the ruins of Yugoslavia. Our work in Sierra Leone has been a model of how the determination and professionalism of our forces can change lives. When we arrived there, the elected Government were close to collapse, rebels were carrying out terrible atrocities almost at will, and the nation faced a bleak future. Today, Sierra Leone is rebuilding. We have put a great deal of effort into security sector reform, together with the Department for International Development, to reinforce democratic control of the armed forces. Similar efforts have been made with the Sierra Leonean police. There is now peace, increasing economic success, elections and real hope for the future.
David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall the ferocious opposition to military intervention in Kosovo and Afghanistan? Is it not the case that, had we listened to the critics, Milosevic would not be in the dock but would have continued in power in Belgrade—ethnic cleansing would have continued to a worse degree than had already happened—and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan? Have the critics, to my right hon. Friend's knowledge, apologised and explained that they were wrong at the time?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is clear that, in all of the examples that he has given, the international community initially sought a diplomatic and political route to achieve those ends. Clearly, there have been occasions when a diplomatic and political route has been successful in avoiding conflict and bringing about a peaceful and sensible resolution. Equally, he rightly points out the occasions on which it has been necessary to back that diplomacy with a threat, or, ultimately, with the use of force. On occasions, that has also proved successful.
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Hoon: To be fair to the House, I should make progress, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Labour Members who gave support in connection with Kosovo in particular, and also in relation to Afghanistan—although there was criticism of how the action took place—do not support in any set of circumstances the planned military action in connection with Iraq? Different arguments operate in different cases.
Mr. Hoon: I accept that proposition entirely. It is for each and every Member of the House to reach his or her conclusion on these questions. I accept that, in different circumstances, there will be different approaches.
Mrs. Mahon: Having recently visited Kosovo, not for the first time, may I ask my right hon. Friend, who claims

507
that the action there was a success, when nearly 250,000 people from ethnic minorities who were expelled from Kosovo will be able to return there? The report that we received was not very positive. When will there be a report to the House on what happened to the 1,300 people who have disappeared since the NATO bombing?
Mr. Hoon: I, too, have been regular visitor to Kosovo since British troops first went there. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that clearly there are problems. No one pretends that it is easy to move from a situation in which tens of thousands of people were losing their lives or were threatened with losing their lives and in which the most appalling atrocities were committed. I accept that there are still significant difficulties. The Government and I have argued consistently that we would like the Serbs to return to their homes and work in Kosovo.
Mrs. Mahon: Not just the Serbs.
Mr. Hoon: Indeed; and the other minorities, many of whom have left Kosovo. However, that aim will not be achieved without the restoration of confidence in the political structures available in that part of the world. As my hon. Friend knows, that process takes time, but it is not helped by running down the efforts that the international community has made so far to avert the type of humanitarian catastrophe that was so long a feature of Kosovo at the hands Milosevic.
Against the successes, we must not forget the many continuing challenges around the world, not least the tension between India and Pakistan. I visited both countries at the beginning of July in an effort to maintain the diplomatic momentum. There are issues on both sides, which must be resolved. Full and substantive dialogue between the two countries must be the ultimate goal. Defence diplomacy, an initiative launched in the strategic defence review, has an important part to play therefore.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: No, I must finish my speech.
Defence diplomacy involves building key relationships with military and diplomatic personnel in countries across the world, sharing our experience and expertise. Those relationships give us rapid and direct access to decision makers in questions such as over-fly rights or forward basing. In some cases, we are building relationships with states that supported terrorism in the past, helping them to join the international community as full partners. The Ministry of Defence is greatly aided in this by support from other Departments, such as the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
This has been—and continues to be—one of the most challenging times for defence in recent years. We face difficult choices. We will need to show resolve, but we will not be deflected from pursuing our strategic goals, forming new alliances and demonstrating the professionalism, dedication and determination of Britain's armed forces as a force for good in the world.
2.52 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on missile defence. Although it does not constitute a change of policy or involve a marked shift in expenditure or a commitment to a particular programme, it marks a considerable shift in his tone. I did not come to the Chamber today with the intention of majoring on the subject of missile defence, because I took the view that, after the Bali attack, to carry on highlighting the absence of ministerial commitment to missile defence would do nothing but add to public anxiety. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's timing is well chosen. The public require reassurance on this issue. Weapons proliferation continues and we know that investigation into possible programmes has continued in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and that the NATO working party, in which the UK is a prime facilitator, has continued its work on missile defence, so it has become increasingly ridiculous for the Government to insist that "no decisions have been made."
I very much welcome the movement that the Secretary of State has made today, but I must point out that Her Majesty's Opposition have been pleading with the Government on this issue for some time; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of missile defence long before the last election, and such a statement from the Secretary of State was long overdue. I welcome it unreservedly and look forward to seeing the papers that he will lay before the House and to engaging in the debate that he says he will now welcome.
I stress a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). At a recent conference that I attended on missile defence, it was noticeable that Britain is virtually the only country in Europe that is not well down the track of developing a deployable theatre missile defence system. I have no desire to set hares running as I have no doubt that whatever is required to protect forces in theatre will be provided, but my hon. Friend deserves a fuller answer in the fullness of time than the Secretary of State felt able to give today. As we embark on this debate, I see nothing to be gained on the Government's part unless there is absolute openness. At a time when public anxiety about terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction is running high, surely we should do everything that we can to reassure the public and give them confidence in what we are saying and doing.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the SA80 A2, and I am grateful for the notice that he gave me earlier today of his intention to raise this matter. He has put an important statement on the record. It is one thing for senior military officers to stake their reputations on this matter, but it is also right that the Ministers who are responsible for taking the decision put their views clearly on the record. I very much welcome the fact that that has happened today. I am grateful to the Government for the briefing that I received on the SA80 A2.
The decisive factor will be the confidence of soldiers and the Royal Marines, and it is their judgment that I will trust. I believe that the Government have every right to think that the soldiers and Royals Marines will have confidence in the weapon when the new arrangements and the necessary equipment are issued and the further

509
modification is carried out. However, we will not let the matter drop if soldiers do not show confidence in the weapon on which they might have to stake their lives.
The background to the debate is the dreadful atrocities committed in Bali last weekend. The facts are stark. The initial evidence suggests that this was a highly practised and skilful attack. The blast was directed at the Sari nightclub and reminiscent of the expertise of the most skilful terrorist organisation in the world, the Provisional IRA.
It has further come to light that Jemaah Islamiyah has a long record of sending young Islamic scholars to the same fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan as bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Jemaah Islamiyah is embedded in the bloody concept of jihad, and its sister terrorist organisation in Indonesia, Ngruki, has had terrorist training in Afghanistan. Can there be any doubt that this attack is at least associated with al-Qaeda and should definitely be included in the war on terrorism?
We must ask ourselves where such groups are next likely to strike. There have already been further bomb attacks in the Philippines and we must be prepared for, and expect, a constant stream of attempts to cause terrorist atrocities anywhere in the world. That means our own country. The message that came out of 11 September last year is that we live in a far less predictable world than we thought. I am afraid that the Bali attack does nothing to allay those fears.
David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, agree that predictability depends on intelligence? Her Majesty's Government set an example when we were recalled in the recess to debate Iraq. They created a precedent by providing intelligence information, including from M16, on the threat from Iraq. Does he agree that that precedent should be followed? Should not information from the intelligence services on threats from any terrorist organisation, domestic or international, be placed before the House in the way that it was in September? That was an example of open government.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not feel qualified to give him a full and frank answer. That would require deep consideration. He is trying to take me down a path that I do not want to follow, certainly not today. However, his point is well made and I have no doubt that Ministers have listened, so perhaps they will respond at the end of the debate.
The point about the Bali bombing is that it confirms the nature of the security environment in which we now live. As Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, has predicted, we can look forward to more instability, more conflicts spilling over into neighbouring countries and regions and more terrorism. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the security services for the number of attacks that they have succeeded in foiling since 11 September. There will be more failed states, both rogue states and those with essentially benign or good governments struggling
510
against the odds that we have seen in Indonesia, and more proliferation, as we have seen today with the US Administration's confirmation about a nuclear weapons programme in North Korea. The question that we must ask ourselves, which lies at the heart of everything we do as we consider defence in the world, is how we counter that.
Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the terrible nature of the Bali bombing and the terrible loss of life there. Is he concerned, however, that the Indonesian armed forces, which may receive support from western Governments in future, have a poor human rights record? Their activities in West Papua and Aceh are deplorable, as are those of the Indonesian militia. Is not this the time to encourage the Indonesian Government to have civilian control of their armed forces rather than the virtually independent state that they now enjoy?
Mr. Jenkin: I shall turn to how we should help Indonesia later in my speech, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will address that point.
The next question is how the Bali bombing affects our attitude to Iraq. First, I entirely concur with the Prime Minister that there is, as he explained so eloquently to the House on Tuesday, a connection between terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As he put it, both issues are threats and,
"the same type of fanaticism and extremism is driving both threats."
He continued,
"if we allow unstable states—with oppressive and dictatorial regimes—to develop weapons of mass destruction and also allow the terrorist groups to operate, we can be confident that the two threats will … at some point come together."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 186.]
There is therefore no question of our adjusting policy towards Iraq in light of what happened in Bali.
Furthermore, let us not be squeamish about considering the likelihood of terrorist connections with the Saddam Hussein regime. Shards of evidence are constantly emerging which all point in the same direction. Recently it was announced:
"Mansour Thaer has been charged with conspiracy of involvement with criminal association and is under arrest in Germany. Thaer has been investigated … for his links with a terrorist cell, and for participation in criminal conspiracy to traffic in arms, explosives, chemical weapons, identity papers, receiving stolen goods and aiding illegal immigration."
Mansour Thaer is an Iraqi national, born in Iraq and probably operating under the control of the Iraqi Government.
Mr. Sarwar: Eleven of those involved in the attacks of 11 September—in fact the majority of those involved—were Saudi nationals. The hon. Gentleman is accusing Iraq, is he saying that Saudi Arabia has links with terrorism?
Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that the Saudi Government have willing links with terrorism, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the origin of some of the money for terrorist organisations, I certainly share his concern. The difference between the Iraqi Government

511
and the Saudi Government is that the Saudi Government recognise that this is a problem but the Iraqi Government make it their policy.
Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a report released today by the Council on Foreign Relations, written by a group headed by the former heads of the CIA and the FBI, which complains about Saudi Arabia's intransigence on the subject of providing al-Qaeda with access to funding sources in Saudi Arabia, and indicates that George Bush is not using the USA's full power and influence to combat terrorism funding from Saudi Arabia? Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about that?
Mr. Jenkin: I will not be sidetracked on to that subject. We all know that there are problems with a number of regimes in several regions, and we can bounce them all off the problem of Iraq. The fact is that Iraq is the most immediate threat and the one that we must deal with as a priority.
A recent letter to Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, from George Tenet, director of central intelligence, made it clear that
"the likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."
George Tenet confirms:
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression … we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities."
The letter goes on. Should not we trust the representatives of democratically elected Governments rather than the word of an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the same person said in the same communication with Congress that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat to the United States and that his greatest threat to the US would be from the use of chemical weapons in retaliation to a pre-emptive strike?
Mr. Jenkin: The corollary of that point is that the hon. Gentleman would not support even UN-sanctioned military action against Iraq. If we are to be deterred by the possibility that Saddam Hussein might retaliate, we had better pack up and go home now. I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's policy. Furthermore, I think that he is misconstruing George Tenet's letter, which was occasioned by some people in the United States trying to misconstrue the evidence provided by a witness. The letter said:
"In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications—'in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now'—were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."
Would the hon. Gentleman like to let the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction grow, along with the threat that they represent, or would he prefer to deal with them now?
Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that the question whether a threat grows as an arsenal
512
grows is different from the question whether Saddam Hussein's current arsenal is a threat to the United States in the absence of any awareness by Saddam Hussein's regime that Iraq is likely to be the subject of a pre-emptive strike?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is going to the heart of the matter, which is why I invited the Secretary of State to join in the debate about how we assess an imminent threat as we consider our self-defence in the new strategic environment. Again I invite the Secretary of State to join in. This is an important debate, and to gloss over it and pretend that there is nothing new in the philosophy of our defence in the new environment is not reassuring. We should be seeking openly to debate it and provide reassurance. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent threat, and that may be the difference between him and me.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely, the point of even considering pre-emption is that it should be undertaken before the threat becomes so severe that we dare not take any action. On the very important passages that my hon. Friend read out about possible links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, if such links exist, is there not a strong possibility at this very moment that the wave of al-Qaeda atrocities that is building up is designed precisely to try divert the west from attacking Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that last point. That is why I am appalled that some people argue that we are fighting two different problems and say that the problem of Iraq is in a separate box. Such people argue that we should leave the Iraq problem—this is Liberal Democrat policy—and fight the war on terrorism. That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said and I have debated the matter with him. The idea that those problems are completely different is mistaken. They may be different theatres, but they are the same war, and in practice, the idea that we should allow two bombs in Bali to be an excuse for allowing the United Nations to let Saddam off the hook would be a disaster. What an invitation to terrorism that would be. The bombs in Bali must stiffen our resolve to confront threats wherever they emerge in the new security environment, and we should not be listening to the likes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the Leader of the Opposition did when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) rightly destroyed him during the recall debate. We will take no lessons from his party, which did not support the Government's deployment of British troops to Sierra Leone or East Timor. We have said that we would be prepared to entertain the idea of military action against Iraq as a last resort, but only if it is consistent with international law and is supported by the House. We would also take into account the consequences of such action on the coalitin of the campaign against terrorism that the Prime Minister and the President have so successfully brought together.
Mr. Jenkin: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have the arrogance to believe that the Prime

513
Minister and the President of the United States would use military force except as a last resort. The idea that our democratically elected Prime Minister would rush into war when it is not a last resort is extraordinary. I am afraid that those who express such views are playing on people's false fears instead of trying to reassure them, which I think is the job of politicians in this House.
David Winnick: With all due respect, I imagine that I am about the last person on the Labour Benches who would come to the defence of the Liberal Democrats. It happens that my views are very much the same as those expressed from the two Front Benches. However, when we debated the same subject on 24 September, much to my disappointment, a number of Opposition Members expressed views resembling those of Labour and Liberal Democrat critics. It is as well to bear in mind that, although the three main parties seem to be divided, a large majority fortunately seems in favour of the sort of action that may well be necessary to deal with somebody whom the hon. Gentleman rightly described as the very evil mass murderer and war criminal who continues to rule in Iraq.
Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is sad that anybody should try to score political or personal points in respect of such a serious matter instead of trying to debate the substantive issues.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence of a threat to the Iraqi regime is that it can be substantive only if we are united? Any Liberal Democrat cracks in that coalition will be exploited by the very people who we least want to exploit them.
Mr. Jenkin: I believe that unity is an advantage in an international coalition and at a national level, but it should never stifle debate. Although I disagree with what some hon. Members say in the House, I will do my damnedest to ensure that they have the right to say it. We must never forget that right, but I do not think that we should seek to score personal points on this matter.
Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that we have spent enough time on this topic. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for continuing, or does he wish to move on?
Paul Flynn: I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman why he does not agree with the CIA, which says that Iraq would be most likely to use weapons of mass destruction and to collaborate with terrorists not in the current situation or without an invasion, but if, following an invasion, Saddam Hussein saw himself as defeated, became hopeless, suicidal and desperate and let loose his biological and chemical weapons in an act of vengeance or allowed them to be used by al-Qaeda. Is not that the greatest danger that we face?
Mr. Jenkin: The greatest danger that we face is to do nothing and allow the danger to grow. How much harder it will be to confront the threat if, in five or 10
514
years' time, Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile system that can deliver chemical warheads to European cities. That is the threat that we must confront and debate as "immediate" in the context of self-defence.
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are not talking merely about the possibility of Saddam using the weapons, as we know that he has already used them and continues to do so, not least to attack his Kurdish population.
Mr. Jenkin: Indeed, the CIA, to which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) referred, did no more than confirm exactly what happened in 1991 when Saddam Hussein attempted to use chemical and biological weapons and tried to deliver missiles on to neighbouring countries in order to deter the liberation of Kuwait. We did not allow that to deter us then and we must not do so now.
Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall move on.
Of course, the long-term objective on Iraq is disarmament. If that means regime change, our objective must be to create a stable and safe Iraq as a foundation for stability in the middle east—not a haven for suicide bombers. Do the Government look forward to a democratic Iraq? Iraq should be the second wealthiest country in the region and one of the principal world suppliers of crude oil. What provisions are the Government making for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? The Prime Minister himself said that he heartily desired regime change. In Washington, there has been talk of a post-Saddam occupation plan and the establishment of an American-led military Government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam. The Government should be engaging in a similar debate.
Have the Government met representatives of opposition groups? I asked that question when we last debated this subject, but we have not had an answer. Are they involved in discussions about long-term transition to a stable Government? What level of diplomatic, economic and military commitment would the allies need to make in the event of the collapse of the Saddam regime? What is their assessment of the domestic opposition in Iraq and the question whether it would be hampered by internal divisions predating the Saddam regime?
Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is asking the Government about their policy on a future for Iraq after Saddam Hussein. What is the policy of the Conservative party, especially with regard to the right of self-determination of the people of Kurdistan in Iraq?
Mr. Jenkin: Our view is that it would be undesirable for Iraq to break up. I have had meetings with representatives of the Kurdistan Government and meetings with representatives of the Iraqi opposition. However, the Conservatives are only the Opposition, and it is incumbent on the Government to have discussions, form a view and make proposals. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, there is a

515
danger of embracing an overtly federalist constitution that might reflect the current de facto self-rule of Kurdistan but cause alarm in the Turkish Government. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, has reacted angrily to the publication of such a constitution. We should be using our influence to ensure that whatever constitutional settlement might emerge in the event that the Saddam Hussein Government fall is likely to be stable and sustainable. With our influence in that region, Britain has a great role to play in that respect.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing yet another intervention. Surely the future set-up of a post-Saddam Hussein Government should be up to the people of Iraq, and nobody else.
Mr. Jenkin: The international community, as in Afghanistan, has a big role to play in facilitating the self-determination of the Iraqi people. At present they do not have self-determination in any meaningful or democratic sense. I would heartily embrace anything that we could do to improve that situation.
Indonesia, however, is not a rogue state. Unlike Iraq, the situation there is not something that might be helped by anything that could be construed as western military interference. Indonesia is a country that would benefit from as much hands-off support as possible. What are the Government offering to help the Indonesian Government to reform their armed forces and to increase their effectiveness? The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the matter earlier. There is no doubt that the Indonesian military is still emerging from the Suharto era, and needs better equipment, better communications, and a much stronger system of command and control and accountability. With our skills, Britain has a great deal to offer Indonesia in that regard, and I hope that we will offer positive help, rather than just criticising.
Will the Government offer Indonesia access to the UK's unrivalled expertise in anti-terrorist operations, in particular for forensic investigations and intelligence gathering? Those who have been watching, as I have, the scenes of devastation in Bali on our television screens have not seen the careful control of the evidence that lies on the streets and in the rubble of the buildings, as we would expect to see in this country. We have seen people laying wreaths on what might well constitute evidence to be used against those who perpetrated the bombing. That is the sort of expertise that I hope we could offer.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I must stop giving way, as so many hon. Members want to speak.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and allowing me to intervene again on the subject of Indonesia. Perhaps he could address now the point that I raised earlier, concerning political control of the military, the apparently close relationship between the military and the militia, and the most appalling human rights abuses taking place in West Papua, where there are oil and many other mineral reserves that multinational companies wish to exploit, and in Aceh. Some of us were in East Timor at the time of the referendum. There is concern that the military and
516
the militia are one and the same thing, and until that is resolved, any relationship with the military is extremely damaging to the human rights of ordinary people in that country.
Mr. Jenkin: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I raise the matter in my remarks because I believe that that is the sort of issue on which the British Government should be offering assistance to Indonesia.
What advice can we offer to help the Indonesian Government bring in the necessary legal reforms, like our anti-terrorist legislation? They are certainly behind what we would expect in other countries. We should bear in mind the fact that we are discussing one of the largest countries in the world, with a population of 220 million people—almost the size of the population of the United States, and comparable to the size of the European Union.
Given that tourism comprised up to one third of the Indonesian gross domestic product before the Bali atrocities, do the Government agree that there will need to be international action to stabilise the Indonesian economy, so that progress on economic and military reform and progress towards democracy in Indonesia can continue? One of the hallmarks of al-Qaeda's terrorist activities is to cause precisely such economic dislocation in order to damage the interests of the west, destabilise Governments and create fertile ground for more terrorism. Surely it should be one of our priorities to confront that.
Does not the example of Indonesia underline the fact that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone? I shall spend a few minutes arguing for a more comprehensive doctrine which we have heard enunciated against international terrorism. The principles of counter-insurgency warfare are not new. We have been practising them in Northern Ireland and on the British mainland against Northern Ireland terrorism for the past 30 years. They originate in the wars of the north-west frontier in the previous century and the Indian mutiny.
Those principles are, first, to secure one's own base and implement one's home defence; secondly, to deny the enemy a secure base—we have dealt with pre-emption, and I hope that we will discuss it further. The next principles are to generate best human intelligence, to remove underlying political grievances, to co-ordinate all one's actions to a strategic plan, and to remember that the battle is for hearts and minds, and that conflict is about willpower, not just physical force. A further principle is to remember that actions and words, including the technical, can have political and strategic consequences. Finally, it is important to stay within the law and to use proportionate force only as a last resort.
Winning hearts and minds must be the central theme of everything we do in the war against terrorism. Winning the war against terrorism is as much an act of persuasion as of coercion. Our actions must prove that we stand for all those human values that we are defending. We must not allow organisations such as al-Qaeda to create a pervasive state of war between the west and Islam, or between the west and the Arab world. We must address the political challenges and conflicts that serve as the feeding ground for terrorists. We must

517
provide the humanitarian relief that shows that we are committed to the well-being of humanity throughout the world. We must develop the ability to help failing countries satisfy their people's social and economic needs. We must support and partner moderate Islam. We must open real dialogue and have real diplomacy with as many countries as possible around the world in the war against terrorism. I am shortly to visit Egypt, where I hope to learn as much as possible about the problems in the Gulf.
Mr. David Laws: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other rogue nations against which it will be necessary to take pre-emptive action in the near future, such as North Korea?
Mr. Jenkin: No. Of course, diplomacy can function in the war against terrorism only if it is ultimately backed by the threat of military force. Both diplomacy and military action depend on broad international support and unity. I am surprised that the Secretary of State made little reference to the upcoming Prague summit. It is the drifting apart of the Atlantic alliance that is by far the most dangerous diplomatic development since 11 September last year. That could be seen as a principal objective of rogue states and terrorist organisations. How they must rub their hands with glee when they see Europe and the United States falling out about how to deal with the problem of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I remind the House of one of the principles of counter-insurgency warfare: to co-ordinate all one's actions to a strategic plan. How can we achieve that unless we have an active and sustainable transatlantic alliance? That is why the NATO summit in Prague next month is a defining moment in the war against terrorism and for NATO itself.
There are three issues that need to be addressed. The first is to reform the structure for developing a joint understanding of threats and how to deal with them. That is what NATO did during the cold war. At the beginning of the cold war, NATO was a shadow of what it is now. It did not have the integrated command and military structure allowing senior military officers to sit down and discuss what the threats are, what the necessary responses are, and what national defence policies are needed to deal with those threats. That process in NATO must be revived.
Secondly, we need to develop military capabilities relevant to the modern threats. The Prague capability initiative will be a vital part of bringing the west together in the war against terrorism. Thirdly, we need to find the political will to act as an alliance to deal with those threats.
The Government should welcome the Rumsfeld proposal that there should be one or many NATO rapid reaction forces. We need forces—NATO forces, coalition forces—that are fast, lethal, superior to anything that they are likely to encounter and deployable way beyond our traditional borders. The UK, which developed the expeditionary concept in the defence review of the 1990s and in the strategic defence review, should be leading the initiative. Our armed forces are the best example of that initiative.
518
What will be the UK's contribution to the debate? The dangers that we face stem from the growing disparity between the United States' and the rest of NATO's military capabilities, which threatens NATO cohesion. For example, the United States currently provides 100 per cent. of NATO's standoff jamming capability, 90 per cent. of the air-to-ground surveillance and reconnaissance, and almost 80 per cent. of the air-to-air refuelling tankers necessary to conduct operations. There are 250 long-range transports available to NATO from the United States, while the rest of the alliance can provide merely 11. The United States has no more fighters and bombers than the European NATO members, but only a tiny fraction of the European fighters and bombers have precision-guided weapons while 100 per cent. of American fighters and bombers have such weapons.
Therefore, we fully support and welcome what the Foreign Secretary said in Chicago yesterday about the disparity between the United States and the rest of NATO:
"A relationship where one side of the Alliance disproportionately shoulders the military burden is a recipe for resentment."
That is a priority for the European countries of NATO to address.
The third issue that needs to be addressed is finding the political will—that is the other threat to cohesion in NATO—and how that will has been sapped by the European security and defence policy! How sensible it would be if we could get back to the "Berlin plus" arrangements that were approved in 1996 to create a European security and defence identity within the NATO alliance. The final communiqué of that Washington summit is littered with references to a European security and defence identity within NATO. It was to provide
"the use of separable but not separate military capabilities in operations led by"—
Europe
"and the participation of nations outside the alliance in operations such as IFOR".
Why did we depart from that formula and allow the creation of autonomous capabilities outside NATO?
The St. Malo declaration specifically departed from the "Berlin plus" proposals. It said that
"the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action".
This is the ESDP, not the ESDI.
The Nice treaty annexes provide for EU military forces that are independent of and autonomous from NATO. They provide for planning for military operations outside NATO; that the EU will decide on military operations and only "consult" NATO; and that the EU will retain full political and strategic control throughout any operation independent of NATO.
Since then, the EU has established an EU Political and Security Committee outside NATO, and an EU Military Committee, exactly mirroring and duplicating the NATO military committee, outside NATO. It has replicated the NATO military staffs in the EU military staffs and other organisations outside NATO, with a membership approaching 200 in a brand new building in Brussels. Finally, there is the commitment to a European rapid reaction force outside NATO, an embryo European army.

519
I noticed the Secretary of State muttering through all that. Does he deny it? Will he address it at the NATO summit? We know that the four non-NATO EU members will be attending the NATO summit. When will the disagreement between NATO and the EU that the Government have created be resolved?
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not surprising that, although we are on the eve of the NATO conference, the Secretary of State did not even mention the new European defence proposals?
Mr. Jenkin: Yes—particularly when it is an increasing source of anxiety in the American Administration and in NATO.
Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend gave us a long list of new offices and institutions that have been created on behalf of the EU rapid reaction force. Has the new EU rapid reaction force led to the addition of a single soldier, warship or aeroplane to Europe's defence capability?
Mr. Jenkin: I do not think so, but no doubt someone will try to tell us that it has.
Jim Knight: But surely that is the point. The notion of a European army is a fallacious misinterpretation, as we are not talking about creating a new set of soldiers and capability; we are talking about existing capability. If, for example, the United States does not want to act in our back yard, the EU is capable of doing so. If a European army is a way of bringing France into the fold—it is currently a little semi-detached from NATO—that is a good thing. If it is a way of giving us a capability and cranking up European capability that has been so slow to develop under NATO, surely the hon. Gentleman must welcome it.
Mr. Jenkin: All those things could have been achieved within the "Berlin plus" framework. The ESDP adds nothing to that framework; it only creates capabilities outside NATO. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is a bad thing. First, it is wasteful of resources. It duplicates institutions and creates extra offices and ambassadors, more chauffeur-driven cars and more waste when we should be spending that money on additional military capability and not on bureaucracy.
Secondly, in times of crisis military planners provide options to political masters, which is what they do at SHAPE. Options a, b and c have certain sets of forces with certain risk factors. That is what they do in NATO. Why do we need to replicate and duplicate that capability when it is so dangerous to do so?
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I shall finish, if I may.
Thirdly, we do not want the European Union to decide that it wants battalion x when D-SACEUR has already assigned battalion x to another operation in another theatre. If there is to be military planning, it should be conducted under a single organisation—NATO. I am quoting liberally from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Joseph Ralston, so these
520
are not problems of my imagining; they are real problems. I have met General Dieter Stockman, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and he is deeply concerned about the potential for conflict in the event that there are conflicting objectives between the EU and NATO. It should be for NATO to deconflict that military planning. We are not against increased European capability and we are not against European capability being used independently of the United States. What we are opposed to is the EU creating a rival to NATO that will undermine NATO at a crucial point in the history of our world when we need Europe and the United States to work together.
Finally, I want to address the new chapter of the strategic defence review that reiterates the Government's commitment to the expeditionary concept for our armed forces—a concept to which we are fully committed. I shall not dwell at length on overstretch, nor shall I engage in cheap political claptrap about increased expenditure in which the Secretary of State indulged. He will not admit the truth, which is that, even after three years, real terms expenditure will still be £1 billion a year less than the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. There is an anxiety that we are trying to obtain the same defence from less capability. I note that he skilfully timed the announcement of the decision about the short take off and vertical landing carrier capability just half an hour before he addressed the Labour party conference in Blackpool. The letter that he sent me told me that he was making that announcement for "commercial reasons". I shall not inquire what those reasons were, but it was awfully convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to make such an announcement at such a time.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman not also announce the plans for the existing surface fleet? Why did he not tell the Labour party conference that difficult choices had to be made? He has now written to me, a week later, to say that HMS Sheffield is to be withdrawn from service. I do not know whether he has plans to reduce the surface navy by 10 ships, but we get a stream of documents from the Government that tell us the good news but not the bad news. At least when we produced defence reviews, they were full of bad news and good news. That may have been unwelcome for the armed forces at the time, but at least it was honest. Why do not the Government give us the good news and the bad news? Why do they not let us have a proper debate about how we should spend the limited resources that we have for the armed forces, instead of smuggling out announcements as though these things were not really happening?
We have the best armed forces in the world. They have a significant role to play internationally, particularly in the war against terrorism. Judging by the way in which the arguments tend to be conducted, however, it is small wonder that so many armed service men have become so cynical about politicians. The least that we should promise them is a proper debate. Moreover, the capabilities required for our defence and

521
our national security, and to fulfil our international commitments, should be fully funded, and that is a commitment that we will continue to make.
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?
3.41 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I wish to concentrate on the prospect of war with Iraq, but may I first briefly comment on the statement that the Secretary of State has just made about missile defence? He commented on how successful the recent tests had been, but he did not mention the fact that there had been considerable suspicion in the US media when it was announced that the tests carried out in recent months were to be conducted in conditions of much greater secrecy, and that it was suspected that that was because of a certain lack of realism. I realise that rogue state dictators are supposed to be irrational, but it is just conceivable that they would not phone up in advance to ensure that the interceptors knew about the timing and the trajectory of the missile, that there was good weather for the interception, that the quantity and quality of decoys was small and, in one case, that there was a signalling beacon on the front of the warhead.
It should also be remembered that the Ministry of Defence's own White Paper, looking ahead 30 years, suggested that missile attack was a low risk, and that the US national intelligence estimate gave a series of cogent reasons to Congress why the method likely to be used by any so-called rogue dictator or terrorist trying to deliver weapons of mass destruction would be to smuggle them in, rather than launch a missile attack.
It has been asked whether missile defence should be seen as similar to the star wars system. Of course it should not. The proponents of star wars were Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, whereas the proponents of missile defence are Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle. The aims of star wars were ultimately to get complete military invulnerability for the United States on a unilateral basis. The aim of the new missile defence system is, as Donald Rumsfeld has said, ultimately to build towards full-spectrum dominance. Indeed, the connection between star wars and the war on Iraq is that they are both part of the same frightening, unilateralist agenda that we saw spelled out in the national security strategy.
On the prospects of war with Iraq, the Prime Minister asked what was surely the most pertinent question: why now? We now have the dossier, the report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the report from the director of central intelligence in the United States. Looking at them, it is perfectly clear that they find no evidence of a link between Iraq and the events of 11 September. In fact, there is no cogent evidence in the reports of any association between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
In the British document, human rights are mentioned. Undoubtedly, when we consider the atrocities that have been committed in Iraq, regime change has been vitally necessary for more than two decades. But what has
522
changed since the 1980s, when Donald Rumsfeld was supplying aid and arms to Saddam Hussein, to convince him that it is now imperative for us to have a war with Saddam Hussein? Most of the atrocities occurred in the 1980s.
What about the reports on missiles? It is suspected in the different reports that Saddam Hussein might have retained somewhere between two and two dozen al-Hussein missiles, and that he has probably developed a limited number of other missiles that might be able to go as far as 200 km. It is clear, however, that his missile forces are massively depleted compared with before the Gulf war, and that his missile strength is weak compared with that of many other countries.
On biological and chemical weapons, the presumption is that Saddam Hussein has restarted his programmes and that he has probably managed to retain some biological and chemical resources from before the end of the inspections regime, and to develop more since. Again, however, it is believed that his stocks are vastly smaller than they were in the 1980s, when all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—including the United States and the United Kingdom—were busily helping him with supplies for missile technology and for biological and chemical weapons.
Llew Smith: Read the Scott report.
Mr. Savidge: Exactly.
What about nuclear weapons? Again, the reports are in agreement that Saddam Hussein does not yet have them. They also agree that he is several years away from getting them unless he obtains weapons-grade material.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is typically generous.
Surely the point is that Saddam Hussein was within two years of getting a nuclear weapon before the last war against Iraq, and that suicidal terrorist movements have grown up recently that might work in conjunction with him to undertake actions that were not so great a threat in the intervening years.
Mr. Savidge: The CIA was asked to produce a report on whether it thought that Saddam Hussein was co-operating with terrorist organisations to supply them with weapons of mass destruction, and it came up with the conclusion that he was not.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Savidge: I must be careful, because every time I give way I lose time. I will see whether there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to come in later.
On the supply of weapons-grade material, there is obviously a major proliferation problem, not least because of the risk that terrorist organisations could obtain it, and we need to work together on non-proliferation. Would Saddam Hussein have the intention to use weapons of mass destruction if he obtained them? He has undoubtedly used them in the past—he used poisoned gas against both the Iranians and his own people. Can he be deterred from using them

523
again? The assumption of the US hard right is that he cannot, because they define him as a rogue state dictator, and they say that all such dictators are irrational and could not therefore be deterred by the thought of nuclear annihilation. That is the danger of trying to fit people into nice ideological definitions. The real Saddam Hussein may be—and, indeed, is—a homicidal maniac, but there is no reason to suppose that he is a suicidal maniac. In fact, he has had a murderous obsession with preserving his own life. During the Gulf war, Saddam was deterred from using chemical or biological weapons by the threat of overwhelming retaliation.
There are concerns that there might be some new element of secret intelligence that is not being shared with us. I suspect that the evidence suggests that that is not the case. The main proponents of this war—Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Bolton, for example—were advocating this war in 1998, when they were in opposition and not in receipt of the best military intelligence. They have been advocating it for years; it is not something that they have just thought up.
The Prime Minister stated last month that we should not underestimate the extent to which
"11 September had made a difference to the way that America views such things"—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 22.]
It naturally had an immense effect on US public opinion, and we all respect that. However, we should contrast the Prime Minister's comments with the words of Condoleeza Rice in an interview with The New Yorker on 1 April. She said that shortly after the events of 11 September, she called together the leaders of the National Security Council and asked:
"How do you capitalise on these opportunities"
fundamentally to change US policies? The US hawks have shamelessly exploited 11 September to promote a predetermined agenda.
We should remember that project for the new American century, with which so many prominent people in the US Administration are closely involved, argued in the month of Bush's inauguration that if neither weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein existed, it would still be in the US strategic interest to invade Iraq. Surely that is the answer to the question, "Why now?"
Does anyone suppose that if Al Gore had been recognised as the winner of the presidential election we would now be considering war with Iraq? Does anyone believe that we would be contemplating such a step if George Bush had not chosen to appoint several extreme hawks to key posts in his Administration? Those hawks have advocated pre-emptive war against not only Iraq but various other countries.
I do not doubt that the British Government regard war as a last resort or that they want inspections and disarmament, but I have grave doubts about whether all the members of the Bush Administration view war as a last resort. We are supposed to take comfort from George Bush's statement that going to war is not his first choice.
The Prime Minister asked us to take comfort from the speech in Cincinnati, in which the President stated that disarmament was one of his objectives. However, that
524
speech contained some worrying elements. The President said that Saddam was preparing to send unmanned aerial vehicles to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons. I would have hoped that the President of the United States might have been aware of the existence of the Atlantic ocean and the US Air Force.
The President also suggested that Saddam Hussein might be trying to supply nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations. First, his intelligence reports state that Saddam Hussein does not yet have nuclear weapons. Secondly, the report that George Tenet was reluctantly forced to release after he had been interviewed by the Senate made it clear that he estimated that Saddam was not supplying weapons and would not wish to do that. The circumstances under which he might use his weapons of mass destruction or supply them to terrorists or agents would be precisely if he was attacked and faced the possibility of his extinction.
The President apparently ignores his intelligence advice to pursue a domestic political agenda. Worse, he is engaging in dangerous scaremongering. That can far too easily be the prelude to warmongering.
We should recognise the dangers of war, as defined by former President Clinton in Blackpool. We should acknowledge that we need a United Nations resolution, but that it should be fair. There should be a second element to such a resolution. We should leave it not to the United States but to the United Nations to decide whether compliance occurs and whether there is a need for force.
I am rushing rapidly to a conclusion—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
3.54 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the Secretary of State's words about members of the armed forces and the civil servants who work at the Ministry of Defence. I have been privileged to get to know them in recent years and they are a fine bunch of people.
The events of recent days add a timely significance to today's debate. International terrorism has touched our lives again and continues to threaten world security. As we remember those who died last weekend from this country and elsewhere, and the appalling events of 11 September, we must redouble our efforts to root out the scourge of international terrorism.
As the Secretary of State rightly said, we can effectively combat international terrorism only if we cooperate with other nations. The coalition that the Prime Minister and President Bush assembled so successfully last year remains our strongest weapon for defeating that threat. We live in an interconnected world where intelligence and police co-operation in third countries can save lives at home. No single nation can prevent all attacks against its citizens, but together we can isolate and defeat terrorist networks.
The nature of the international terrorist threat has added to the tasks of our armed forces, not changed them. Deterrence, coercion or find-and-strike operations have not replaced the existing roles of the

525
armed forces but simply added to them. The major defence tasks identified by the strategic defence review remain valid. Stabilisation, peace enforcement, defence diplomacy and commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan and elsewhere demand our continued engagement.
The Secretary of State said outside the House that prioritisation of capabilities will be necessary. That process clearly began with the series of cuts that were announced over the summer. We were told that the new chapter was supposed to rebalance, not replace the SDR in the light of a growing terrorist threat. However, I fear that it is being replaced.
A steady stream of leaked documents and unannounced Government publications revealed a picture of cuts, revised targets and shortfalls. Many SDR requirements now appear unrealistic. The revision of the SDR seems to have been forced on the Government. Less than five months ago in May, we were assured that HMS Sheffield would be held in extended readiness until September 2004.
Moreover, the SDR commits the Government to maintaining 32 warships until 2007. With HMS Nottingham probably beyond repair, and HMS Sheffield due to be withdrawn in two weeks, the number is down to 30. I know HMS Sheffield well; I spent 10 days on her as part of my time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with which many hon. Members have been involved. The ship was in the Caribbean carrying out anti-drug-running activities. It is neither the first nor the last ship to do that. Only 10 days ago, HMS Grafton seized $100 million of high-grade cocaine. That ship plays an important role in the defence of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government have cut our West Indies guardships.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to take a hard look at items that no longer add to our capability and prioritise in favour of critical capabilities? What exactly does he consider to be critical capabilities?
The Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement that confirmed the designs of the future aircraft carrier and the joint strike fighter aircraft. It was a wise decision to choose a design that offers greater operational flexibility for the future. However, it is less encouraging that the decision may have been made to meet an in-service date of 2012. Procurement policy should not be made in that way.
If the Government had not been in such a hurry to retire the Sea Harriers, the urgency of the capability gap would have been less pressing. Are there other imminent cuts about which the Secretary of State would like to inform the House? Is there anything else up his sleeve?
We view Britain's defence role in the world as undiminished. The responsibilities are many, at home and abroad. If we are to fulfil the role outlined by the SDR, we must commit the necessary resources to our military. If we cannot provide the armed forces with the equipment, pay and conditions that they need to do the job that we ask of them, the UK must accept greater limitations on the defence tasks that we undertake.
We must improve recruitment and retention rates in our armed forces. We must stem the loss of critical staff from organisations such as the defence medical services.
526
We must reach a position where we no longer need to waste money on temporary housing or temporary doctors. We must ensure that our armed forces and their families are well looked after, with fair pay and equitable pension rights. Failure to fix the nuts and bolts of our armed forces will put future operations in jeopardy.
What role should Britain play in the world? The SDR acknowledged the consensus that has been supported by Opposition parties in recent years. It envisaged a role for Britain as a major military power with a duty to contribute to NATO, UN and EU tasks, commensurate with our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That role has grown in ways anticipated by the SDR, which emphasised the global nature of Britain's interests, of the 10 million British citizens living abroad as well as Britain's overseas territories. The SDR said that a global capability remained necessary. We believe that it is necessary. We believe also that the SDR represents a broad consensus. It set targets for policies and the implementation of objectives. However, if the foundations of the SDR remain valid, the policies in place to implement it need to be revised.
With procurement dates continuing to slip, with retention rates dropping and with what appears to be an ad hoc announcement of cuts in aircraft and warship numbers, the SDR is parting from our armed forces in terms of day-to-day reality. We must be assured that the commitments made by the Government at the time of the SDR—they were broadly supported by both sides of the House—can be sustained.
I shall say a few words about arms exports. Our troops are deployed abroad to control instability and to contribute to peace. We must ensure that our actions in other spheres—for example, arms exports—do not undermine our troops' efforts. I agree with the Secretary of State's recent comments that competition over time should be a consideration in defence procurement decisions. However, in his exhortation to the defence industry to export more and in committing the taxpayer to facilitating market access, the Government may be focusing on domestic concerns that are related to global security. Even today, we have seen Lord Bach and Prince Andrew promoting British arms exports with taxpayers' money in the middle east. That was at a fair attended by Iraq. Am I alone in feeling a need for caution?
Arms exports are a major source of global instability when they are diverted from their intended destination and use. Therefore, rigorous end-use monitoring of British exports is vital. I believe that the only true way to minimise the damaging consequences of irresponsible arms transfers, such as the arms-to-Iraq issue, which was discussed earlier, is to have prior parliamentary scrutiny on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a most important point. Does he not agree that it is infinitely better for British interests and for the promotion of the values that our armed forces have sustained that British companies should sell weapons to states that require them for their self-defence, rather than that those states should turn to other suppliers such as Belarus, Iraq and rogue regimes? The training and support that our

527
personnel provide in the continued collaboration that follows an arms agreement is most useful in the longer term.
Mr. Keetch: I agree entirely. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in the past the problem has been that we have sold arms to regimes that have come back to bite us. We know, for example, that arms were sold to Argentina and were used against the taskforce. We actually supported and supplied arms to Saddam Hussein. We even supplied in the past to Osama bin Laden. We must be careful about the company that we keep. We need to continue to examine carefully the issue of arms exports.
Let me move on to alliances. We maintain our forces for the defence of the nation. However, we also have commitments to our allies in NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth. The SDR acknowledged that Britain's "economic and political future is as part of Europe"
and that
"Britain's security is indivisible from that of Europe."
I agree. However, the integration of European defence capabilities has not been progressed far enough. The UK has indeed led the way in raising defence expenditure, and we have been told that France followed suit. However, progress on meeting the Helsinki headline goals has been painfully slow. Cooperation within Europe on research, procurement, logistics support and even on intelligence could promise increased effectiveness and cost savings. It is long overdue.
Next month's NATO summit in Prague will discuss precisely the same issues that face Europe: a NATO response to terrorism, the creation of a rapid response force and the standardisation of equipment for interoperability. Those are sensible goals for NATO and for the EU under the framework of the European security and defence policy.
During my recent trip to NATO headquarters, all the officials whom I met, including the Secretary General, stressed the importance of the ESDP to NATO. Lord Robertson also stressed the importance of resolving the dispute between Greece and Turkey over the European use of NATO assets. What does the Secretary of State have in mind? Will he ensure that the disagreement does not lead to progress on the ESDP faltering?
I turn to Iraq and the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We must accept that there is a diverging range of opinions among all parties in the House. Indeed, many former senior Conservative Members—for example, Lord Hurd, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Major—have said that they disagree with, or have some concerns about, the current Conservative party leadership on Iraq. It is not only those people, who the present leadership of the Conservative party have tried to airbrush out of history; in the debate that took place on 24 September, many Conservative Back-Benchers made eloquent speeches that did not fully echo the approach taken by those on their Front Bench. I have in mind the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and there were others.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who sadly is not in his place, criticises Liberal Democrat Members for asking questions at a time when British
528
troops might be committed. I say to him that it is exactly at the time when our troops are committed that we should be asking questions. That is what opposition is. Had Opposition parties in 1940 blindly followed the Government of the day in military expeditions, the House would not have challenged Neville Chamberlain in the way that it did and his Government would not have been replaced by the coalition Government who were led so wonderfully by Winston Churchill. Now is the time to ask important questions.
If the UN or the international community request British help in neutralising threats to global security, we must be there. However, to be consistent with international law, every other reasonable political and diplomatic option must be exhausted before military action commences. It is not correct to posit a choice between dealing with Iraq and dealing with al-Qaeda. They are linked. Any action in Iraq must be seen in the context of a wider campaign against terrorism.
The question that we must ask, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) did so eloquently on Wednesday, is whether possible action in Iraq will increase or decrease the likelihood of further terrorist attacks throughout the world. Whether to use force in the absence of an immediate terrorist attack is one of the most difficult decisions that this country may be asked to make for a generation. We must be sure that any decisions reflect the will of the people.
Let us have a new constitutional innovation. Let us have, perhaps, a new war powers Act. Let us abolish the Prime Minister's power to use the Royal Prerogative to send Britain's forces to war without having to seek parliamentary approval. The President of the United States has sought and gained a mandate—
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I give the hon. Gentleman a scenario to consider? Let us suppose that the Prime Minister is in possession of top-secret intelligence information that he cannot share with the House. What would then happen in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described?
Mr. Keetch: I know and understand that some Members believe that it should be the Government's responsibility. However, I believe that in normal circumstances—certainly those that we are discussing in terms of Iraq—there should be a substantive vote. If top-secret intelligence were available to the Prime Minister suggesting that an attack might be imminent, surely he could discuss it under normal Privy Council terms with members of the leading Opposition parties and then seek their approval. In circumstances where we are deploying British forces, I do not see why there should not be a substantive vote in the House.
When we send our forces into the field they have the right to be confident that the country backs them. It is important that they fight with the knowledge that it is Parliament that has asked them to go, and that it is we who bear the responsibilities. The President of the United States has sought and received such a mandate from Congress; I do not see why our Prime Minister should be any different. As elected Members, we are answerable to the people of Britain. A new war powers Act would lay the mantle of accountability where it

529
correctly lies: with Parliament. It could only enhance our democracy and people's faith in our democratic institutions.
4.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: If two antagonists both deploy military forces for attack, the military balance is unstable because either side might gain an advantage from striking first. That was the nature of the balance of strategic nuclear weapons during the cold war. The concept of mutually assured destruction is still the basis of the strategic balance of offensive weapons between the old cold war antagonists. However, a missile might be fired in error or a malicious or deranged officer may become convinced that the circumstances are right for first strike to gain an advantage. Either possibility could trigger a devastating response that no Government intended. To address those and other problems, Presidents Bush and Putin, to their credit, recently agreed to cut their strategic nuclear weapons by two thirds, but that still leaves 2,000 nuclear missiles on each side, plus weapons owned by the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and so on. When the use of any one of those weapons would be a disaster for the world, that remains a frightening arsenal.
Let us imagine a notable success in arms reduction negotiations so that both sides have no more than a few hundred nuclear weapons each. How do they get below that number? Any move to reduce towards zero will raise suspicions that side A will secretly retain a capability and so leave side B exposed if it complies by reducing to zero. The inevitable suspicion will mean that neither side will ever voluntarily reduce weapons to zero. It was because of similar suspicions that mutual and balanced forced reductions of conventional forces could not be agreed in the past.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was intended to limit the spread of such weapons outside the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. It has not succeeded. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons. That encourages states with which they may come into conflict to acquire them too. Containment is a vain hope, especially when both nuclear and ballistic technology are transferred between states or by the migration of experts from the Soviet Union.
A missile defence system, such as the one under discussion, may provide a solution to those problems. First, it would enable a strategic balance to be achieved by means of defensive weapons that is essentially stable, unlike the inherent instability that goes with a balance of offensive weapons. Secondly, the risk of a nuclear exchange being triggered in error by an insubordinate or maverick custodian would be eliminated. Thirdly, a missile defence shield, available to both sides, would provide a climate for safe negotiation towards zero arsenals of nuclear weapons. Fourthly, it would give direct protection against the malicious acts of rogue states. Fifthly, if countries can be offered a place under a missile defence umbrella, they have everything to gain from signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
What then are the obstacles to all that becoming a reality? A major objection is that the missile defence system proposed today is no more than a rehash of
530
President Reagan's star wars concept. Not only was star wars technologically impossible to achieve, it would have made the world a more dangerous place. It would have nullified the deterrent effect of the Soviet Union's strategic weapons, so creating the possibility of a preemptive strike against the star wars system or of an arms race. Those objections were, and remain, valid, but that is not the missile defence system that the United States now proposes. The concept is of a system that could withstand an attack of up to 100 missiles at most. It could not therefore wipe out Russia's ability to respond to a United States attack, so it would not upset the current strategic balance. On that basis, the Russian Government have agreed to it being an exception to the anti-ballistic missile treaty between themselves and the United States of America.
An anxiety that prejudiced opinion against missile defence proposals in Britain and the rest of Europe was that missile defences would apply only to north America. Even though Fylingdales radar station in Yorkshire would be essential to US missile defence, it was thought that the UK would not be under the umbrella and would be vulnerable to whatever attack the US feared. The United States Government have since made it clear that they envisage any missile defence system extending to NATO, Europe and, potentially, to Russia. Thus those anxieties are overcome.
The outstanding question now is what diplomatic and technological conditions are required to achieve the various benefits of missile defence in practice. Diplomatically, there must be agreement from the beginning that protection will be given to north America, Europe and Russia. Any scheme designed solely to protect north America would divide and possibly destroy the NATO alliance. Unless Russia is included, there would be no incentive for Russia to negotiate strategic arms reductions below currently agreed levels, and the stability of Russian democracy and European security could be threatened.
The second diplomatic requirement is a willingness to extend the protective umbrella to any state that has signed and adhered to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
China is a special case. With an estimated 20 or so ballistic missiles available soon, China has a credible deterrent against attack by either the USA or Russia which would be eliminated by the missile defence system envisaged. There would therefore be an incentive for China to continue building nuclear missiles until it was sure that it could break through missile defences. The whole of Asia would then be under threat from China, and Asian countries would be induced to retain or acquire nuclear weapons. A way of recognising China's strategic interests would be to offer it the protection of the anti-missile umbrella on condition that it did not expand its nuclear arsenal further and on the understanding that it would join strategic arms reduction talks between Russia and America at the same time as Britain and France.
The ultimate obstacle to the missile defence concept could be the difficulty and expense of developing reliable technology. Some commentators have pronounced the proposed scheme to be technologically impossible to achieve. No doubt they draw some of that certainty from the abandonment of star wars because the technology proved too difficult to develop. But that

531
system, which aimed to intercept several thousand missiles at once faultlessly, had an infinitely more complex task than intercepting 100 or fewer. Some of the technology, such as sensors, radars, computing, communications, is not new. Some research and development is needed, but given clear objectives for the development programme, experts, such as the RAND Corporation, who have assessed what is needed, do not see the technology as out of reach.
The important question is how development and production will be organised. If the whole missile defence system were to fall under the technological hegemony of the USA, then the strategic concept would most likely be rejected by European countries and Russia on that ground alone. Co-development and co-production by NATO countries and Russia, under American leadership, must spread the technological and economic benefits equitably and, at the same time, build confidence. Negotiated co-operation in design, development and production will be as essential to the success of the project as co-operation in deployment.

I urge the Government to persuade the United States Government of a strategic role and purpose of missile defence similar to the role that I have attempted to outline; to persuade other NATO allies of that role and purpose and to engage their active commitment to the project; and to join the United States in establishing arrangements by which NATO allies and Russia may co-operate in designing, developing and producing the required technology. The British Government have a pivotal role to play in achieving all that, which I hope will become a new dimension of United Kingdom foreign and defence policy. If we can achieve a missile defence system on those terms, it will be an infinitely more precious legacy for future generations than a world littered with nuclear missiles that might be used at any time.
4.20 pm
Hugh Robertson: As I drew my remarks together for today's debate, I realised with some horror that it was 21 years last month since I joined the services. A number of issues of huge strategic importance face the defence world today, including the reform and future structure of NATO and the whole question of defence procurement. However, I shall look at the immediate threat that we face, the way that it has evolved and the possible responses to meet it.
In 1981, when I joined the Army, and for much of the following 10 years, defence policy was governed by the threat of a Soviet onslaught on the central front. As adjutant of a tank regiment in 1989, I overflew the positions that our tanks would occupy during a Soviet invasion. Against this certain backdrop, other conflicts occurred, generally as a result of the decolonisation of European empires at the end of the second world war. Very occasionally, the two superpowers came close to collision. The Berlin blockade in 1948, the Korean war, the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam war are a few examples, but British defence policy remained governed largely by the certainties of the cold war.
The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 changed all that. The hoped-for peace dividend failed to materialise and the new world order, stripped of the framework provided by the cold war, rapidly became a much more
532
dangerous place. Sir Anthony Parsons, our ambassador at the UN, put it brilliantly when he described the transition as one
"from Cold War to hot peace".
Great Britain and the west struggled to contain the fallout from the decolonisation of the Soviet Union, particularly in areas that the Russians refer to as the near abroad—those independent states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia and other parts of the world where nationalism took a hold. An analysis of this period reveals the origins of many of the problems that we face today. For the first time, the UN perceived the need to become more dominant, proactive and responsive. The United States, the one remaining superpower, began for the first time to examine whether it should go it alone, whether it should act as the world's policeman or whether it should react only when its own territorial integrity was threatened. We saw the first challenges to that previously most sacred of cows: the integrity of states within their existing frontiers. As a consequence of that and developments in the world of media and communications, a number of shadowy organisations looked beyond and across their own borders for the first time. We also saw the first signs of the doctrine of preemptive action, which was first trailed in the form we understand it today in the UN agenda for peace in 1993. Questions of command and control of forces in the field allied to other countries and of course money also began to rear their heads.
Although many of the defence issues that we face today had their origins then, the events of 11 September probably mark the start of a third post-war defence era in which shadowy terrorist movements and rogue states pose asymmetric threats to established democracies. If that were not complicated enough, it has also become clear that this new threat is itself changing and evolving. The horrific events in Bali this week have shown how the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its associates has itself evolved since 11 September and the war in Afghanistan.
How are we to combat this new threat? The first unpalatable truth must be that we have to increase defence spending. I was much taken by a quote from Major-General Fulton published in the October edition of the RUSI Journal, which said:
"If the question becomes what do we not need to do as a result of 11 September, operations in Afghanistan and the publication of the new chapter, the answer is that we have not found it yet."
The United States has recognised this and increased defence spending by 14 per cent. However, before 11 September there were signs that the United States may eventually turn inwards and that will surely place a larger burden on Europe. As has already been said, the European rapid reaction force has identified 150 basic defence capabilities, but estimates are that 40 of those will be outstanding by the end of next year. Our own Prime Minister has very proper ambitions for Africa that will inevitably involve troops and more money. Increasingly we as a nation are starting to deploy troops not because our vital interests are threatened, but because we choose to do so, as we did in East Timor and Sierra Leone. There is also the question of credibility. We all agree that the threat from international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is very real. If we are serious about confronting it, it will surely cost money.

533
We need to face the fact that one of our most crucial weapons in the war against terrorism will be intelligence. We in Britain first learned that lesson in the 1950s and 1960s in places such as Malaysia and Kenya, but it is truer now than ever. In the age of modern communication, the means of gathering and collating intelligence have changed beyond recognition and it is vital that our security services are fully funded and properly integrated with those of our allies. The development of our armed forces to meet the new threat will also place a heavy burden on the equipment budget. I do not propose to list all the areas where we need new equipment, but just to name a few. They include the C4ISTAR, the new deep strike capabilities, strategic air transport and, crucially, an integrated land-based air defence system for the UK homeland.
Clearly, to meet this new threat, the scope of defence policy needs to widen. Responses will no longer be exclusively military, but also political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, financial and legal. Legality is crucial. Everyone in the Chamber would surely agree that the UK Government must always operate within the remit of international law, despite the fact that our enemies almost certainly never will do. That clearly points to an even greater role for the UN. Its resolutions confer international legitimacy. The UN may not be perfect, but in this new era it is all that we have got.
We also need to develop our home defence plans. The threat from asymmetric attack is clear and we need to develop effective responses that integrate local government, health authorities, emergency services and the Territorial Army. However, throughout all this we must not forget the importance of conventional warfare. It remains the case that forces trained for high-intensity conflict can always adapt to low intensity, but never vice versa. Conventional warfare also arises very rapidly as we have seen recently in the Gulf and may possibly see in Iraq.
It would be wrong not to touch briefly on Iraq and I wholly support the Government's stance. They were right to support the US Administration at this early stage, not only to influence policy, but to create a believable threat of force in order to apply the maximum strategic coercion on the regime in Baghdad. I certainly agree that the correct channel is the UN, as it will confer international legitimacy on the operation. The resolutions on Iraq must be robust and enforceable, but if the UN handles the issue correctly, it will do its reputation a power of good and, in this new uncertain era, send a powerful message about the standards expected of organisations and states in the modern world.
I said earlier that I entirely supported the Government's stance on international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but they must make clear the linkage between the two issues. I fully appreciate the need to protect scarce intelligence resources. Of course, none of us has access to that information. The Government must believe that if Saddam Hussein is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction he will either use them himself or give them to terrorist organisations to use against us and that link needs to be made clearer.
534
I conclude with a few words about our service men and women. I have highlighted the enormous changes in the defence world in the 21 years since I joined and something of the threat that we currently face. One thing that has certainly not changed is the quality and commitment of the young men and women who serve in our armed forces. Our thoughts should always be with them and their families who give them so much support. After all, we will look to them first in the difficult and uncertain days ahead.
4.30 pm
Llew Smith: A recent Ministry of Defence report revealed that the countries of the world now spend $772 billion on their so-called defences—or, more accurately, on preparing for war. The United States spends $400 billion of that on its war machine, and the United Kingdom spends £24 billion, the equivalent of $36 billion, for the same purpose.
One would have thought that, now that there are enough weapons to destroy the world many times over, the nations of the world would call a halt to such expenditure, but they have not done so. Indeed, the United States has announced that it will spend a further $30 billion a year. Do the people of that country, or its Government, feel that they are any safer in the knowledge that they can inflict even more destruction on this beautiful planet of ours?
Not to be outsmarted—if not outgunned—the United Kingdom has also decided to increase its so-called defence expenditure, by £3.5 billion by 2005–06. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister rightly reminded us that Africa is a
"scar on the conscience of the world",
It will continue to be a scar as long as we continue to prioritise investment in weapons of war rather than investment in people.
Is it not ironic, or indeed obscene, that the Government can find money to increase the war machine massively, but cannot find money—or are unwilling to provide it—to compensate the victims of atomic tests in the Pacific in the 1950s? A letter sent to MPs by Ian Anderson, an American attorney at law acting on behalf of the American atomic veterans, said
"The UK's policy of denial surely cannot continue indefinitely … the Queen has paradoxically approved of medals honouring the New Zealand servicemen who served at the Christmas Island nuclear tests with UK servicemen, yet no such recognition is accorded to her own troops."
That cannot be right.
The New Zealand and Fiji Governments have now recognised that compensation and, indeed, proper pensions are necessary for those who suffered radiation exposure during the tests. The US Government's department of veterans' affairs has announced that it will recognise five more cancers as attributable to exposures to atmospheric radiation for pension payment purposes. That brings the number of cancers recognised by the US Government as attributable to nuclear test radiation to 21. Why, on this occasion, are we not standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in responding positively to what was a great tragedy?
I believe that we should do that, and I assumed that we would, because back in 1990 the present Prime Minister supported a private Member's Bill demanding

535
compensation for the victims of the atomic tests. We now know from evidence produced in the past few weeks that the people affected—destroyed—by those tests were not just the soldiers involved but their children and grandchildren. Obviously they need compensation, as do those suffering from Gulf war syndrome.
I was brought up to believe that socialism was the language of priorities, but in this instance it seems that the Government are working on the basis of a different definition. They prioritise expenditure on developing weapons of mass destruction or war, yet cannot find a tiny proportion of that money to compensate victims of the creation of those weapons, or indeed victims of participation in wars.
Over the weekend, I had the privilege of addressing a national demonstration in Plymouth by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament against Trident and the refitting of that weapon at Devonport. We know that Trident has cost successive Governments some £15 billion. We also know that its annual operating costs are now some £280 million a year. We handed a petition to the Ministry of Defence protesting against Trident and its refit, and as we did so we thought of the many better ways of spending the money. It could be spent on health, education, better homes or responding to the tragedy of countries such as Africa.
The real cost, however, is not just financial; it also relates to all the skills, talents and creativity of the work force employed to produce Trident. My thoughts drifted from the financial cost to the cost in terms of the loss of skills that could be better used in the production of socially useful goods and services if we are to begin to plan for a world at peace rather than a world preparing for war—a world in which we really do begin to turn swords into ploughshares.
Yet the ultimate cost of weapons of mass destruction such as Trident consists not merely of the money spent and the skills wasted, but of the death and destruction that will follow its use. Is it not ironic that if Trident were ever used it would destroy not just the skills but the lives of the people who produced that weapon of war? I do not think that that is the reward that they would expect for their labours.
We are led to believe that President Bush and our Prime Minister are so opposed to weapons of mass destruction that they are willing to go to war with Iraq on the issue. Can the Minister explain this to me? If those Governments are so opposed to weapons of mass destruction, how can the United States maintain thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads? Perhaps the Minister will also explain how the United Kingdom can maintain its vast nuclear arsenal. The Government should justify the number of nuclear warheads that they deploy and clarify the circumstances in which they might be used, because they have said that they are willing to use them.
Is it not an act of hypocrisy for us to oppose the possession by others of weapons of mass destruction, while justifying our possession of such weapons? Perhaps we do so because our weapons of mass destruction are nice, while those supposedly used by Saddam Hussein are nasty. Is it also true that the weapons that the west has sold to countries such as Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and India, to name but a few, are
536
friendly weapons of mass destruction? If so, how is it that they are friendly weapons when the west sells them to such countries as Iraq, but become so nasty that we are willing to go to war over them when those countries threaten us with them or use them against us—or even when we believe that they possess the weapons?
While we are on the subject of Iraq, the House should not forget that this country is legally committed to nuclear disarmament under article 6 of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, most recently re-endorsed two years ago. If we expect Iraq to submit to its international obligations to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, we should also respect our obligations to do so. As for the United States, it still refuses to ratify the chemical weapons convention or the comprehensive test ban treaty, to approve the creation of the International Criminal Court or to abide by the non-proliferation treaty. When it makes a gesture to abide by that treaty and reduce its nuclear arsenal, it invariably relates to weapons that are redundant. It then proceeds to replace those weapons with weapons that are more deadly and sophisticated.
It is acceptable for the west to sell weapons to other countries, no matter how evil their regimes. Those countries can then use them to gas their own people, as Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, without the smallest of protests from the west. No matter how great the suffering, the Government tell us that arms sales are good for our economy. I invite the Minister to read the recent publication by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade called, "The Employment Consequences of a Ban on Arms Exports". It demonstrates that at present only 0.3 per cent. of total United Kingdom employment is dependent on military equipment exports. Military equipment investment is capital, not labour, intensive. As always, the only people who gain are the arms manufacturers and dealers, and that has been true throughout our history.
Sadly, arms sales are also a corruption of democracy. That is clearly shown in a recent written reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) published last month, in which he stated:
"Information held by the United Kingdom Government on companies and individuals involved in the export of military supplies is commercial in confidence and is withheld under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 19 September 2002; Vol.390. c. 312W.]
Can the Minister justify this secrecy?
I shall conclude with something that, with a little help from Ministers, may have a positive outcome. We all know that 16 years ago Mordechai Vanunu was put in an Israeli jail. He has been rotting there and for 11 of those years in solitary confinement. On 29 October he comes up for parole. I want the Government to make all efforts to back this application from a brave man. It will not cost as much as two aircraft carriers or 150 state-of-the-art strike aircraft, but it would be worth so much more.
4.42 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I do not know whether you have noticed from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the shorter your limits on Back

537
Bench speeches, the more prolix those on the Front Bench seem to become. We were regaled with a wonderful example of the benefits of brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who demonstrated in an extremely thoughtful speech some of the challenges that face our armed forces and society in the global war against terrorism. He covered most of the points and I shall try to fill in some of the gaps.
We have all learned from the Bali experience perhaps more than any other, although we learned it to some degree from the horrendous events of 11 September in the United States, that this is genuinely a global war. We are all in it together. I know that some of my constituents are mourning at this very moment, and that will be replicated throughout the House. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the policies we promote will eradicate the tremendous evils of terrorism. There can be no compromise with terrorism.
The methods we use have to span a wide spectrum, including intelligence, police procedures, the justice system, the ending of money laundering and the evolution of military assets and tactics to match. On the judicial question, I am shocked that it would appear that some countries in Europe may not be willing to extradite terrorist suspects to the United States of America on the grounds that if they are found guilty of the charges that could be preferred against them, they would be subject to the US death penalty. We in the free world must all co-operate wholeheartedly. There can be no such inhibitions to our co-operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke at length and wisely, brought to our attention, as did the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time, the matter of proscribing Jemaah Islamiyah under the terms of the Terrorist Act 2000. The case is not unique. I have had cause to bring to the attention of the House the situation in Colombia. Our armed forces, the special air service regiment, to a small but significant extent has given advice to the armed forces of Colombia who are fighting a desperately important war against a vicious guerrilla movement, FARC, and to some degree the ELN. There have been more casualties in the conflict there than ever have been caused to date by al-Qaeda. FARC is using the drugs trade to finance its operations and to acquire its weaponry. Yet our Government do not proscribe FARC, and nor does the European Union. Nor, to my knowledge, do they proscribe any Latin American terrorist organisation, apart from the self-defence groups in Colombia. Those groups would not operate if the terrorists who are threatening democracy and the rule of law were made inoperative. It is important that we show a united front—we and our European Union colleagues, who are just as bad as we are in this matter. FARC, ELN, in Peru the Sendero Luminoso and in Chile the Frente Manuel Rodriguez should all be proscribed organisations, as should Jemaah Islamiyah.
I must refer the House to certain aspects of European policy vis-à-vis Iraq and the implications of the divisions to which my hon. Friend alluded: the divisions that exist within what should be a wholly united coalition of western democracies. The United Kingdom says, "Yes, we are prepared to take military action against Iraq".
538
There is not too much conditionality in our response. The Federal Republic of Germany appears to say, "No, in no circumstance whatever are we prepared to undertake military operations against Iraq". The French position is more nuanced as they are hoping for a United Nations resolution, or in their case resolutions, which will have widespread support and which they can back. If a European security and defence policy is to have any import, any meaning, and if the European members of our alliance have such disparate positions over such a crucial issue as the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, what future is there for the more complex situations in the Balkans, the near east and elsewhere? We have to work on concerting our position.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: I will not because time is short.
In this regard I am concerned by the duality of responsibility between the European Union's so-called High Representative, the former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, and the External Affairs Commissioner. The Front-Bench spokesman rightly reminded us of the dangers that can exist to the effectiveness of our response in a crisis, if the respective staffs of the European Union and of NATO come up with different views and options. That could confuse what is already probably a difficult situation to respond to. If there are to be differences of opinion between the External Affairs Commissioner and the High Representative, it bodes doubly ill. If the European Union is to pursue this path, I urge that it must do so under the stewardship of the High Representative because at least he will be answerable to the Council, and it is the Council who are the representatives of national Governments, and the national Governments who are providing the armed forces and making the decisions about any European military response.
ESDP must have a responsibility to combat terrorism—something that has not been spelled out in the Petersberg tasks. I spelled it out in my report to the Assembly of the Western European Union on the military means to combat terrorism, which was passed by the Assembly in June. I earnestly hope that if ESDP is to be significant, this nettle will be grasped. Par excellence, if the ESDP is about peacemaking, those who are in the business of brutal murder and imposing their will by terrorist methods should be enemy number one.
We—the national parliamentarians who vote the funds and supply the Defence Ministers who have to make the decisions—should provide the scrutiny of ESDP. This has been discussed in the convention and my earnest hope is that because of the crucial link that we represent between the people whose taxes provide the resources that we allocate to defence, we will have the duty of scrutiny. In so doing, we should take the crucial decisions about mobility and, for example, the tankers that we need, as well as the A330/200, and other decisions in relation to the ability to project power and to be more flexible and effective.
In conclusion, I repeat the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, who said that the quality of our armed forces in these

539
enterprises is crucial. I ask the Government to come to the House and say why, at Deepcut, there seems to be a fundamental breakdown in discipline. Officers' heads should roll and there should not be such a succession of scandals and suicides. It indicates to me that something is fundamentally wrong. Elsewhere our armed forces do us credit. This episode does not.
4.52 pm
Paul Flynn: In June, a group of scientists from America packed a container with uranium, loaded it on a train in Austria and sent it through Turkey and across the sea to America. They landed it on the American coast, and it is now lodged in the heart of New York. They did that to make the point that although the container went through border controls and tests—it was active uranium, so it should have been detected—no one detected it.
We should ask what is the greatest risk. There is no safe course ahead, but we must find the least perilous course. We all felt a chill of fear when we saw the pictures of the chemical weapons protection suit that has now been issued to frontline health service workers and when we heard that they have had smallpox injections.
One of my worst experiences during my 15 years as a Member of Parliament was when someone from the city of Newport came back from the Gulf war in a body bag. As a supporter of the Gulf war and of all the other military actions taken by the present and previous Governments, I find myself deeply unhappy with the present proposals because we are taking the wrong course.
What frightens me, as I am sure it frightens everyone, is the terrible nature of biological weapons, which make no distinction between warrior and civilian, young and old, Christian or Muslim. There could be terrible destruction, with diseases that have been dormant since medieval times being unleashed. We know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, but what is the risk? I believe that the greatest or only risk—the only conceivable situation in which he is likely to use the weapons will arise if there is a military invasion of his country. We have heard today that he is a wicked, evil man. He is indeed, but he is not a suicidal maniac.
Every time that Saddam Hussein has attacked a group of people, he has done so in the certainty in his own mind that he was going to win. When he attacked the Kurds in Halabjah, he knew that the rest of the world was not interested and would not help them. When he attacked Iran, he was again certain that the Ayatollah was a weak leader whose country was in chaos, and he was sure that he would have an easy victory. He attacked Kuwait in the belief that the American ambassador had given him an assurance that the Americans would not intervene. Under what circumstances would this man, the great survivor, attack another state? Under what circumstances would he use his weapons of mass destruction?
I do not know of any plausible scenario except one, and it is the one that we are walking straight into. If he is defeated and is in one of his palaces, like Hitler in the Berlin bunker, he might use his biological weapons—not by using his ramshackle missiles, which are useless and cannot be sent far, but by doing a deal with his
540
ideological antithesis, al-Qaeda. In those circumstances, he might well do that, and the horror that we all dread might take place.
The change in the world situation resulted not from what happened on 11 September but from the election of George W. Bush. We should examine the right-wing fundamentalists who are now in government in America and their plans for a new American century, which were drawn up before they took office. They are now fulfilling those plans, which did not start last September. They started when Bush was elected, with a rogue state creation programme.
When Bush took office, the situation between North and South Korea was one of rapprochement. It was going very well, but George W. Bush immediately cancelled a meeting that had been arranged by Madeleine Albright. He tried to turn that rapprochement into antagonism. A mythology was spread about the danger of missiles from North Korea hitting Seattle, when the North Koreans had great difficulty in targeting its missiles on South Korea. He made sure that the situation deteriorated.
The position in respect of Iran was an improving one over many years. There were visits from representatives from western countries, but President Bush has made sure that the situation has grown far worse. With Iraq, there was stability for almost 10 years. Iraq had been contained by the bombing programme, which I fully supported. The inspectors left because they were fed up; they believed that they were close to finding significant weapons, but left because they believed that there was going to be bombing of the sites that they could not inspect. There might have been some justification for action then, but there is no justification now.
The plans from PNAC—the project for the new American century—make alarming reading. They were drawn up not last year, but in 2000. One of them speaks of the American armed forces as
"the cavalry on the new American frontier."
The blueprint supports a document written by Wolfowitz and Cheney—Pearl and Rumsfeld are also involved—that says that the US must
"discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
They talk of regime change not only in Iraq but in Syria and Iran. However, their greatest target is China, which they see as the next state that might challenge them as a new world power.
In an extraordinary speech, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we could become a vassal state of America by abandoning a dearly cherished policy of this country, and of almost all Council of Europe countries—our opposition to capital punishment. Suddenly, we should accept that.
The Americans have said that they regard the United Kingdom as
"the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."
That was and is Bush's policy. He has used the dreadful events of 11 September to accelerate that policy. Most people have forgotten the events that occurred before then.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an interesting point, although we would take his expert views on South America a little more seriously if he had

541
not been an apologist for certain aspects of Pinochet's actions. The hon. Gentleman referred to Colombia. The United States' attempt to impose its failed policies of drug prohibition on a vassal state had dreadful results, leading to continuous chaos and at least three armies, two of which were funded by drugs. What if we apply that policy to Afghanistan? We went in because the Taliban were protecting al-Qaeda. That was a justified objective, and it was successful up to a point. However, another objective was to eliminate the drugs trade from Afghanistan. At the time, as the United Nations has reported, the Taliban had reduced by 92 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas, whereas the Northern Alliance had increased by 300 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas.
Our victory in Afghanistan, if that is what it was, did not decrease the use of drugs and the growth of the drug trade, but if we had gone in with the same policy as the Americans pursued towards Colombia, the drug trade would have expanded in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the country formerly known as Burma, now Myanmar. The worry is that by following the policies of the United States we will see the Colombia-isation of a whole area of mid-Asia.
I have another concern that is discussed only rarely. We have heard of star wars, but other weapons are being planned and may exist. A very interesting one is HAARP—the high frequency active auroral research programme. The Americans view it as having innocent intentions, but it terrifies the Soviet Union and many other countries because its effect has been described as boiling the ionosphere. Terrible weapons might exist beyond the ones of which we are aware.
It is significant that the document on the project for a new American century refers to combat likely to take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes. It says that advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. The people who wrote that and believe that it is the future are in charge of the only superpower in the world. It is a tragedy that we have not taken a more critical stance and challenged them in the way that leaders of other European countries have done.
Finally, I thought that the best speech that I have read, possibly in my life time, on how to deal with the world, how to deal with the third world and how to guarantee peace was made by the Prime Minister at last year's Labour party conference. I urge him to take some time off to read his own words. We should take the least dangerous course, not the most dangerous one.
5.4 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: In listening to the debate, what first comes to mind is that we live in a more dangerous world than ever before. The weakened grip of the old Soviet bloc has unleashed a multitude of regional power struggles, with dictatorships and nascent democracies fighting for influence and recognition within their own continents or, as in the case of Islamic extremism, against anyone who speaks in favour of secularism, liberty and democratic values.
542
Instead of rogue states spending less money on arms, more money than ever is being spent on more powerful weapons, and nuclear proliferation is now a reality of regional power building. Sanctions, for the main part, have had a laughable effect, except of course on the civilian populations of the countries concerned. Be it diamonds in Africa or oil in the middle east, these reserves are not like bank accounts, which can be frozen. Even if Saddam were to allow in the inspectors, his access to 10 per cent. of the world's oil reserves means that he can afford whatever weapons he wants, whenever he wants. Last year, for instance, it is estimated that he earned some $2 billion from oil, despite sanctions and a bad oil market. In this regard, I note how the Government always seem ever so wary of mentioning oil when discussing the possibility of war against Iraq. That, in my view, is wrong, as the effect on world trade of organised market manipulation or embargoes is clearly a significant matter of national interest.
Some people argue that a kind of post-cold war international vacuum has been created, thus undermining the now central role of the United States. Others more blatantly accuse the United States of warmongering or of getting involved only when it suits them and even isolationism. Such arguments are deeply flawed and very dangerous.
What is the ultimate weapon of defence? It is certainly not nuclear weapons or anything to do with the military. It is the growing understanding within most of the developing world of the value of individual liberty, democracy, free enterprise and the liberalisation of domestic and world trade. This message has not been lost on America's enemies, many of whom predicted that the terrible events of 11 September would lead to increased US isolationism and even the end of the world globalisation process. How wrong they have been. The process has been accelerated rather than slowed. In the face of the common terrorist defence threat, developing countries and western countries are seeing more than ever how their common defence interest lies in the development of trading relationships between them and the resulting higher living standards for their peoples. The best example of that was the agreement to move ahead on the World Trade Organisation trade round at Doha, which, prior to 11 September, was on the verge of collapse. However, within two months of 11 September, it suddenly happened because it made people think about the problem.
I mention trade because it is key to understanding the reasons behind the new worldwide, American-led resolve to counter terrorism and to deal with national defence in the new global context. States that were once blacklisted by the United States, such as India and Pakistan, are now back at the table. Relations with China are improving. It is no coincidence that, only a few months ago, China joined the World Trade Organisation and now wants to expand its commercial base.
Diplomatic ties between Russia and the west are increasingly strong, with exchanges of security information and a co-ordinated, albeit different, approach forming. Once again, trade is playing its part in that. Russia, with its significant investments in Iraq, has every interest in retaining interest and dialogue with the United States in preparation for the possibility of a post-Saddam Iraq.

543
The United Kingdom can also see how, working closely with the United States, we can have an influence—for example, in encouraging the US to work with the United Nations, or having a continued involvement in the post-war reconstruction in Afghanistan.
The message is that by standing together we will defeat common threats to world security—that is the message of 11 September and, indeed, of Kuta beach. That has been the basis of our recent successes in putting Saddam Hussein on to his back foot and of NATO's successes in recent decades. Standing together without the ability and ultimate intent of using force will lead to failure. Let us suppose that we took NATO or the United States out of the picture. Consider the prospect of Europe acting alone, with France soft-pedalling on the one hand, and Germany hostile to a firm answer to Saddam on the other. Where would we be now? I would say, "Not very far". How quiet the Government have been recently on the Nice treaty's European security and defence policy—a toothless dead duck of a proposal if I ever heard one. The lesson is clear: we stick with NATO, we do not cut out our allies, such as Turkey, and we do not alienate the United States.
It is refreshing that the Government have stopped talking about a peace dividend—of course, there never was one. Now, we should stop wasting our time on European Union defence and going it alone, with its inherent risk of splitting NATO, we should stop running down our regular forces, stop decimating our reserve forces and put more money into our military so that they can cope with their ever-growing number of operations.
In that regard, November's Prague NATO summit will be very important—not only in terms of the enlargement of NATO and the related reorganisation that that involves, but in providing us with the opportunity to disown the disastrous European defence experiment and to reaffirm our support for NATO and US involvement.
In fairness, the Government talk of supporting NATO, but can they deliver, given the way in which we are heading? While Europe is spending its time fretting about from whom its ever-smaller forces will take orders, America has been spending money on its defence. The problem is that, since 11 September alone, America has spent $48 billion more than Europe, Russia and China combined on its defence. Some people complain about the US unilateralist approach. Indeed, they say that the US has been unwilling to work within NATO in relation to Afghanistan or Iraq. The fact remains, however, that Europe's forces are now so weakened that US unilateralism is becoming increasingly inevitable, even if we say that we are going to support the US with men or indeed just with words.
To that extent, America is fully justified in saying that Europe should be paying more for its own defence—not only to up our game in absolute terms, but even if just to support a keyhole-surgery type approach of targeted rapid reaction and mobility. Let us not forget that the more that we rely on specialist forces, the more that technology comes into play. Here more than anywhere US research investment means that the US is pulling away from us so quickly that arms compatibility within NATO is becoming an ever more serious issue.
544
On equipment, the Government seem concerned about maintaining competition within the arms industry. Some people believe that Europe should jealously guard its manufacturing capability. That may sound attractive, but frankly we have missed the boat, as Europe's historic unwillingness to invest in research now means that we have a great and ever growing reliance on US technology. Why waste time fighting the inevitability of market consolidation? We should actually be prioritising European and US arms compatibility—that is, if we are going to have any sort of industry in Europe at all in future.
The Government also need to be more upfront on the realities of our and Europe's weakening position. Why, for instance, have they been sitting on the fence with regard to America's national missile defence proposals? Earlier today the Secretary of State moved towards a positive position on the issue, but not quite. Surely it is in our best interests that America feels safe from attack. Why not help it to feel safe in a way that would enable us to receive the benefit of the missile shield against nuclear proliferation? Given our overall relationship with America, surely it is highly unlikely that a missile threat against America would not also pose a threat to us.
Effective defence measures do not begin and end with star wars projects. Indeed, our civil defence capability is widely seen as inadequate and underfunded. How many terror incidents must there be before we sort out our civil defence?
Finally, the Government need to appreciate that if we are to maintain our severely stretched operational capability and improve the technical capability of our military, we will simply have to increase spending on our armed forces.
5.14 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: President Bush said last week that the
"campaign against Saddam Hussein is not a distraction from the fight to destroy the al-Qaeda movement."
That is clearly a political statement, and I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are not the same; even if there is sometimes similarity in means, there most certainly is not in nature.
This issue arose as a major point in today's debate, and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman made much of the argument that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are the same. However, those who say that there is a difference are not a small minority—whether in this House, in the country at large, or internationally. Last week, the Democrats in the United States Congress voted by a clear majority against the proposal to allow President Bush to do what he wanted in relation to any form of terrorism. It would be tragic and awkward for the Labour party if we were to be nearer to President Bush's position than that of the Democrats and many people in this country and the United States.
I regularly read American opinion polls, which show fluctuations in the level of support for action against Iraq. The message that is coming through is that the public do see a distinction. They sometimes forget about it, as a poll this week indicated. People were appalled at the aftermath of what happened in Bali, but when they begin to think, they see a clear distinction between what Saddam Hussein is—the threat and the theatre—and

545
what the international terrorist is. Political error will generate error in military policies as well—in this country and in the United States. Once that began to show up in any conflict, the public opinion that supported dealing with the two theatres as one would melt away. Leaders in this country, the United States or elsewhere who argued that position would be seriously isolated from international public opinion.
The global terrorist is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, there have been national terrorists and even international terrorists, as has already been alluded to, but the global terrorist is a reflection of the politically and economically global society that we now live in. The global terrorist is well informed, well trained, well equipped, determined, works under the cover of urban or rural society, and is often prepared to give his life. It might be cowardly to coerce a young militant into giving his life, but it is fanatical and brave and the ultimate sacrifice to be that young militant and to give one's life. My fear is that, by dealing with the two threats as one and further isolating the young Muslim international community from the rest of the world, we will create a breeding ground for more fanatics and more young men who are prepared to be brave and threaten democracy in a much wider forum.
Defending democracy and maintaining a stable society needs a completely different approach from that used in the cold war and post-cold war eras to deal with a conventional threat. We might as well recognise that now in our foreign policy and defence policy, and in the way we allocate public expenditure. If we do not do so, we will be back here again after further atrocities and a further failure to deal with the global terrorist. We will then have to commit ever-increasing resources to deal with an ever-growing situation.
To counter the global terrorist, we primarily need better intelligence. We need a dramatic increase in the existing intelligence provided by the various intelligence agencies, and perhaps we should bring such agencies together in a more co-ordinated way. I give credit to the Government for increasing expenditure on intelligence services. However, £15 million extra out of a combined Foreign Office and defence budget of about £24 billion will be shown to be inadequate. Some members of the Government will probably feel that too, and those who do must fight for better resources for that capacity and for a reallocation of existing resources.
Of course, we also need political association and political understanding, without which there is no point in having more intelligence. We will never be prepared to exchange 100 per cent. of our intelligence information—and we never should—but we need to be prepared to exchange intelligence to tackle a situation, whether in Indonesia, Afghanistan or wherever. We will not be able to share that intelligence, however, unless we share more of a common political platform. We must be able to have a relationship with the moderate states in the middle east, in the far east and in the area around Malaysia and Indonesia. If we do not have a common political cause, there is no way that our intelligence services will be able to share intelligence to track down the terrorist, who is as much of a threat to those societies as he is to the western societies that we inhabit.
546
We need a completely different approach to Saddam Hussein. If he is a threat, and if his arms are about to be used, the measures that I would advocate for countering the individual terrorist and the small terrorist group will not work—more conventional forces, including tanks, air power and so on, will be needed, and we must retain that capacity. At the moment, however, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is as serious a threat as he is made out to be. One might have thought, listening to the Front-Bench spokesmen in the debate that we had on the matter two or three weeks ago, that the Government really had evidence, apart from the dossier, that convinced them that he was a threat. At that time, I began to think that perhaps they had such evidence, as they displayed such determination and unity. I was in the United States last week, however, and one sometimes gets a different picture. The perspective there is different—apart from the situation with the Democrats, to which I have referred—and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is saying in his advice to Congress, "This guy is not an immediate threat, but he will be a threat if you guys let him believe that you are going to attack him." That is a serious flaw in the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. I believe that any pre-emptive strike would be extreme folly.
I do not know what will happen at the United Nations in the debates that follow. I hope that the debate today with members outside the Security Council is informed, and that it takes the United Nations down a route that will allow the situation in Iraq to be resolved, which means the return of the inspectors. It would be wrong, at this stage, to pre-determine what the United Nations reaction should be if the inspectors fail. Let us give them a chance. When they come back, if they say, "We've been obstructed," or "We've failed," it is incumbent on the United Nations to come forward with a further response. However, to argue—as has been argued by people such as President Bush—that our response should be pre-determined, and that everybody should know that Saddam will be attacked whatever happens, is a completely wrong strategy.
That kind of strategy, combined with a failure to understand the distinction between Saddam Hussein and the international terrorist, will lead many young Muslims worldwide into the hands of those who are prepared to commit atrocities. I do not believe that such people want to commit atrocities; I do not believe that they are any different from us as human beings. I believe that their political system has driven them into a situation in which it becomes honourable, as it was in the crusades, to commit one's life for a cause. That is highly dangerous for the developed world and for the world that wants to be based on democracy. That is why we must counter it.
I wanted to make one or two further comments, but I am mindful that other colleagues also want to speak. I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
5.24 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he thought that there was a new phenomenon of international terrorism. I recall that phenomenon some time ago in the shape of Carlos the Jackal, a rather successful international terrorist, the

547
Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Army Faction. I recall something else about all those terrorist groups. It was always denied that anyone else was behind them and it was denied that they were covertly funded, supplied and supported by the enemies of western democracy. Do you know what happened, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the end of the cold war when the wall came down and the secrets were exposed to public view? It turned out that those groups had been funded by the conventional enemies of western democracy and many of them were dug out from their boltholes in the former Soviet Union and the disgustingly named "socialist democratic republics" of its evil empire, which we were so lucky to defeat.
How did we defeat that evil empire? It was by having what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who I was sorry to see leaving the Chamber as soon as he had finished his speech, called the US war machine and the British war machine. The funny thing about machines is that they are as good or as bad as the purposes to which they are put. I think that the nuclear weapons of the US and British war machines have rather a lot to their credit. Post-Hiroshima and post-Nagasaki, in all the time that they existed, they never killed anyone. However, weapons, such as the knives and the machetes that were used in Rwanda, killed a great many people. Therefore, to generalise about weapons without reference to the nature and track record of the people who possess them and to the intentions of the people who might use them is to miss the whole point of the debate.
We have heard some interesting remarks about how brave it is of these young men to sacrifice themselves. I do not think that it is very brave to sacrifice oneself in a cause when one has been indoctrinated with blind hatred and with a belief that, if one sacrifices oneself in the cause, one will go to paradise and have a much better existence after one's death than one has now. Far from being brave, it is the essence of cowardice to demonstrate one's so-called bravery by taking it out not on people who can hit back but on those who are going about their lawful business, whether at work in an office building or at play in a discotheque. With due respect to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, who knows I like him very much as an individual, it is very foolish to say such things in the House of Commons because it encourages people who are misguided at best and downright evil at worst.
I referred to the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, but the speech of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) was a stark contrast. He made one of the most original and thoughtful speeches in the debate when he referred to ballistic missile defence. I believe that I am right to say that he spent much of his working life before he entered Parliament in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Beard indicated assent.
Dr. Lewis: I am glad that I got that right. The work that he did in the Ministry of Defence with many people from many other political parties probably did a great deal more for peace, security and freedom in this country than the blatherings of those who think that getting rid of our weapons, while allowing dictators such as Saddam Hussein to keep or to acquire them, will lead us to a promised land of peaceful international relations.
548
The Americans' determination to get rid of Saddam Hussein this time has, of course, something to do with 11 September 2001. Even if there were no direct link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it would be relevant for the Americans to consider the fact that, when they dealt with al-Qaeda before 11 September, they knew that it was a highly dangerous organisation that might pose a deadly threat at some unspecified time in the future. They did not act against it, probably because they felt that international and domestic opinion was not strong enough to enable them to act against it. We know what happened—3,000 people were killed. I believe that people at the heart of the American planning machine take the view, and they would be right to do so, that they are not going to make the same mistake with Saddam Hussein.
People say that there is no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein, but what is the converse of that proposition? Surely we are not supposed to wait until there is a threat so close to us that it would be much more dangerous to act against him than it is now. If the truth be told, and I say with no sense of undue pride that I mentioned this in debates dealing with the bombing of Iraq two or three years ago—long before the events that we are nowconsidering—the real mistake was made by the Americans and the British Conservative Government in 1991, when they failed to finish off Saddam Hussein. They were concerned that a coalition might break down, leading to adverse consequences in the political set-up of the middle east. Because they ducked that decision then, we now face a harder decision. That was a mistake; we must not make the same mistake now and store up even greater trouble for ourselves in future.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, asked about the circumstances in which Saddam Hussein might use nuclear weapons. He said that the most likely circumstance is that of an attack on Iraq, when Saddam would have nothing to lose. That over-simplifies matters, because Saddam may have nothing to lose, but the military infrastructure around him will still have a great deal to lose. They will know that if they carry out any order from Saddam Hussein in the course of an overwhelming military attack from a western coalition, which is what it will be if it happens, they will face certain annihilation. The best way to deal with the matter is to deal with the threat before it gets more and more certain that Saddam Hussein will acquire more deadly weapons of mass destruction than he already has and be able to hold the region, if not the world, to ransom.
One of the strange things that Saddam and al-Qaeda have in common is that they were too impatient. Both wanted to act but they did not want to wait. As we now know, if Saddam Hussein had waited two years to invade Kuwait, the scenario would have been very different. If he had waited that long, he would have had a nuclear bomb, so the west's response would have been more cautious and indecisive, and that would have shifted the balance of strategic considerations, possibly decisively, against what still deservedly carries the name of the free world.
Make no bones about it, hon. Members should be aware of the fact that there is no disgrace in referring to the strategic importance of the resources of the middle

549
east; there is no disgrace in referring to the oil-richness of the middle east; and there is no disgrace in recognising that Saddam Hussein wanted to go into Kuwait precisely because he wanted those resources and, above all, to deny them to states that he regards as enemies.
I want to cut short my remarks because I know that other Members wish to speak. I shall conclude with the briefest of references to NATO's upcoming, vital summit in Prague on 21 and 22 November. When that event occurs, there will be an enlargement of NATO. Nobody knows yet how many countries will join; it could be up to six or seven. That enlargement will involve a significant increase in NATO's obligations. If that occurs and it works—I think that it will do so—NATO will once again have triumphed in showing international society that it is possible to work together co-operatively in matters of vital national and international significance without undue loss of individual sovereignty. I think that the Americans put up with the idea of a rapid reaction force outside NATO because they thought that it might help the Europeans to contribute more ships, aircraft and soldiers. That is not going to happen and they know it. Thank goodness they are now setting about creating a real rapid reaction force that is inside the structure of NATO and is not futilely placed outside it so as to confuse, weaken and undermine all that NATO has achieved in years gone by.
5.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before posing certain questions of a technical nature of which I have given notice to the Ministry of Defence, may I express a passionate view? A country cannot ask its service men and women to put their lives at risk in circumstances where it is not the overwhelming settled conviction of the country that the cause is legitimate, just and sensible.
Whether I like it or not, I opposed the Falklands war, but I recognise that the overwhelming view of this country was that action should be taken. Yes, I opposed the Gulf war, but I recognise that the overwhelming conviction of the country was that something should be done about the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, I opposed what happened in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and what a mess they are turning out to be. Nevertheless, there was again a very strong feeling that something should be done.
On this occasion, it is far from the settled conviction of Britain that there should be a pre-emptive strike against Iraq without an updated and unmanipulated United Nations decision. Therefore, I agree with the former commander of 7th Armoured Brigade, of which I was once a very junior member, Major General Patrick Cordingley, and many other military people—this is not just the usual suspects—on the very widespread view in this country that we should not take military action without United Nations authority. When one sees all the unaligned countries lining up to express doubt, when President Putin, frankly, puts our Prime Minister in a very humiliating position, and when France and Germany are against such action, we should have no truck with it.
I should like to ask certain questions of a technical nature. Will the Minister state categorically that the WE177 tactical nuclear bombs have not been returned
550
from storage for deployment in the middle east? In that regard, it is not appropriate to use the "neither confirm nor deny" formula. That does not apply to those weapons, as it is this Government who went on the public record to say that they had been withdrawn from service.
I should like also to ask about the weaponry on the British territory of Diego Garcia and particularly the B61-11 tactical nuclear earth-penetrating weapons for destroying bunkers. Again, it is not good enough to give a "neither confirm nor deny" answer. We are heading for a war in which an opponent may, if cornered, use chemical and biological weapons. A potential nuclear response would, first, be the first use since Nagasaki 57 years ago; secondly, break the most important threshold in modern war; thirdly, put Britain at risk of a terrorist response with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons; and, fourthly, make the world a much more dangerous place. In those circumstances, the House of Commons has every right to know exactly what is happening on the British territory of Diego Garcia, which is, incidentally, the biggest American base outside the continental United States.
Finally, and at a little length, I ask Ministers for a response to information from the autumn 2002 issue of "Defence Review" on contamination. There could be a chemical and biological weapon counterattack. In those circumstances, British forces, superbly trained, along with American forces would probably press home their attack and Iraqi troops would surrender. But the UK and US weapons systems might be covered with sarin, soman, ebola or VX, which could spread death for decades. The successor Government to Saddam Hussein, if that were the case, might well refuse to decontaminate them.
We are faced with real problems of noxious agents. Kuwait would certainly refuse to accept them. One would have to dismantle the facilities, or bring them home. Bringing home such equipment would involve very considerable difficulties, so there would have to be sealift. There would be problems for the shipping companies—decontaminating shipping is extremely complex. Few ports would accept contaminated nuclear material or material contaminated by biological agents. Royal Navy ships might well not want to risk, at best, a long time in dry dock, or, at worst, being scrapped after bringing CBW home.
For the sake of time, I shall quote directly from "Defence Review", which states:
"Even this shipping scenario is based upon a big assumption: that the decontamination at source is judged to be 100 per cent. successful. The difficulty with decontaminating military platforms is that they all have moving parts. While the outside may be clean, agents may have penetrated parts of the vehicle, such as bearings, and be impossible to reach unless the whole vehicle is taken apart and each piece cleaned. Biological agents have a fixed life in the open, but in the dark, warm sheltered parts of some vehicles they could have their life extended exponentially. This raises the question of how clean is clean?
Ministry of Defence vehicles undergo regular routine maintenance and, if the experts are not 100 per cent. sure that they are clean, then all mechanical and electrical engineers will have to be enclosed in full IPE. This imposes a huge physiological and physical burden and makes basic tasks onerous."
That is the kind of difficulty that we will have to face if Saddam Hussein is cornered. What is the Government's response?

551
We are up against a situation in which there has been a coup in the United States—a very American coup. As some of my colleagues have said, a narrow group of neo-Conservatives around Bush have taken control of US security policy. They are not true representatives of that great country and they are dangerous to us all. We should exercise every caution about following American policy, given the leadership of the United States in 2002.
5.44 pm
Angus Robertson: The issue of global terrorism is clearly at the top of the agenda following the tragedy in Bali, and I associate myself, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru completely with the condemnation of that attack by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. As has been pointed out by many, including Vice-President A1 Gore, the recent increasing concentration on Iraq should not detract from the challenge posed by terrorism and al-Qaeda. However, I shall focus my comments not on geostrategic or tactical questions posed by the campaign against terrorism or on whether or in what form there should be military intervention in Iraq, but on preparedness for any eventualities.
The Scottish National party position against unilateral military action by the UK and the US is clear and unambiguous, and we hope to see the start of weapons inspections soon. Nevertheless, should it come to pass that our service personnel have to take part in multilateral or unilateral action, I am keen to seek reassurance from the Government on a number of fronts.
The Minister will be aware of my constituency interest in the matter, as many of the current air operations over the middle east and Afghanistan involve personnel from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in Moray. I was pleased to meet many of them in theatre recently while on a visit to bases in the region, together with the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham). I put on record my thanks to the RAF and the Ministry of Defence for the excellent tour, which was valuable for learning the views of men and women in the UK armed forces in the region. It is those service people who are at the front line of any potential offensive against Iraq.
Initial reports suggest that any eventual UK military operation in Iraq will also involve an enlarged armoured brigade and air support. Two Scottish regiments—the Scots Dragoon Guards and the Black Watch—are currently assigned to the Desert Rats and they could play a part in any deployment. In addition, Scottish-based Tornado and Nimrod squadrons are expected to be involved.
For that reason, there is a particular interest in Scotland about how those service personnel, either recruited or stationed north of the border, are likely to participate in any eventual action, and whether worries about equipment and Gulf war syndrome have been fully addressed. Bearing in mind the experience of the UK's Operation Granby as part of Desert Storm in the last Gulf war, there are still serious concerns about Gulf war syndrome and how those afflicted have been treated since the conflict.
Can the Minister confirm whether the same mixture of vaccines used to inoculate our troops the last time is likely to be used in the future, and what monitoring
552
procedures are in place for theatre operations to detect emerging symptoms similar to those suffered the last time that troops were involved in offensive action? Those are concerns that have been articulated to me and other Members by service personnel, and they deserve an answer.
Military sources also show that the UK is likely to be asked to produce a force at divisional strength of around 25,000 men. Ministers will be well aware of the problems highlighted by the National Audit Office about the most recent military exercises in Oman. Operation Saif Sareea II highlighted how essential military equipment failed to deal with the extremes of desert warfare. Soldiers' boots fell apart and armoured vehicles, guns, helicopters and heavy lifting equipment could not deal with the heat.
UK armoured regiments will use the same Challenger tanks that were used in Oman, despite the discovery that that desert dust clogged up the tanks' air filter so that they could operate for only four hours. Quite apart from interoperability difficulties with the United States, the filter issue is key. I was glad to see that assurances were given to the Select Committee on Defence yesterday that contingencies have been arranged to deal with that. Can the Minister confirm how long it will take to fit filters on more that 200 Challenger tanks? Have the filters already been constructed?
Following on from the NAO report, further questions remain unanswered. Have modifications been made to the plastic air filters on AS90 artillery pieces, which melted in operation Saif Sareea II in Oman? What improvements have been made for radio communication? Given that the Bowman system is not expected until 2004 at the earliest, will UK troops still depend on Clansman, which is not secure, or will they have to depend on mobile phones, as they did in Kosovo?
In addition, there are the questions that continue to surround the SA80 rifle. There is no doubt about the weapon's accuracy and balance, but it has been prone to a long list of defects that have been debated often in the House and which the Government assure us have now been dealt with by the Heckler and Koch upgrade. Nevertheless, there has been a profound lack of trust in the weapon's reliability, and many service men tell me that they would far prefer to see the SA80 replaced by the M-16 or M-4 carbine.
Is the Minister confident that, with the upgrade and new cleaning guidelines for the SA80 A2, we will not see a repeat of the experience of 45 Commando during Operation Jacana in Afghanistan? Are there any contingency plans to replace the SA80 at short notice if the realities of desert combat show that the weapon is still not reliable?
All those questions are legitimate and have been posed by members of the service community. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to answer them without claiming that plans are not being drawn up by the MOD for future eventualities in Iraq. Plans are being drawn up, strategies are being developed, assets are being ring-fenced, spares are being cannibalised and service men and women have been told when they can expect leave to be cancelled.
All this also has a potential domestic impact. The call-up of reserve and Territorial Army medics would have an impact on the national health service, and account

553
must also be taken of the impending industrial dispute involving the Fire Brigades Union. Until recently, the Black Watch and the Scots Dragoon Guards were reportedly on stand-by for firefighting duty, but they have now returned to normal military training. While the ring-fencing of combat units based in Germany may be prudent in military planning terms, it raises questions about how domestic fire cover could be optimised if there were a strike. Similar manpower shortages are also likely to be highlighted in other areas, should there be a substantial additional deployment.
In the RAF alone, there are significant shortages of motor transport drivers and cooks following the increase in contractorisation. That puts an enormous strain on those serving in those blue-suit roles who already seem to be on the permanent detachment rotation. What contingency plans are being made to diminish the pressures on those and other key roles in the services? I am certain that, in his reply, the Minister will rightly praise the professionalism of the armed services, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, the questions that I have posed have been raised by service men and women, and the issues are vital to the future of operations that may take place sooner rather than later.
5.51 pm
Geraint Davies: Saddam Hussein polled 100 per cent. of the vote in a recent referendum not because of his telephone canvassing and popularity but because the main hope in life for most people in Iraq is to die a natural death—there is so much torture and execution there. He is not only evil but dangerous. He has invaded his neighbours in Iran and Kuwait, sent missiles to Israel, and killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Indeed, he killed his own son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in 1995–after he had disclosed plans for the manufacture of nuclear warheads—along with some 40 members of his family.
Since the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, we have faced a threat that means that if we do not act, Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons, at which point it will be too late to use military force to decommission them. Many Members have pointed out that if we do anything to Saddam Hussein, he will unleash weapons of mass destruction such as biochemical weapons. Surely the argument must be that the longer we wait, the worse the threat of unleashing mass destruction becomes, particularly when he equips himself with nuclear weapons. That is why it is imperative that the United Nations act to enforce the decommissioning of his weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has not helped itself, because its attitude towards world affairs is demonstrably one of self-interest rather than world interest. We have only to look at Kyoto, in relation to the environment, or the effect of steel tariffs on free trade. There are also question marks over human rights in relation to the United States' lack of support for an international court. Indeed, the situation in Camp X-Ray is not altogether acceptable. One of my own constituents has been incarcerated there for nearly a year without any rights and without being charged. He should be either charged and punished or repatriated. Nevertheless, action must be taken before it is too late.
554
As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is important that we obtain a United Nations resolution that is simple and achievable, and that commands the respect of the rest of the United Nations. It is unacceptable to couch a resolution in terms of requiring 600 prisoners of war to be accounted for, or requiring the end of persecution and oil smuggling, or the provision of US armed guards. Such a resolution would not be accepted by others, and would inevitably trigger a war if implemented.
The Bali tragedy underlines the value of united action on world affairs. America has the economic and military might to act unilaterally to bring about regime change. However, that would be to attack individual countries rather than combat terror. Unilateral, pre-emptive action would open Pandora's box. It would legitimise an attack on Taiwan by China, continuing attacks on Chechnya by Russia, and an attack on Pakistan by India. Legitimising unilateral pre-emptive action would encourage the use, rather than the control, of weapons of mass destruction.
People have asked whether the Iraqi threat can be separated from combating terrorism. Despite what has been alleged, Saddam is a secular tyrant who has killed various mullahs and he is not a friend of al-Qaeda. It is a shame that people confuse the issue. However, managing the Iraqi threat has an impact on the war against terror. As the report by the Council on Foreign Relations disclosed today, the Saudi Arabians are not helping us much in gaining access to the funding streams for terrorism. George Bush's policy is not to use full United States power and influence to combat funding from Saudi Arabia to terrorist organisations. I presume that the reason for that is his short-term preoccupation with success in dealing with the threat of Iraq.
Clearly, we must balance our objectives. I hope that the focus and noise from the United States will change slightly after the 3 November congressional elections, when the political focus in America will be on world affairs rather than the awful state of the economy.
The United States needs to build trust in the world by using its diplomatic and economic power to create a better world. That does not simply mean neutralising the threat in Iraq, but using its strength to enforce peace in Palestine. The US is the only nation with the power to do that. In the opinion of many Arab states, unless it sends the right signals to Ariel Sharon, who is not a friend of peace, it will not demonstrate an even-handed approach to world affairs.
We have a historic opportunity not only to neutralise the Iraqi threat but to move forward on Palestine. Britain is the only voice to which the United States listens; it simply dismisses everyone else. We should say that we want a resolution, decommissioning and to avert war, but that decommissioning will occur only with the threat of war. We should also say that we want delivery on Palestine and the rebuilding of Afghanistan. If the global community witnesses solutions emerging in Palestine and the rebuilding of Afghanistan, it is more likely to support a collective ambition to sort out matters in Iraq.
We have an opportunity to make major headway and I hope that the British Government will take the lead in putting other issues on the agenda and in producing a simple, clear resolution about unfettered access and

555
decommissioning. There could then be progress on neutralising the Iraqi threat without necessarily having to resort to war.
5.58 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: The debate bears the all-encompassing title of "Defence in the world". It is therefore unsurprising that contributions have been made on a variety of subjects, not least on the US missile defence programme. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that that vital subject will receive full consideration on the Floor of the House.
Compared with 15 or 20 years ago, the world is a more dangerous place. I have always been sceptical about the concept of a peace dividend. The day the cold war ended and the iron curtain was raised, the world became a less predictable and more dangerous place.
Only today, we have had reports of nuclear proliferation reaching North Korea. I wonder how many other countries are more advanced than we think in obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
We are paying the price for letting our guard down in the aftermath of the cold war and allowing rogue states to poach technicians and technical know-how. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that every necessary resource is being made available to monitor the whereabouts of those scientists and those with technical know-how to stop the spread going any further.
The entrenched positions of the two superpowers during the cold war years had a certain in-built safety. Both sides knew that ultimately the price of conflict would be too high. That created a safety valve, as evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis when the world stood at the brink of a precipice. That has now been replaced by asymmetric threats and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a result, any threat will be non-discriminatory and non-proportional. There is no longer any division between conventional or legitimate targets and innocents as we understand them, the recent tragic events in Bali being just such an example. We must therefore learn to adapt our military capabilities and our ability to respond quickly and effectively to match the changed nature of these threats.
I wonder whether recent events have changed the support of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for a European Union rapid reaction force. There is a real probability that the Prime Minister, by identifying himself so closely with America, has inflicted untold damage on his relations with both the French and the Germans. What if the United States, backed by the United Kingdom, goes it alone in Iraq, with or without the requisite UN Security Council resolution? Where would that leave dreams of a rapid reaction force?
We know that the United States is pressing NATO to constitute a special unit to combat terrorism, with 21,000 soldiers to be ready at short notice. We know also that the United States expects to participate in such a venture, but that Europe is to provide most of the soldiers. It is said that the force would be operational by October 2006. Perhaps most intriguing of all is that NATO would take decisions about when and where the force would be used.
The report that I read went on to suggest that Donald Rumsfeld was using talk of a rapid response force to test the commitment and readiness of Europeans and our
556
desire to spend our own money. As America increased its defence budget by $48 billion in the aftermath of 11 September—one-and-a-half times the French defence budget and twice the German budget—the Americans may be guilty of optimism. I would welcome the Secretary of State's comments.
Our immediate domestic concerns must be for those soldiers, sailors and airmen who may be about to be committed once again to a theatre of war. Their equipment must be of the highest order, and I was reassured by the Secretary of State's comments on the SA80 A2 rifle. Their families must be properly looked after. Any assessment of overstretch must take into account the long periods of enforced separation for those families. We must not denude one area of commitment to shore up another. I have Northern Ireland in mind, where the suspension of Stormont may mean that the police force needs even more, not less, support from the Army.
We need a guarantee that our troops will be properly prepared to meet any chemical or biological attack. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government are 100 per cent. happy this time about the inoculations that our troops will have to have? Finally, there should be a guarantee that recruits who are attracted to join the forces by the possibility of conflict will be subject to the same rigorous training and standards as normal entrants and that the process will not be accelerated to fill gaps that have been created by undermanning. Nothing must stand in the way of our armed forces and their training, their discipline, their equipment and, ultimately, their professionalism, on which over the coming months we may well come to rely upon once again.
6.4 pm
Jim Knight: Any debate on this subject must address the twin threats of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The attacks of 11 September, and now in Bali, have shown the deadly and ruthless nature of the threat that we must defend against. Despite the success of the action in Afghanistan in removing al-Qaeda's command, control and training, it is clear that dangerous cells remain scattered throughout the globe. Action against those cells requires international co-operation not just on military action, but on finance, intelligence and so on, and that must happen. There is an international will to have an international response to terrorism, but there is not the same will to act against rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq, which will form the main part of my contribution.
It is clear from constituents who have contacted me that there is still considerable concern about such action. The public need to be convinced about the threat. Intelligence information has convinced me that Iraq is capable of delivering warheads equipped with weapons of mass destruction to targets in the middle east. Coupled with Saddam's past record on Iran and his treatment of his people, that capability constitutes a threat to the middle east, including our NATO allies.
The threat must be taken seriously because if Saddam is left as he is, the threat will grow, and with it his power over his neighbours, over whom he can exercise the power of a bully and the power of fear. I would not rule

557
out military action as a means of dealing with the threat, but to justify taking such action now requires a belief that a failure to do so carries risks so great that they outweigh the dangers inherent in such action. It would be dangerous in the extreme to take military action without at least the tacit support and agreement of a significant majority of nations in the region. Although the vast majority of middle eastern states clearly do not support Saddam, it appears that the prospect of military action attracts even less backing. It is similarly vital that we guard against inflaming radical Islamic elements. We must minimise the likelihood of sparking terrorist outrages akin to those in Bali at the weekend.
The public need the reassurance that the UN is sufficiently convinced by the case made by the Bush Administration and, to some extent, our Government. They do not trust the United States and bilateral action with it would isolate us in the world in the way that we want Iraq to be isolated. I would be equally wary of military action that promised to achieve a regime change. It would be great to see the back of Saddam and it may be necessary to end his regime, but that must not be the end in itself. Any military action must focus on the outcome of dismantling Iraq's destructive capabilities, not on regime change for its own sake. Furthermore, any military approach needs to be achievable while minimising the loss of civilian life. Previous experience has shown us that Saddam positions many of his key installations close to heavily populated areas, and military strategy must take that into account.
In simple terms, I could support action if it is backed by the UN, but it should not be seen as giving in to the ambitions of the United States. This country places little trust in the Bush Administration. The same is true of Europe and across the world. A year ago, they had the world's sympathy. Sadly, it appears that they have lost it. Prior to 11 September, the US was retreating from the world and withdrawing from international commitments such as Kyoto. After the attacks, it showed great restraint and responded with broad international support in Afghanistan. However, in the past six months we have had the US steel tariffs, the Farm Acts, the blocking of progress in Johannesburg and the refusal to sign countless international treaties. The Administration's promises to rebuild a civil society in Afghanistan are yet to materialise. Meanwhile, President Bush pursues his axis of evil and, as a result, countries such as Iran worry that they may be next. There is also the lack of US sanction against the Israeli Government, which has been well discussed in the House. For those reasons, it has been a struggle for many to understand why our Government appear to remain so close to the Bush Administration.
We are beginning to see beyond that public face, however. We are a constraining influence in Washington. Our voice has more than once tilted the balance of arguments between hawks and doves in the White House. There have been several instances in which our Government's quiet influence on US policy has resulted in a more measured approach to conflicts around the world. If a shoulder-to-shoulder public stance allows a small nation to wield a moderating influence in private over a dangerous belligerent
558
superpower, it is a price worth paying. There is also a clear justification in maintaining pressure on Saddam. He needs to understand that there is no alternative but to co-operate with the UN. The prospect of military action must focus his mind. It may be right to act now with force, but only with the international authority of the UN, not with the imperial authority of the US.
We must tackle our threats robustly but in an environment of a globalised threat. The response must be global, based on international co-operation with other Europeans, NATO allies and former cold war enemies, so that we have a legal, principled and justifiable response to the rogue elements that constitute the threat.
6.10 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: About an hour ago I was hoping that my speech would take a gentle trot through the issues of NATO missile defence, Iraq and so on, but I am afraid that the House will now be treated to a hectic gallop. In the short time that I have available, I shall focus on the issue of pre-emption, which was raised at the beginning of the debate but which has not been touched on in detail by other hon. Members.
I briefly preface my remarks with a comment about the parliamentary armed forces scheme. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) mentioned HMS Grafton. In August I was fortunate enough to be one of four hon. Members to be on HMS Grafton. The scheme is excellent and well organised and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of that tremendous crew and its captain. According to recent reports they secured a £60 million drugs haul and that is very much to their credit. Since then, there have been reports that the patrol may be part of a possible range of cuts of 10 surface ships. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able categorically to deny that.
I now turn to pre-emption. Just a month ago in September, the United States Government published their national security strategy, setting out their aims and ambitions quite clearly. In many ways it is clearer than many documents produced by our Government. At its heart is a clear change in defence strategy from the doctrine of deterrence to that of pre-emption. It states:
"We will not hesitate to act alone if necessary, to exercise our right of self defence by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."
As hon. Members will appreciate, the US Government are effectively basing their doctrine on the principle of national self-defence. Indeed, they refer to article 51 of the UN charter. Whether or not we agree with that point, such a doctrine poses fundamental military, political and diplomatic questions. In military terms, for example, what forces will we need in future? What balance will we need between regular and special forces? What effect will pre-emption have on the existing distinction between military action and law enforcement agencies—a distinction that is becoming increasingly blurred. Politically, does pre-emption require greater international collaboration, especially in terms of intelligence agencies, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said? What does

559
this mean for our civil rights? Is there a danger that in trying to defend our freedom, we could snuff it out in the process? In terms of NATO, will the principle of preemption mean that we now need to review the very heart of the Atlantic treaty, in other words the principle of collective self-defence in article 5?
All those questions need to be considered and debated, and sadly I do not have the time to do that. I have looked for a detailed analysis from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a detailed analysis and assessment from the Ministry of Defence as to whether, why and how the Government intend to replace deterrence with pre-emption, but aside from the odd unscripted comment from the Prime Minister and the slightly inadequate comments from the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate, the Government still seem unwilling to consider fully the implications of pre-emption and then to allow us to participate in such a debate.
I conclude with a few questions for the Minister, and I hope that he will respond to them at the end of the debate. What studies have the Government commissioned to consider the military, political and security implications of the pre-emptive doctrine? What discussions have taken place between Departments on this issue and what opportunities—as have been cited for missile defence—will be provided for the House to consider the policy and make sure that we understand it and can work out the implications of it. This is a vital issue that shapes the whole of our defence, and I hope that the Minister will address it fully in his reply.
6.15 pm
Rachel Squire: Like others, I hope for another opportunity to say something about the new chapter of the strategic defence review, which deals with network-centric capability, defence diplomacy and NATO enlargement. Only a few minutes are available to me, however, and I know that another Member has been waiting to speak. I shall therefore concentrate on the theme of partnership and co-operation.
As a nation, we cannot go it alone. We are an island, but if we are to defend our homeland effectively and protect our interests across the world we must cooperate on a global basis. An effective UK defence policy must take the world as its backdrop. International terrorism takes the lives of British citizens wherever they are on the planet, as we have seen again this week so tragically in Bali. I know that all Members will extend their deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured there.
We cannot hope, as a nation, to have soldiers stationed in every part of the world where there are British citizens. We must co-operate with Governments and allies to share intelligence, and to detect and then deal with terrorists. We must also co-operate to tackle the causes of terrorism and promote international development, peace and stability, and law and order. I believe that the United Kingdom has played a vital role over the years, especially since 11 September. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Government and all involved for what they have achieved, and to our armed forces for maintaining their excellent reputation for professionalism and skill in all parts of the world.
560
I shall concentrate on Iraq in the time that remains to me. All alliances have their tensions, and never is that more so than in the case of the United States. We as a country must constantly assess what we consider to be in our interests. When we encounter real or potential disagreement with the United States, where do we draw the line?
For me and, I think, for my constituents, these are the key questions that should decide the extent to which we should support US policy on Iraq and be prepared to take military action without United Nations approval. Why now? What is unique about Iraq? In particular, what is unique about North Korea, given today's news? What type of military action would be effective, and what will it achieve, given that Operation Desert Fox seemed to have little or no effect? What price will be paid by our troops, by the Iraqi people and by the global coalition if we go in without UN approval? And what next for the nation of Iraq?
"Why now?" is the question that I am constantly asked by my constituents, meaning "Why didn't we finish him off in 1991?", to put it bluntly—and also meaning "Why now, when there appears to be no evidence of a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda and 11 September?" I have to say that the dossier, horrifying as it is, does not present to me sufficient new evidence to support a pre-emptive strike without UN approval.
Let me end by suggesting to President Bush and his advisers that they should read the first paragraph of our MOD's "The Future Strategic Context for Defence". Under the heading "A Lesson from History", it says
"In 546BC, Croesus King of Lydia was considering the possibility of mounting a pre-emptive attack across the River Halys against his increasingly threatening Persian neighbours. Undecided how to act, he consulted the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi on his prospects for success. 'Croesus, if you cross the Halys you will destroy a mighty empire' came the divine response. Delighted, Croesus proceeded to launch his attack, only to suffer a shattering defeat. His empire was annexed by the Persians."
It then says at the bottom:
"Accurately predicting the future course of military events is a tricky business."
6.20 pm
Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) with her usual trenchant common sense—something to which we are used on the Select Committee on Defence. It is also a pleasure to attempt to follow the Father of the House. I, too, was a member of the 7th Armoured Brigade, albeit at a rather different stage. One or two of the hon. Gentleman's remarks bear further examination.
I, too, feel passionately that our men and women under arms should be committed to battle understanding the legality and rectitude of their course. It would be wrong for our forces to go into action without that being fully explained and without the country behind them. I hope to ask the Government to make it clear why our men and women, to borrow a phrase from President Bush, should put themselves in harm's way and with a clear conscience.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about the lines of operation for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist tactics in

561
future. At the Prague summit the biggest challenge that will lie ahead of the reforged and regrouped NATO will undoubtedly be creating a force that is sufficiently light on its feet to do this sort of operation. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) pointed out, the 21,000 soldiers are likely to be earmarked for counter-terrorist operations. They will have to carry out political, economic, psychological, humanitarian and military lines of operation. The theories of counter-insurgency that have served us well for 30, 50 or perhaps 100 years are now looking a bit dated. NATO's challenge will be to adapt to a doctrine of pre-emption that may involve an early deployment of food aid rather than Tomahawk missiles. Our forces have to he capable of dealing not just with policemen—that point was made eloquently earlier—but with non-governmental organisations, and of dishing out food and, if necessary, violence. That will be difficult. Not many nations can handle that correctly. I think that our forces can. NATO will find it difficult and it will be a challenge.
Moving swiftly on, the Government should point out that the nature of al-Qaeda and in particular the fundamentalists whom we are seeing now operating in Indonesia is wholly different from anything that the papers would lead us to believe. Headlines such as, "Terror is Back" after the Bali bomb are wholly misleading. It is a tribute to the security and intelligence forces around the world that attacks like that on the French tanker came to not very much. It succeeded, but it did not kill—I believe it killed one man. There are a host of other operations mounted by such terrorists that are not successful and do not make the headlines. We must understand that the potential for violence is always there and that the devices such as we have seen in Bali are just around the corner.
It is not helpful either to compare al-Qaeda or any of their cohorts with the IRA. We can understand the IRA. It even had platoons, battalions and companies. Al-Qaeda and this style of fundamentalism is more a philosophy than a military force. Until we get our heads round that, we shall see continuing the ludicrous headlines that we have seen this week and we shall be unprepared for the next strike.
Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's Bali statement, in which he made a clear distinction between weapons of mass destruction and global or international terrorism. Many of the eloquent statements that we have heard tonight have come from Members who believe that those are two distinct themes; they may be complementary but, at the moment, they are not merging. They are separate and although they may feed off one another, they do not require pre-emptive action to stop the two becoming one. However, the Prime Minister has made the point clearly that the two might merge, with horrific consequences.
I urge Ministers to answer this question: why in the dossier was there no section concentrating on international or global terrorism? Why was the famous link not made between Baghdad and al-Qaeda? I understand the argument, which has been well made tonight, about source protection, but the fact remains that, from open sources, we have heard about the operations of people like Ansar al-Islam; groups operating in Iraqi Kurdistan that are armed, equipped,
562
paid and trained by Baghdad, partially manned with al-Qaeda members and with every intention—if what the papers tell us is true—of operating against western targets. There are any number of other indications of the connection between the two.
Mr. Rumsfeld has made it clear in America. His defence on this point has been to say, "Look. We are the Government. We have access to excellent intelligence. Believe us and trust us." I have not yet heard that argument deployed by the British Government. I believe that it would be effective and persuasive. I challenge Ministers to convince us—to convince the doubters—of the rectitude of their cause. I challenge the Government to make sure that our fighting men and women are ready and properly motivated to fight, and know that they go forward with a just cause behind them.
A few days ago, it was Bali. Next week, next month or next year, it could be Basingstoke. Next time, however, it will not be several hundred pounds of plastic explosive. It could so easily be a nuclear warhead. Let us operate before we become victims in the way that other unfortunates have.
6.27 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: We have heard a series of powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, representing different opinions and mainly focusing on the threat from Iraq and from international terrorism. As a former Whip, I can say that, without exception, all speakers have been volunteers; no speakers have been dragged in to fill up the debate.
We should distinguish between those colleagues who, despite the evidence produced by the British or American Governments, remain unconvinced of the threat from Iraq, and many other colleagues—who I suspect reflect public opinion—who are still not convinced but would like to be. This debate is not the end of the matter and we will see it continue over the next two or three weeks.
I was disturbed that some Members tried to make a distinction between President Bush and members of his Cabinet, and the American people. They suggested that President Bush is some form of demented lunatic who is about to lead the world into world war. I remember similar accusations being made in the 1980s about President Reagan. Whatever President Reagan's faults and whatever issues he got wrong, he was broadly correct in his assessment of the international scene.
The United States of America is a superpower, a large and powerful one that ultimately underpins the United Nations. If we want the will of the United Nations to be enforced, it is the United States, for all its many faults, to which we look to deliver the UN's security principles. I therefore caution colleagues who merely wish to make devils out of the present American Administration: we have the ability to talk to them and to influence them.
I suspect that historians will look back on the 1990s as a decade in which we in Britain felt generally safe. I exclude from that statement the people of Northern Ireland and the terrorist threat within the United Kingdom. However, we would probably have to go back 100 years to look for a direct external threat. Most of us who are over 40 know only too well what it is like to live in decades in which we have felt the possibility of

563
direct threat against the United Kingdom. The 1990s was a decade in which, under successive Governments, we were able to think about reducing the amount of defence expenditure and changing what we expected of the military. I believe that that decade is now seen as a period of political transition with, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, increased political instability in every region and proliferation in weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. That was highlighted very eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the strategic defence review was designed to establish a framework for United Kingdom defence and security over the next 10 to 15 years, including an expeditionary force capability, power projection, working within coalitions and a new generation of equipment. I remember the debates that we had on that from my time as a Front Bench defence spokesman. In some respects I see that the arguments have not changed, but in others they have changed quite dramatically.
The Secretary of State and Ministers will disagree with me, but there is no doubt that most people in the Ministry of Defence, while welcoming and actively participating in establishing the SDR, believe that it was underfunded. I welcome the increased money that has been given to the Ministry of Defence, although I think that many people in it believe that it amounts to little more than a standstill budget. Before Ministers say that this is merely party politics, I should point out that I think that this is a challenge for all the political parties. The nature of the threat that has been laid out by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and others is on such a scale that it will be challenging, to say the least, to meet our defence requirements, even with our current budget. That will pose many political problems for all the parties.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State effectively said that, under the old SDR, the cut in our volunteer reservists was too great. Colleagues on both sides conducted a great campaign, as a result of which there was a reverse by the Ministry of Defence. There is now a greater requirement than ever before for our reservists.
The debate on defence in the world includes not only power projection and expeditionary force capability but is directly inked with defending the UK against weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. One of the bases of the strategic defence review of three years ago, which most defence opinion believed, was that there was very little direct threat to what the Americans would call the homeland. That has changed quite dramatically. One of the awful ironies of the world in which we live today—the new strategic environment—is that civilians are more likely to be casualties than the military and are certainly more vulnerable, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said.
This debate has shown four key areas where we need to think ahead and, I hope, have future debates. A number of colleagues flagged up the assumption that we are now in an era of pre-emptive strategy and regime change, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prick:), who did so very eloquently. We seem almost to have drifted into that. In
564
the time available, I will not enter into a theological military debate on that subject, but it is an important step change. There are arguments for and against, but I look forward to hearing either the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence enunciating that strategy and why they believe that it is the strategy for the future.
Who am Ito gainsay Professor Sir Michael Howard, who, as retiring president of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, challenged the IISS to do some serious thinking on the subject? That is, first and foremost, a major strategic debate that we need to have. It is not only an academic debate; from it will flow many issues connected with policy, budgets and defence organisation.
A number of hon. Members commented on the second area, which is the development by the United States of a technological war-fighting capability on a mind-boggling scale. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and others touched on this matter, not only in terms of a pre-emptive strategy but also the development of a ballistic missile defence.
Like my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, I warmly welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State. However, the House will recognise that once again the development of a ballistic missile defence has enormous strategic connotations and will be challenging for the defence budget. It also means that we in Britain are just about keeping up with the United States of America in its military technological advances. Most of our European neighbours are way behind, with the exception of France. Unless we are very careful, we are likely to see a two-tier NATO, with the USA on one tier, Britain somewhere in the middle, and the rest of Europe on the other. Within the next two or three years, the difference will be like that between an old horse-drawn, foot-mounted infantry division and a mechanised armoured division. That will mean that the ability of the European members of NATO, including us, to participate in American-style operations will be extremely limited.
The third area, on which once again there was considerable consensus, was the business of reforming NATO. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out the major problems that NATO has in dealing with the new strategic environment and, in particular, the failure of a number of European countries to reverse the cuts in defence budgets, which the Secretary of State flagged up. We have enormous military potential in NATO to meet the sort of threats that we now face, but we really have to do more in that area.
Finally, I shall say a brief word on homeland security. Following 11 September, the Government have begun to take steps to co-ordinate the response to threats against the United Kingdom. I warmly welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand as the security and intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office. He is a man of tremendous experience of the defence and security world. As far as the Ministry of Defence is

565
concerned, the military are in support of the civil power and in most areas the Home Office appears to be the lead Ministry.
In the new chapter of the SDR, we learn that the MOD is establishing a reaction force of reservists—some 6,000—strong—to be capable of a rapid response. May I ask the Minister what progress has been made in establishing this rapid reaction force? What is its organisation? Is it being newly equipped? How is it trained, and to whom is it responsible?
In commenting on the Government's response to the threat of terrorist attack in the UK, the Defence Select Committee's report, "Defence and Security in the UK", stated that the Government were "confusing activity with achievement". That may be unfair as only a year has gone by, but the thesis that I am advancing is that defence in the world is not just about facing threats overseas; as many hon. Members have said, it is about the direct threat to the United Kingdom. That threat will involve deterring terrorists in the belief that, if they try to get weapons of mass destruction or to carry out terrorist acts within the UK, we stand a fair chance of preventing them through intelligence, through our armed forces abroad, and with our allies. Secondly—this is very important in terms of public confidence—if something like that were to occur, we must have the ability and the resources to cope with the aftermath.
Our armed forces bring immense experience to everything from war fighting to humanitarian operations. They are one area of the public sector by which, on every occasion, the Prime Minister knows that he will not be let down. They expect not only our general support, but the resources to enable them to achieve the objectives we set them. In the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism, the distinction between military and civilian has become blurred. There are no quick fixes in this area; as both President Bush and the Prime Minister said, we are in for a long haul. I believe that what the Government are doing is correct, and that they are doing it for the right reasons. In addition, they are doing it because they believe that the threat is so serious that, if we do not take action now, we will bear the consequences on a most horrific scale.
6.42 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I begin by thanking hon. Members for their wide-ranging contributions to today's debate. I was going to say that this was the first outing of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) as a defence spokesperson, but he reminded us that he has done it before briefly.
Mr. Keith Simpson: In opposition.
Mr. Ingram: In opposition, that is. I want to congratulate him on his new role, and I look forward to further debates with him. I wholly agree with the sentiment that he expressed—powerful contributions have been made in this debate, and we all learned from them. Let us hope that that is a two-way process.
Defence in the world is certainly a broad topic, and the contributions to the debate reflect that fact. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about homeland
566
security and defence in the UK, and I should remind him that we will have a full debate on that subject in two weeks' time, so it would be inappropriate to presage it, or even to enter into such a discussion. There will be more time then to deal with that issue in greater depth, and I look forward to his contribution. I will read what he has said, because it has given us heads-up on the possible responses.
Some 20 Members have contributed to the debate, and the issues raised have been wide-ranging: missile defence, the vexed issue of the threat of international terrorism and its relationship to the debate on what we do about Iraq, defence policy, deterrence and preemption, Army manning strength, Challenger 2 tanks, and the recent Saif Sareea training exercise. We also touched on the future of NATO, on UK and international defence budgets, and on UK defence sales—indeed, they are just a few of the issues that were raised.
I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). Although the Scottish National party has recently launched its new policy document, he did not mention it. I hoped that we would get some explanation of it, but I think that it involves Scotland looking inwards, rather than outwards. It is a very interesting policy document running to many pages. What is interesting about it is that it completely fails to mention NATO. We know that the SNP is an anti-NATO party, but the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to set out his arguments in relation to this matter. Bearing in mind that he would campaign to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom, creating uncertainty in an alliance at a time when there is growing threat, we have not had the benefit of his thoughts. Perhaps he disagrees with his party's policy, but he did not tell us that either.
As hon. Members have observed, these are challenging and testing times for defence. We face new threats, and we must urgently seek new ways to protect ourselves, and our interests, from them. That has meant that our armed forces, and the all too often unsung civil servants who support them, have spent the last months working extremely hard as we have tried to update our defence plans and postures. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to that hard work, from which we all benefit. I recognise that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) paid a similar tribute to staff and frontline forces on behalf of their parties.
The al-Qaeda attack in the United States on 11 September last year has been called many things, from a "nightmare" to a "wake-up call". It has certainly instilled a new urgency and a new focus on how best we deal, nationally and internationally, with the increased and continuing threats posed by groups such as al-Qaeda and by rogue states such as Iraq. In opening today's debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a number of important points on which hon. Members have alighted, such as his remarks on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile defence.
On missile defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who, I think, has left the Chamber, made his usual case against the development. As I said earlier, debate is a two-way process, and if he is trying to persuade us, perhaps he should wait and allow those who argue against his case

567
to develop theirs, and he may learn something, too. If he reads Hansard, however, he should read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who made a very thoughtful contribution on what is becoming an increasingly important issue.
On that point, I have nothing new to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said. I can only reiterate that the United States Administration have taken no specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. My right hon. Friend made it clear that if we were to receive a request from the United States to use Fylingdales, or any other UK facility, for missile defence purposes, we would consider it very seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. My right hon. Friend also clarified how this debate will be progressed in the future, and how we will proceed to examine the issue as it develops.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also spoke of our belief in taking the fight to the enemy militarily, and of acting proactively on the diplomatic front to help to defeat terrorism. We are investing heavily in new systems to allow us to do the former, such as the Apache attack helicopter, Eurofighter, the joint strike fighter, the new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy and a host of cutting-edge technology that will better link up such systems in real time.
On the diplomatic front, we are striving to secure and reinforce friendships across the world, offering help in strategic terms and on a humanitarian basis to help destroy the roots of terror before they can grow.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ingram: I would prefer to reply to the points that my hon. Friend raised in the debate. If I have time to take an intervention, I shall do so.
Several points were raised about the suitability of some of our equipment, not least the SA80 personal weapon system. I welcome the comments made by the hon. Members for North Essex and for East Devon (Mr. Swire) accepting the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the matter. The hon. Member for North Essex was, of course, given a full opportunity to examine what testing had been carried out on that weapon system. General Sir Mike Jackson was not at that event, but he is one of the most respected military officers of his generation and the next Chief of the General Staff. He is undoubtedly a soldier's soldier. He has joined the marines and paratroopers who have fought with the SA80 A2 in making it clear that, in their professional opinion, the rifle is among the best available. Those who know General Jackson are aware that he is not a man to be trifled with, and, to those who still have doubts, I say that his judgment and that of other professional experts should be listened to. Politicians and Ministers have a role to play, but the soldiers who use the system will be the best judges at the end of the day.
In the time available, I shall try to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) in an
568
intervention and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred to the recent comments made by the head of the CIA to Congress that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the US. This issue is not just about whether there is an immediate threat to the US or to the UK but about the unique threat that Iraq poses to the middle east and beyond. It is about the increasing threat that Saddam will pose if he is left unchecked. It is about Iraq's clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the purpose of any action that we might take should be the disarmament of Iraq. Let me make it clear that Iraq's disarmament is in our national interest as a responsible member of the international community. It is right to make it the primary purpose of our international efforts.
The hon. Member for North Essex talked about the future of NATO and said how much Saddam Hussein must rejoice at Europe and the US falling out about how to deal with Iraq. The United Nations is clearly there to examine the issue and to try to iron out differences, and not all European countries take the same approach to this issue. Therefore, it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to lump Europe as a whole together and to say that we have fallen out with the US. Such an assertion is wrong. Europe stood united against Osama bin Laden and international terrorism after 11 September, and Europe stands united on the evil nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. The hon. Gentleman's obsession with—probably more accurately against—Europe distorts his judgment on these important issues.
The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "Euro army", but there is no such thing as a Euro army any more than there is a NATO army or a UN army. Nor indeed is there a European rapid reaction force. National forces will come together for specific EU-led military operations as part of the European security and defence policy.
Mr. Jenkin: Why does the force have to be outside NATO? Why is it not inside NATO, as originally agreed in the Berlin-plus arrangements?
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the proposal. The force will not be outside NATO in the graphic way that he described.
Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it will.
Mr. Ingram: I shall not take a pantomime approach, but will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the relationship between NATO and the emerging EU approach and the way in which there will be a connection between NATO assets in command and control terms and the EU.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, because I had promised to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

569
The hon. Member for North Essex made a 50-minute contribution on behalf of the Conservative party and, given his fears and concerns, I wish to ask him who said this:
"The risk to NATO, to the transatlantic link and to the Euro-American relationship does not stem from what Europe is building. This risk could only come from Europe not doing it."
That was said by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's central charge that the US and Europe have fallen out does not appear to be borne out by that statement.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about HMS Sheffield coming out of service and the question of naval strength. For the benefit of the House it is worth pointing out that between 1992 and 1997, under the Tory Government, 43 surface fleet warships were taken out of service. There are particular reasons for taking HMS Sheffield out of service early, one of which is the new cycle of maintenance, which means that ships can be on the surface for longer. We therefore believe that we can operate with 31 ships, rather than 32.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked several questions, and I shall deal with two of them. He asked how the UK would respond to the contamination of British forces' equipment with a biological agent, and he referred to a recently published article on the matter. I assure him that we take very seriously the threat to UK armed forces personnel and equipment of contamination by chemical and biological hazards. I am not prepared to comment on the capabilities of specific equipment because it could have operational implications. We would see any use of CB weapons as extremely serious and treat it accordingly. It would be wrong to speculate on our response because there are so many scenarios.
The UK adopts a multi-layered approach to defence against the use of CB weapons. That includes being able to detect a chemical or biological threat, warning of a hazard, providing physical protection for personnel, managing any subsequent hazards and having available appropriate medical counter-measures to protect people. Primarily we would seek to avoid the contamination of UK forces through the avoidance of direct exposure. However, the contamination of some equipment could be unavoidable. In the events of troops and/or equipment becoming contaminated, decontamination would be undertaken using equipment issued to each unit. The precise nature of that activity would depend on the tactical situation and the level of contamination. The aim would be to enable the unit to remain operational.
My hon. Friend also asked about the WE177 tactical nuclear bombs. That particular weapon has been out of service for some considerable time, and all bombs have been dismantled. I think that my hon. Friend has asked that question before, and been given that answer. I hope that my reply will lay the matter to rest.
I genuinely like the contributions by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He weighs his words carefully and he is very passionate and committed. I rarely agree with him, but I still value his input. However, he made an unfair attack on the staff at
570
the Deepcut depot. The matter must be set in the context of the ongoing police inquiry, which inhibits what I can reasonably say at this stage.
We recognise, however, that deep concerns have been expressed. As a responsible employer, we have in place mechanisms and procedures to examine those concerns. We are therefore looking thoroughly at our internal practices, with a special, in-depth appraisal of initial training of non-officer recruits of all three services. That work is being conducted independently of service and commands, and is directly reported to Ministers. In the spirit of openness the findings will be made public.
I am mindful of the fact that the Defence Committee is due to conduct its own inquiry into this most important of areas early next year, and as ever I look forward to a constructive, critical report. I ask hon. Members to wait for the facts to emerge—many can be speculated on—before reaching judgments on the matter.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is also not in his place, asked about Army manning levels. The current manning requirement is 106,978. That figure was decided on as a result of a review of the Army's future manpower requirement.
As of September 2002, the whole Army's strength stood at 101,665, so there is a significant shortfall, but recent performance has been particularly encouraging, with strength increasing by 1,361 personnel in the past 12 months. I hope that that will lay to rest that hoary old chestnut, which keeps coming back time after time.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): For the convenience of the House, we shall take together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

ROAD USER CHARGING
Ordered,
That the Road User Charging (Charges and Penalty Charging) (London) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2285) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2313) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (England) Procedure Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2303) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION
Motion made,
That the Order [12th June] relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be amended, in paragraph (4)(b), by leaving out the words 'or be counted in the quorum'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on Motions in the name of Mr Charles Kennedy as if the day were one of the Opposition Days allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business).
That, at the sitting on Thursday 24th October, the first Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the adjournment of the House shall lapse three hours after it has been made or at Five o'clock, whichever is the later.
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd October, if proceedings on opposition business are not concluded before Seven o'clock any Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for that hour shall stand over to the conclusion of proceedings on opposition business and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Heppe11.]

Policing (Strangford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7.1 pm
Mrs. Iris Robinson: It was Edmund Burke who said:
"Good order is the foundation of all good things".
In that vein, it is crucial to the maintenance of order throughout this country that the laws that exist to protect people's rights are enforced to the letter. It is our duty to strive to ensure that those who would wish to see law and order undermined and damaged are punished accordingly.
Responsibility for the enforcement of law and order rests with police forces throughout the country, supported by the judicial system. However, if the criminal is not brought before the court to face conviction, the processes of law and order cannot be applied and the offender remains outside the system. In addition, pressure on police resources, which is growing on a weekly, if not daily, basis, means that officers' ability to apprehend offenders is decreasing at a proportionate rate. Without a vehicle to enforce the law effectively, the law itself is undermined. The unparalleled lack of manpower being experienced by the Police Service is having a hugely negative impact on the force's ability to maintain law and order and is affecting all areas of Northern Ireland, including Strangford.
Strangford consists of a section of the Castlereagh district command unit, the majority of the Ards district command unit and part of the Down district command unit. In the past, Castlereagh, which has a population in excess of 70,000, has been serviced by two police stations at Carryduff and Dundonald. As a result of the cuts imposed by Patten, Dundonald and Carryduff stations have had their operational capacity removed and now remain only as a cosmetic police presence in those areas. All calls are now diverted to the DCU headquarters at Castlereagh, where a response is committed. The Castlereagh area takes in Ballybeen, Northern Ireland's second largest housing estate, which has 10,000 residents and is covered by the police station at Dundonald. Between April 2001 and April 2002, Dundonald police station received more than 6,000 telephone calls from the public, 5,317 of which required police attendance.
As a result of the Patten report, Dundonald police station now has only one inspector, one beat manager and five beat officers attached to it. It also has a further eight officers fulfilling security and guard duties. Of that cohort, two officers must deal with inquiries and firearms renewals on a daily basis. When shift patterns are taken into consideration, that means that Dundonald station is unable to provide any full-time beat services for its immediate area or to the second largest housing estate in Northern Ireland, and must rely on services from Castlereagh, several miles across the city.
Similarly, Carryduff police station is situated in an area of suburban Belfast that has witnessed a huge expansion in population over recent years. Over the past year, more than 13,000 calls were made to Carryduff police station, yet earlier this year the people of
574
Carryduff were forced to lead a campaign to prevent its closure, which had been proposed in order to cut back on expenditure. Public meetings were held and a petition carrying several thousand signatures from both sides of the community was presented. An alternative shop-front facility had been proposed, but given the clear and present terrorist threat, that would neither protect the officers from terrorist attack, nor encourage members of the public to enter it.
Carryduff police station has one sergeant and four officers attached to it, again resulting in its capacity to provide a proactive service to the local community becoming a practical impossibility. To meet the constraints of the Patten Commission recommendations, provision of security has been centralised to DCU headquarters at Castlereagh. Of a total of 111 regular officers currently serving, only 27 are available for response duties, which breaks down to about seven per shift to cover the whole area. Moreover, they have only four cars and one motorcycle available to them.
The story in the Ards district command unit is much the same. In the town of Newtownards, which has a population in excess of 30,000, 45 officers are registered for day-to-day duties. Taking into account those officers who have been seconded elsewhere, there are about 10 full-time officers to cover each shift. Of those 10, two or three officers will carry out security and administrative tasks, and taking into account those on sick leave and holiday, six officers are left to look after a significant town. That means that there are two in a car, two on the beat and a relief back at the station.
As for the police stations at Comber, Donaghadee, Greyabbey and Portaferry, none operates on a full-time basis. Officers who are able to work must complete security and administrative duties. That has minimised, if not removed, the force's ability to provide a visible presence on the ground and a deterrent against crime. The service falls far short of the security that residents demand.
The Patten report recommended that there should be a core of 7,500 full-time officers in a normalised environment, yet at present there are only 6,911 full-time officers, who are required to meet an ever-increasing burden. In April this year, Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan admitted that officers in some areas were being forced to work up to 80 or 90 hours a week to make up for the shortfall in manpower.
At a time when complying with Patten is forcing a cut in manpower, both domestic and terrorist-related crimes are spiralling out of control. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, recorded crime in Northern Ireland increased by 16.6 per cent. to 139,786 offences. At the same time, the overall clearance rate decreased by 7 per cent. to 20.1 per cent.
In Castlereagh, the number of recorded crimes increased from 3,218 to 4,802—an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year, while the detection rate decreased to a miserable 16 per cent. We now face a situation where crime in Castlereagh has risen by an incredible 125 per cent. since the signing of the Belfast agreement in 1998. Problems in Castlereagh will be compounded this year by the fact that 23 officers have accepted the severance deal offered through Patten, while only six officers will be made available to the local commander.

575
In the Down district, the number of offences rose by more than 500, an increase of 12 per cent., while the detection rate has dropped from 27 to 17.5 per cent. In the Ards district, the number of crimes has also risen by more than 500 to 5,112, an increase of 11 per cent., with the detection rate dropping to 24 per cent.
In Newtownards recently, the proprietor of a local petrol station that had been robbed on several occasions contacted the police regarding the suspicious activity of a car in the vicinity and of a number of youths who had come into his shop. The police confirmed that the car had been stolen and the shopkeeper decided to close early for fear of being robbed again. He asked the local police if they would send a car to patrol the area while he removed the day's takings, but was refused as the only car on patrol was dealing with an incident and there was insufficient manpower in the station to send officers to the area. That petrol station is just 400 m from the police station.
It has been highlighted in the provincial press in recent days that overall confidence in policing is declining, with approval figures decreasing by 3 per cent. to 66 per cent.
A recent development in Killyleagh witnessed a number of individuals obtain housing in the town after they had allegedly been forced out of Downpatrick by paramilitaries, accused of antisocial behaviour. What was described as a mini crime wave commenced in the town, and it was attributed to the individuals in question. Pensioners were attacked and robbed in their homes, cars were damaged, stolen and burnt out, yet the police were unable to apprehend the culprits. Two local residents then took it upon themselves to approach those being accused of the trouble and were subsequently charged with assault and ordered by the courts to stay out of the town in which they both lived and worked. A petition was subsequently organised and several thousand signatures were put to it requesting that the two residents be allowed back into their home town. Those who signed the petition were not, as one might expect, the supporters of paramilitaries or vigilantes but respectable people from Killyleagh whose patience with the criminals had run out and whose confidence in the police's ability to defend them had plummeted. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a most worrying development.
On the basis of the unparalleled rise in non-terrorist crime alone, there is a rock-solid argument for increasing policing resources in my constituency. Problems being experienced elsewhere in Northern Ireland are having a direct and negative effect on the ability of the police in my constituency to do their job properly. It cannot be denied that since the inception of Patten and the destruction of the RUC morale within the ranks of police officers in Strangford has sunk to an all-time low.
The Government need to wake up to the fact that we do not have the peace that was the working assumption on which the Patten commission relied when making its manpower recommendations. It is difficult to understand how the police could ever be expected to operate effectively when they are coping in non-peace circumstances with a manpower level below that recommended for peacetime.
576
That has compounded the problem for officers dealing with local policing issues in Strangford. The continuing threat of terrorist violence across the Province, and the almost constant street conflict in Belfast that has been stoked up by IRA-Sinn Fein, have necessitated the diversion of Strangford police resources to the conflict areas. In Castlereagh, for example, during the period from June 2001 to January 2002, 20 per cent. of the district's resources had to be transferred to other areas in Northern Ireland to assist in tackling street violence. That represented approximately 30 officers being taken every day out of the area in which they were based, to address paramilitary orchestrated violence.
The levels of violence outside my area are having a deeply negative impact on the Police Service's ability to maintain law and order in my constituency. Street violence has now reached a level not witnessed since the height of the troubles in the mid-1970s. According to official police records in 2001, almost 1,600 people were injured as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. There were 353 shooting incidents, more than 350 bombing incidents, 332 incidents of paramilitary-style punishment attacks, and 107 firearms and explosives finds.
In the first eight months of this year, 1,248 attacks against the police have been logged; more than 1,100 missiles have been thrown at police officers; 400 police officers have been injured, and more than 3 million hours of overtime have been clocked up by serving officers in an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security. At the same time, there have been 244 shooting incidents, 153 bombing attacks and 244 paramilitary-style attacks.
From 1998, when the Belfast agreement was signed, more than 100 people have been killed as a direct result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, and more than 6,000 people have been injured. There have been almost 1,500 shootings and more than 1,000 incidents involving bombs and incendiaries. More than 1,250 people have been subjected to paramilitary-style assault, more than 1,300 persons have been charged with terrorist and serious public order offences, and there have been more than 1,400 firearms and explosives finds.
The fact is that the police are attempting to provide security for the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland with the resources set for policing a peaceful society, while being forced to continue the war against terrorism. It is only logical, and inevitable, when a police service is treated in such a shoddy and unprofessional manner, that crime will rocket as resources plunge. Of course, letting more than 900 convicted thugs out of jail has hardly had a positive impact on the lives of people in communities across Northern Ireland. Communities are even more polarised, and even more under the control of paramilitary organisations. The fact of the matter is that the officer on the street knows that the implementation of Patten is to blame for the crisis in policing.
After 15 months of continuous street disorder, and with the threat from both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups running at the highest level for five years, the collective pressure on resources has left
"little to deliver ordinary day-to-day policing".
So said acting Chief Constable Colin Cramphorn on 22 August this year. He went on to say:
"In many areas we are simply responding to emergency calls and little else."

577
In the year to July 2002, more than 730 officers were injured, while the impact of working excessive hours has provided little respite for officers.
As Colin Cramphorn stated:
"Such levels of activity cannot be sustained indefinitely."
In east Belfast, the number of officers required has doubled because of paramilitary activity and street violence. Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan stated on 30 August that he envisaged no end to that activity. The new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, should never be forced into a position of grovelling for resources to prevent his force from witnessing complete meltdown.
Any suggestion that the 1,949 full-time reserve should be stood down is patent madness. Effective policing must be promoted above political expediency. It is distressing that at a time when the Government should be retreating from Patten to provide improved policing, they are planning further concessions to accommodate the IRA's insatiable demands. The drive to reduce manpower has meant that the force has been stretched to breaking point. At the same time, officers are tied up under a mountain of bureaucracy generated by the ombudsman, the oversight commissioner and the so-called Human Rights Commission, and in implementing the 190 Patten recommendations. Meanwhile, the IRA continues to be pandered to and its nefarious activities go on unabated.
The oversight commissioner, Mr. Tom Constantine, has warned that violence may wreck policing reform. Why should such politically motivated reform be a priority? Should not the provision of effective policing be the Government's primary aim? Should not the primary objective of policing in any modern liberal democracy be maintaining law and order and challenging criminals and terrorists?
In closing, three matters are clear. First, the retention of the full-time reserve is crucial to avoid a security meltdown. Secondly, police recruitment policy must be reviewed. It is vital that Hugh Orde apply to the Secretary of State for a suspension of the 50:50 recruitment rule. Many hundreds of applicants from a Protestant background have been denied a place in the force on account of their religion and nothing else. An increase in intimidation of Roman Catholic officers, and a decrease in the applications from Roman Catholics are generating a recruitment crisis. There have been insufficient acceptable Roman Catholic recruits to fulfil the requirements. The 50:50 rule means that the number cannot be made up with Protestants because they are capped at the level of Catholics who enter. The result is an unacceptable overall shortfall of officers.
Thirdly, the programme of civilianisation of posts has run aground. That policy has also been severely undermined by the 50:50 rule. It was estimated that the programme might free as many as 300 officers for other duties, but only 29 Roman Catholics have applied for those civilian positions.
Unless the Northern Ireland Office takes its head out of the sand on the genuine problems that the police face in Northern Ireland, matters will continue to deteriorate. It also appears certain that the redeployment of resources to other districts leaves my constituency prey to criminals and vulnerable to attack.
578
I urge the Minister to ensure that the funding and other necessary resources are made available to the Chief Constable to reverse the predicament and avert catastrophic consequences.
7.23 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) for choosing policing as the subject of our debate. She raised many issues on policing in general, as well as specifically in the Strangford area. Although I cannot comment in depth on the circumstances in specific areas—the deployment of police resources is, of course, a matter for the Chief Constable—as Minister with responsibility for security, policing goes to the heart of my responsibilities. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the anxieties that she raised. I have only a short time, so I shall respond in greater depth in writing, if she is happy with that, after the debate when I have read the details in Hansard.
On the hon. Lady's general point about the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system, I draw her attention to the law and order group that the Secretary of State has established, in which he meets the Attorney-General and Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. They are advised and supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable. We are examining every aspect of the criminal justice process to ensure that the process and management of the criminal justice system are as effective as we can make them.
The hon. Lady is right to talk about a sense of growing problems involving crime. She draws attention to concerns that we all share about the continuing security situation that is faced by the police and security forces in Northern Ireland. However, I would refute the main thrust of her argument, which is that the Belfast agreement is the cause of the current security situation in the Province. She would expect me to say that, but there are many issues on which we agree.
I argue that since the signing of the agreement, the overall security situation has improved. However, serious terrorist and public order challenges remain. The hon. Lady rightly quoted horrific statistics of shootings and bombings. Since the middle of May and throughout the summer months, there have been serious and sustained violent incidents in the Short Strand area in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
There are still sporadic outbreaks of violence in the north of the city too. During the violence, police have been attacked with blast bombs, petrol bombs, acid bombs, bricks and other missiles. We must consider what sort of a mind makes acid or petrol bombs, and hands them out to teenagers to throw at police officers. The police face extremely serious problems. They have even come under live gunfire from both traditions. Since the beginning of the year, more than 600 police officers have been injured in north and east Belfast. Recently, the police and the Army established a high-profile presence on both sides of the community in east Belfast. It has brought a welcome degree of peace and calm to the area. However, the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that that can never be a permanent solution to the problems.

579
In Belfast, the police can call on up to seven level 1 and 10 level 2 tactical support groups. That is a total of 502 officers to be deployed in the Belfast area, at any one time to deal with public disorder. As has been the case throughout the troubles, military resources are deployed in support of the police. However, as the hon. Lady rightly says—she has drawn attention to the concerns expressed by Mr. Cramphorn, the then acting Chief Constable, in August—the demands that public order policing have placed on the service directly affect police capabilities elsewhere.
For our part, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government will continue to do everything that we can to create an environment in Northern Ireland where the need to commit such a level of resources is no longer necessary. It remains the responsibilities of others with influence in the community to do everything that they can to help us achieve that goal. On an occasion like this it is important to look to the past as we consider the current arrangements for policing.
I want to respond to the comments that the hon. Lady made several times in her contribution when she talked in general terms of what she described as the wanton destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As we
580
look back, we must never forget that, over their history, the police in Northern Ireland have borne the brunt of a sustained and brutal terrorist assault. They have responded with gallantry and professionalism. They richly deserve the support and gratitude of all in Northern Ireland.
It is hard to believe that it is more than two years since Her Majesty the Queen visited Hillsborough to confer the honour of the George cross on the RUC. On that historic occasion, Her Majesty paid tribute to the police.
She said that the award was:
"a singular acknowledgement of the gallantry and courage shown, the pain and suffering endured, and in all too many cases the ultimate sacrifice paid by members of the Constabulary during the past 30 years of terrorism and civil unrest."
The Government have now set up the RUC George Cross Foundation to ensure that those sacrifices and achievements are remembered and honoured in a dignified and appropriate manner.
I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to respond to her other comments in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Road Traffic Speed
[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02 HC557-I, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5621.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Last year in this country, we killed 3,450 people, seriously injured 37,110 and slightly injured 272,749 on the roads. There was, however, no great public outcry. There was no mass lobby of Parliament, nor people running into the streets producing banners because we have, extraordinarily, almost become accustomed to the fact that people die in road accidents. It is as if the great hand of God has fallen on them to bring down some well-deserved punishment, whereas in reality there is a direct connection between the human being, the motor vehicle, and death on the roads.
It is tremendously important that the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions decided to look into the issue because it was so concerned, not only about public attitudes but about the attitudes of Government and elected representatives to the startling and frightening facts. Had there been an equal number of deaths from any other cause, there would have been an enormous outcry and we would all have received vast numbers of letters. We have talked for some time about the need to do something about the number of deaths on the roads, but many of the contributory elements have become obscured. This is one of the most important reports that the Select Committee, under the previous banner of Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, managed to produce. It certainly received an enormous response from the general public.
I am used to receiving letters that refer to me as an antisocial old socialist bitch—and to that I might even plead guilty; I see no reason to discount any such gentle descriptions of my character—but many of those letters encompassed exactly what is wrong with our attitude towards road death. Many of them were intensely personal, not in the sense that people recounted only their personal experiences, as one might expect, but in that they argued that we must have cars, we must be able to drive them as fast as we like and, in many instances, we must not comply with the more irritating rules of the road, the deliberate purpose of which is to restrict the motorist. That is revealing because it shows how large the gap is between the reality of what we do with motor vehicles and the public perception. We wanted to address that gap in the report.
We were able to say:
"Most deaths of car occupants take place on rural roads, but most crashes and pedestrian deaths occur in urban areas."
146WH
We were able to highlight the number of children who are injured or killed by motor vehicles. We were able to point out the facts—not new, but well known—that large numbers of children suffer because they live in more deprived areas, are more likely to be playing out in the street close to dangerous roads and are often not as well supervised as they might be.
We considered who was responsible for speeding, why they speed and what reasons they give. It became obvious that many drivers did not know the speed limits. They do not regard speeding as a serious offence, and think that they are unlikely to get caught. They do not appreciate the damage that they do, because others bear most of the cost. They may be in a hurry or feel pressured—many of those who break speed limits are on work-related journeys. The comfort of their cars and the design of the roads mean that it "feels right"—a frequently given reason—to drive quicker than is legal or safe.
Lest hon. Members think that the Committee was exaggerating, I should say that individual Members expressed frightening views during our attempts to reach an agreement on the text. People said, "Of course I ought to be able to drive my car very fast after I reach Manchester in the middle of the night, because I am a good driver and I am totally in control of the car." Indeed, I learned a new declension: I am a good driver; he, she or it is not as good as me but ought to be allowed to drive; he, she or it is totally incapable of driving and should not in any circumstances be allowed to drive. That seemed to relate to everyone who those people met on the road. None the less, all of them were clear about motorists' need for a policy that enabled them to drive as they thought fit.
After many years of large-scale road safety campaigns, we are failing to convince even large numbers of motorists that there is a direct connection between speed and death. Anyone who worked in accident and emergency, or anyone who watched the mangled bodies being taken off motorways, could tell us about it. Any member of the motorway police could tell us of the strain put on them by constantly having to attend frightening accidents. They all know the cost of disastrous road accidents not only in terms of bones broken and lives destroyed, but in terms of the effect on large numbers of families. Despite that, we still do not appear to be putting the required drive, energy and sums of money into our concern about what is important.
The Government are serious about wanting to do something, but we were considerably worried by lacunae in the reply to our report. We considered how Departments across Whitehall did not necessarily work together to achieve the ends that are needed. We looked at the fact that the Home Office did not put sufficient emphasis on the likes of road traffic policing. One would have thought that that was obvious, but when people talk about the core policies for policing, road traffic work is not at the top of the list where it should be—even though it must constitute a large amount of the costs and difficulties presented to police forces.
Mr. David Kidney: On that point about Departments supporting the priorities for casualty

147WH
reduction, the Home Office is about to produce the first national policing plan. Would my hon. Friend expect to see a reference to road traffic policing in it?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I most certainly would. We said that we ought to have a national speed management strategy, so that is exactly the type of measure we want.
The national health service bears not only the practical brunt of having to deal with many policies, but the costs of having to deal with those injured and sick. It should therefore be one of the key bodies that decide policies, where they could be improved and how we could change public attitudes towards what we think is essential.
We said that a national speed management strategy ought to be established that would
"highlight the effect of decreases in speed on reducing casualties",
and encourage local authorities to be active in setting targets and reducing numbers of casualties. We also said that we ought to consider
"examples of success and good practice".
However, there were several points that the Government clearly failed to address, and I want to put them in context.
We said that it was important to have a hierarchy of rural roads. There is already a clear set of distinctions, because people assume rural roads are safe when they are not. The reason why we spent so much time discussing the need for specific controls outside rural schools and in rural villages was because we recognised that fact. However, the Government reply said:
"It would be costly financially and environmentally. Given the infrastructure and behavioural changes required, the road safety and quality of life benefits would take too long to realise."
I am not sure what that means. Does it mean that because it is going to cost a lot and is difficult to do, we should not start? Frankly, the problem costs a lot at the moment, especially to Government Departments. What do the Government mean when they say that
"benefits would take too long to realise."?
Too long for what—for the current Government or the next, or for the people whom we represent, or for the 2010 targets? I want a clearer statement than that. We must assume that the policy is a long-term one and get on with it. Of course, it will take time to implement, but does that mean that we should never start, even if we can show that it would bring significant casualty reduction benefits? I do not think so.

We were also concerned about those famous safety cameras. I may as well be honest with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, as he is a straightforward Minister who does his best to reply to all the difficulties we raise. The Government sometimes seem to allow themselves to be led a bit by the press—especially, dare I say it, the tabloid press. What research have the Government done and what evidence is there that we would do much better if we had bright yellow cameras that are clearly visible to the motorist from a great distance? How do they know that that would be more successful than continuing our existing policy, which is not to hide the cameras but to put them where they are not necessarily immediately noticeable, and to use the evidence that that produces?
148WH
We have research on what safety cameras achieve, but no evidence to suggest that we should have a policy whereby motorists are told that they are being monitored when they break the law. People do not put notices on their houses saying, "If you burgle here, you will be in a certain amount of difficulty." We assume that people know that they will be in trouble if they break the law. Why are bright yellow speed cameras that can be seen from a considerable distance essential? The evidence is that, far from improving road safety, such devices slow down motorists where they can see the camera and allow them to speed up as soon as they get around the corner. I do not think that that is what anyone wants, and I am certain that it is not what the Government want. They are simply responding to pressures, when the issues should be considered more closely. Why is there no consistency about where we direct resources? Either we decide that we should have camera partnerships and that the police should have the same duty, or we leave the situation as it is.
Turning to the question of leadership, the Government have a responsibility to show that they take road casualty figures seriously all the time, and not only occasionally. They must show that their measures are part of a long, consistent and urgent policy, because that is the only way to persuade the general public. Even today, we received a briefing from a normally responsible motoring organisation that suggested that people wore seat belts only because they had had a long period of education. People wear seat belts because it is the law. They started to wear seat belts because it was the law, not because someone was seeking to persuade them.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is when the law changes that attitudes change? Seat belts provide an example: before the law was changed, there was a great hostility to them; straight afterwards everyone accepted them.
Mrs. Dunwoody: In one accident and emergency department in the middle of London, the day after the seat belt legislation came in, some 40 per cent. of the accident work disappeared. That was as clear as daylight. The Government should push hard to ensure that people understand these things and that they respond to them.
We can ask the Government to do a better job in several respects. Why have they not responded to the recommendation that they should identify how much a comprehensive national package of traffic calming measures would cost? The reality is that people do not respond to being told to drive slowly; they need some form of control.
How are local authorities expected to produce the large transport programmes that they are required to deliver, having received large capital allocations? We heard evidence that more and more local authorities face difficulties in finding trained staff—not people who are prepared to accept responsibility, but people with very specific skills. They need the sort of parallel investment in training and revenue that would enable them to employ staff who are capable of carrying out the type of policy that the Government want implemented.
I finish on what is, for me, one of the most important parts of this important report—the matter of child pedestrian deaths. The Government's response, which is

149WH
that they are going to "commission further analyses" of the very high child pedestrian fatality rates throughout the United Kingdom is extremely disappointing. Why was there a three-year delay before further research was requested? Why are we still waiting for what we already know to be underlined? Why are we waiting for so many traffic safety schemes that will separate major traffic streams from pedestrians? That is one of the easiest and most sensible ways of contributing to safety.
We need lower speed limits. More local authorities must look into what happens not only near schools, but in residential areas. Why is the design of local distributor and residential roads, which could provide a more forgiving road environment, or the provision of money needed to encourage local authorities to go ahead with such policies, still not being pushed at Government level? Why have we still not got right our attitudes towards simple things like road crossings?
Such policies are vital. The developments to which we would have expected the Government to respond have been quietly brushed aside. The Government say that intelligent speed adaptation should be taken forward by industry in response to public demand, not by the introduction of a mandatory requirement for suitable devices, but we know that industry does not respond with either the speed or the urgency that are essential for major policy change.
Those well-meaning media programmes that constantly refer both to vehicles and to speed do not require viewers to consider the implications of a public education policy about speed. We tried hard to get evidence from the television companies, and they were prepared to talk to us, but even the BBC did not seem to understand that part of its public remit ought to be to persuade people of the harm we are doing to so many children and other people through our neglect and carelessness.
I pay tribute to those who helped me with this report. That is not just the Members of Parliament from the previous Committee, but our senior Clerk, Dr. Harrison, and Mr. Rob Gifford, who was one of our most valued and important advisers.
I want to say one thing to the House. As elected Members, we have special responsibilities. Sometimes, we have responsibilities to lead, and sometimes to follow. In this case, I hope that we will lead. I hope that we will not continue with the carnage that we accept day by day. We cannot allow emergency services to be diverted so frequently to dealing with the effects of people's carelessness and incompetence. We must be prepared to sort out the money to change not just the mechanical things that Government and local authorities can do, but the attitudes of those who respond to them.
Mr. David Drew: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's peroration. There is one area that does not directly affect the new Ministry, but which has had an enormous impact on a small number of cases in which I have been involved, and that is sentencing. One talks about fines and disqualification, but in the ultimate cases—those of death or serious injury—there is certainly confusion in the criminal law over which sanctions should be applied. There also seems to be much confusion concerning the role that insurance
150WH
companies play in protecting the injured party, or the party who may have committed the offence. Would my hon. Friend like to say a few things about our need to sort that area out, as well as the lesser offences?
Mrs. Dunwoody: That is why I said specifically that we needed to consider all of Government policy throughout Whitehall. I certainly do think that the insurance industry has a very specific role to play. Through training, magistrates can be encouraged to take such matters very seriously. On bad days, I sometimes say that if I wanted to get rid of anybody, I would do it with a motor vehicle not only because it is more efficient, but because I could escape suitable punishment more often than not.
We should be looking at the involvement of the police, the highways authorities, the Government and all the relevant private sector organisations. We should really be saying to the public at large, "You have in your hands, in partnership with the Government, the ability to reduce road deaths and injuries, and that is something we desperately need to do in this country. We are careless of human life. Help us to change that." I say to the Government that they must lead and urgently implement policies that will have a material effect. Above all, they must understand that to be popular in this particular field is to finish up abandoning many adults and children to an uncertain future.
2.53 pm
Chris Grayling: I start by echoing the words of thanks of the Chairman of the Committee to all those who worked with us on the preparation of the most substantial report that the Committee has produced during the past year. Its coverage of an important subject is comprehensive in breadth and depth. As ever, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for the customarily expert and fair way in which she chaired the inquiry, which has made a valuable contribution to an important debate in this country.
Far too often, we allow ourselves to be distracted by high profile and distressing incidents in other modes of transportation, while forgetting the serious issues affecting our roads, where there are casualty numbers that would be totally unacceptable in any other form of transport. It is therefore all the more appropriate that the Select Committee should have worked on this useful contribution to the debate. I hope that the Government will take note of many of the recommendations made in shaping future policy.
It is important to note in any discussion on road safety that we have some of the safest roads in Europe, but within an overall picture of good, albeit still unacceptable, figures on accidents and casualties on our roads compared with our European partners, the report identifies a specific problem in urban areas. The number of fatalities and serious injuries, including injuries to children and other pedestrians, is unacceptably high and needs to be tackled.
It is clear from our discussions that improvements could and should be made to Government policy on the deployment of resources and to the regulations that affect how our roads are monitored and policed. The resourcing of policing in particular does not fall within

151WH
the remit of the Minister's Department, but in an environment in which Ministers need to talk across Departments, he needs to play an important role in the debate.
The Minister will be aware that the Government are currently reviewing the resources available to police forces throughout the country. That review is likely to lead to significant changes in future funding for police forces. The evidence to date suggests that there is likely to be a transfer of resources from what are undoubtedly the most congested parts of the country, such as the south-east of England, to urban areas and parts of the north. The likely consequence of that is serious for the policing of our roads.
If, as a result of Government formula changes, a home counties force is faced with the loss of 2, 3 or 4 per cent. of its budget every year for the next few years, that cannot but have an impact on the policing issues to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred. The home counties are the most congested parts of our country: their motorways are jammed and over-congested, and people take diversions down country roads and narrow lanes in an attempt to find a faster route to work. I hope that the Minister will impress on his colleagues that the Government cannot afford to allow traffic policing to be eroded, with the consequent adverse effect on safety standards on our roads.
That is happening at a time when the behaviour of some motorists is alarmingly inappropriate. Anyone who travels outside London at the weekend will be aware of the sometimes erratic behaviour of motor cyclists and motorists on country roads, such as driving at high speed and other dangerous driving. If that sort of behaviour is not properly monitored because our police forces do not have the resources to watch roads where they know a problem exists, not only will that problem not disappear, but it will worsen. I hope that the Minister will have a quiet word with some of his ministerial colleagues and make clear to them the consequences of under-resourcing policing in areas where road policing is a particular issue.
I draw the Minister's attention to the signage of speed limits in urban areas, which the report touches on. The issue concerns me because there are too many roads in this country where it is unclear to most drivers how fast they are allowed to drive. Too many roads have the feel of a 40 or 50 mph limit, but are actually 30 mph. Local authorities throughout the country would dearly love to provide clearer signage on urban roads to remind people that they can travel only at 30 mph. It is madness that in this day and age it is illegal for a local authority to put up a 30 mph repeater sign. That rule exists for historic reasons dating back to the 1930s, but when local authorities are putting up cardboard signs on street lamps, painting diamonds on roads, and finding any way they can to remind people that they are in a 30 mph zone, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to find a legal framework that will allow them to do that properly and effectively wherever they perceive a problem. I hope that the Minister will take that relatively simple step and ensure that authorities have the powers that they need to take local decisions where they believe a problem threatens or one already exists.
152WH
The principle of local decision making is also relevant to the rules about the siting of speed cameras, on which the report touched. As the Committee discussed the issues, we found it extraordinary that the framework for decisions about the siting of cameras was so rigid. I do not argue for a mass proliferation of speed cameras, but surely a police force or local authority should be able to draw attention to a stretch of road where circumstances have changed. Perhaps there is a new housing estate or a new road connection that has increased traffic levels, or perhaps traffic flow in general has expanded dramatically.
The police force or local authority might perceive a risk of a serious incident occurring. Perhaps there have been several minor incidents, and they fear something more serious. Surely it should not be Government policy to insist that they may not site a speed camera at that potential black spot until the accident that they are trying to prevent has happened. I hope that the Minister will think through that element of the Government guidelines again. Common sense suggests that a simple modification of the rules to allow local decision making would not distort the system, but could prevent some of the problems that the Chairman of the Committee and other hon. Members identified in the report.
The third element we picked out was the bias in Government safety spending towards other modes of transport. Huge resources go into the railways to prevent accidents on the mode of transport that is undoubtedly the safest. If a tiny fraction of the money spent on rail safety were spent on school pedestrian crossings, it could make a significant difference to safety standards on urban roads throughout the country.
I hope that as the Government review policy for the future, they will take a step back and say, "Yes, of course we need to invest in safety on our railways. We need to invest in safety for our aviation systems and on buses and coaches, but we must ensure that not all the money goes to other modes of transport and that enough is left over to pay for schemes that can make a real difference." When parents have to mount a vigorous campaign to secure the money for one crossing, as they had to in my constituency recently, we realise just how little is in the pot. However, I hope that when the Government consider how the cake is distributed, they will consider the impact on safety that the smallest schemes can have and ensure that they are not squeezed out by grand projects.
Helen Jackson: On that very useful point, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, on occasion, the Government do stump up the money, and we are grateful for it? In my constituency, for example, one trunk road across the Pennines was an accident black spot. After two four-year-olds were killed, there was a huge local campaign and petition that, in a six-month period—not long in Government terms—resulted in their stumping up £500,000 for speed cameras. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the message is starting to get across, although we need to go much further?
Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. In many ways, she shares the experience of my constituents, because the campaign to which I referred followed the tragic death of a small girl. No one

153WH
would suggest that the Government get everything wrong. This Government, like previous ones, have done many good things on safety. Our roads have become much safer in recent generations, which is down to the good work of good people in Governments of all political persuasions. However, as the hon. Lady says, that does not mean that it is not the job of hon. Members to bite the ankles of Ministers and say, "You could do more if you did this."
We must all encourage people to take greater responsibility for safety issues. That includes not only motor cyclists going around country lanes at extraordinarily high speeds, or car drivers who take delight in racing each other on a Sunday afternoon, but also people who ride bicycles in urban areas. They may be the victims of inappropriate driving practices and are often killed or injured as a result, but many themselves break the rules of the road on too many occasions. I suspect that everyone in this Room has stood at a pedestrian crossing in London when the traffic lights were at red and a cyclist has sped through at high speed, paying no attention to the rules of the road.
There is a responsibility on the shoulders of pedestrians who jaywalk, on cyclists who ignore red lights and on those who use the roads irresponsibly to take a step back and say, "Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that." It is the job of hon. Members in our community roles, the job of Governments, who have a remit in public education, and the job of the other agencies with which we come into contact and can encourage, to steer our society towards better behaviour when safety is at stake.
The report is a useful contribution to the debate. I hope the Government will take up the many ideas, insights and pointers it offers. I have already apologised to the Minister for being unable to stay for the winding-up speeches, but I know from his previous comments, and from his nodding head while I have been speaking, that he is listening and taking on board what is said. I hope that some of the ideas in the report will not be merely discussion points but will be followed through as actions in due course.
3.6 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I start by congratulating the Committee on the report, especially the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The report contains a great many facts and the experiences of people throughout the country. It seeks to deal with an ever-increasing problem: speeding on our roads and the dangers that it causes.
I learned a great deal from the report, which clearly shows what we can do if the will to do it exists. Many of the changes proposed in the report would not cost a lot of money. I represent a constituency in inner London and, week-by-week, I receive letters from residents of all ages, but especially from youngsters and elderly people who speak of their concerns—often their fears—about the dangers that they face in the area where they live from vehicles that travel too fast. Often, the drivers of those vehicles have no concern whatever about the driving conditions in the area. That is something that all hon. Members will have seen in their constituencies.
The report spells out clearly, on pages 5 and 7, what excessive speed does. Page 5 states:
154WH
"Death and serious injuries on our roads bring misery to hundreds of thousands, including the relatives and friends of the dead and injured … We have one of the worst child pedestrian safety records in Europe … Excessive and inappropriate speed is the largest single contributor to deaths and serious injuries on our roads and significantly reduces the quality of life in many urban and rural areas."
We know what is happening. We are also clear about the cause of deaths and injuries. Page 7 of the report says:
"Every day, year in and year out, about 10 people are killed on our roads. In 2000, 3,409 people died, including 857 pedestrians … Many of these deaths and injuries are avoidable."
We are clear about the cost to our communities of excessive speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred in her speech to something that I find extremely sad. Many drivers, whatever vehicle they drive, do not fully understand what can happen to a pedestrian who is hit by a car. The report says:
"Hit by a car at 40 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 30 mph, about half of pedestrians will be killed. Hit by a car at 20 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will survive."
Why is there not a greater Government campaign to make drivers more aware of what speed can do to pedestrians?
The report should be compulsory reading for anyone who is caught speeding and for people taking their driving test. It shows not only the dangers of speeding but the cost. On page 12 it states:
"The cost of road accidents is very high. The DTLR estimated that the 'medical and ambulance costs attributed to road traffic accidents' was £540m in 2000 … The full cost to the nation of road traffic accidents is very large; a DTLR study has estimated it to be £17 billion in a single year."
Sadly, many drivers have no knowledge of the dangers. The report points out that:
"many drivers do not know what the speed limits are … they do not regard speeding as a serious offence and they are unlikely to get caught … they do not appreciate the damage they do because others bear much of the cost".
What can we do? Indeed, what must we do? This excellent report highlights the issue. We must ensure that there is more effective enforcement. That could be introduced without any great cost. A much greater education campaign is needed. I realise that that could take longer, but a start must be made. We need to change people's attitude to driving at excessive speeds. As others have already said, nothing makes me check my speed more than the presence of traffic police. The report says that there has been a significant reduction in the number of traffic police. Is the authorities' attitude to that changing? If the Government are committed to reducing speed and the dangers that it presents, it surely cannot be right to reduce the numbers of police traffic patrol officers in the areas that we represent.
There is no doubt that what the driver of any type of vehicle most fears is disqualification. That is the real deterrent, not a fine. A fine may present problems, but people find the money. That is why I and, I am sure, the overwhelming majority of people, support a policy of disqualifying more drivers who are caught speeding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made an important point about the attitude of the courts. Many aspects of law and order that come before the courts are debated in this House. I have spoken about several matters that have caused untold harm and

155WH
disruption to my local community, but when the people responsible for the disruption appeared before the courts, the magistrates who heard the cases had no idea—even when they reached a guilty verdict—about the extent of the damage to the community. Equally, many courts and the magistrates who sit in them do not, when they hear cases of people driving at excessive speed, fully realise the dangers and problems that it causes.
The report demonstrates what can be achieved. It was interesting to read about comparisons between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, where many under-20 mph zones can be found, the total number of accidents has been reduced by 56 per cent.; accidents in which people have been killed or seriously injured by 90 per cent.; accidents involving child casualties by 64 per cent.; and pedestrian accidents by 54 per cent. That clearly shows the enormous benefits—for cities and rural areas alike—of tightly enforced speed limits.
We must educate motorists far more than we do now. The report states clearly how we could achieve that. We should
"establish a comprehensive, all-the-year-round publicity campaign … establish campaigns targeted at specific groups make speed-related hazards a part of the hazard perception tests to be introduced in the driving test—[Interruption]
Mrs. Dunwoody: The motorist is trying to fight back.
Mr. Cox: The report is excellent—[Interruption.]— and much work has gone into its preparation. All Members of Parliament hope—[Interruption.]—that in six months or a year's time, the report will not be forgotten. The report clearly shows— [Interruption.]— what speeding can and does do to so many people throughout the country. It also shows what could be done if the authorities, national or local, were truly committed to tackling the problem. That is the challenge faced by the Government and local authorities throughout the country. I hope that in the coming months, the right policies will be introduced and followed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call Mr. Brake, may I apologise for the false fire alarm. On behalf of the authorities of the House, I apologise profusely to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for the unnecessary interruptions to his speech.
3.19 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome this important debate, so ably initiated by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In common with other Members, I am sorry to hear about certain people—Government Members—describing her as an old socialist. I shall not repeat the word that she used next.
Like the hon. Lady, I have encountered people who believe that their freedom to drive should not be constrained in any way. However, what they must realise is that a driver's free and fast-flowing traffic is a
156WH
pedestrian's nightmare. Pedestrians end up taking their lives in their hands when they try to cross a road, especially in urban environments.
Did the hon. Lady notice the editorial in the Evening Standard a couple of days ago? Although that paper has run an aggressive campaign against congestion charges, the editorial was supportive of the need for measures to be introduced to slow traffic down. It agreed that statistics had established beyond doubt that speed kills, that too many people drive too fast and that we should slow down. The hon. Lady should be more confident about support for the type of measures recommended by the Transport Committee.
In research on traffic speed, Direct Line insurance found that more than half Britain's motorists favour speed limiter technology being fitted to all new cars on a compulsory basis, and 53 per cent. are in favour of limiters being fitted to all cars retrospectively. Hon. Members may be surprised at the level of support for such measures.
I disagreed with the hon. Lady about the effectiveness of covert versus overt speed cameras. As far as I am aware, no research has been carried out to establish which type is more effective. I suspect that research was not conducted on covert cameras before they were all painted yellow; so little comparison can be made.
To what should the Government respond in the Transport Committee report? First, the Government should be bold. The Evening Standard editorial that I mentioned was prompted by its front page, which referred to the shock cut in speed limits that the Government were apparently going to announce. I understand that the moment the front page came off the printing presses, the Department for Transport contacted news outlets to deny that there was any truth in the matter. That would concern me because the article seems to be picking up on the Transport Committee's recommendations and the Government's response.
The Government are supportive of the Committee's recommendations in relation to revised guidance for local speed limits. For example, recommendation O states:
"The Government should publish as a priority revised Guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits".
The Government's response states:
"we propose to revise and publish new guidance in 2003."
In recommendation P, the Committee recommended specific guidance for local authorities on speed limits. In their response, the Government did not say that they disagreed with that recommendation. When the Government disagree with Select Committee recommendations, they say so. If the Government do not disagree, the Evening Standard editorial correctly picked up on what the Government were hinting at.
I am alarmed that the Government felt it necessary to deny so quickly that anything was in the pipeline. They should be bold. I have referred to the body of evidence from Direct Line insurance and to the Evening Standard editorial which suggest support for the measures, so there is no need for the Government's apparent timidity. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) rightly highlighted the need for action to be taken on rural roads. A one-size-fits-all speed limit for roads of different classification is illogical. A flat-rate

157WH
speed limit for motorways is equally unreasonable and illogical, and it is appropriate for the M25 to have variable limits.
We urgently need the rural road hierarchy that has been promised. Unfortunately, all that we are getting are plans for demonstration projects—there appears to be nothing concrete in the pipeline. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out precisely the demonstration projects that the Government will support and to tell us in which parts of the country they will be.
Gregory Barker: I agree that we need variable speeds on rural roads. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there should be variable speeds through rural villages? There are villages in my constituency in which there is a 40 mph limit and there are those that are lucky to have a 30 mph limit, but there are 40 villages in East Sussex in which there is no speed limit whatsoever. Speed limits should not vary throughout rural communities. All villages want a limit of 30 mph or less.
Tom Brake: There are places in which variable speed limits might be appropriate, but it is equally clear that there are many villages, settlements and towns where it is appropriate to have a 30 mph zone that everyone understands and, we hope, respects. Several speed limits are dictated by weather conditions and so on and we should be more flexible. I hope that the Minister will set out the demonstration projects that the Government will support and the funding that will be available.
Several hon. Members referred to policing and enforcement. It is fortunate that I asked a question on 25 January about the number of mobile traffic units that operate radar guns in the Met police area. I received a response on 14 October. I did not think that that was a particularly speedy response as I had an eight-month wait for it, but I am pleased that it eventually arrived. The response reveals:
"The Metropolitan Police estimate that on any given day there are at least seven mobile hand-held speed detection devices for roadside use taken out in police patrol vehicles across London."—[Official Report, 14 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 469W.]
If the police say that there are at least seven devices, let us assume that there are a maximum of 10—I am sure that they would have used a larger number if that were appropriate. At a rough guess, if there are 4 million cars in London of which about 1 million are in use at any moment in time, the statistics suggest that people have a one in 100,000 chance of having their speed checked by a mobile hand-held speed detection device. In other words, people have a very small chance, if any at all, of being caught or checked by the police.
The information that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety supplied to hon. Members for the debate highlighted a report by Claire Corbett of Brunel university. She has identified, as hon. Members know, that the way to stop people offending is to increase their chance of getting caught. There is very little chance of being caught, in London at least.
I would like the Minister to set out the Government's position on congestion charges. We had an interesting visit to Transport for London yesterday. Its representatives commented on the role that they expect
158WH
congestion charges to play in reducing accidents. That is why I want a clear statement from the Government on whether they support congestion charges and, especially, the charges that will he introduced in London. There is confusion about the Government's position on congestion charges and whether they think that the charges will reduce accidents.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that you will not be aware that the Committee that I have the honour of chairing is about to start an inquiry into congestion charging. Part of the work that we did yesterday was a preliminary look at what is happening. Therefore, when the Minister begins his reply, I hope he will bear in mind the fact that we would like him to hear the evidence before he reaches a final conclusion—although he must have a view, of course.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has discreetly wrapped my knuckles, but I am sure that the Minister will respond appropriately.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government's policy on congestion charging is unclear. I refer him to what Lord McIntosh of Haringey said in the other place on Tuesday of this week:
"the Government have always been supportive of congestion charges and we have been supportive of the plans for congestion charges put forward by the Mayor of London. That matter was discussed with the Secretary of State on 26th September."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 701.]
Therefore, although the Secretary of State was ducking and weaving on this issue yesterday, a senior Minister in the other place has confirmed what we have always believed to be true.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has correctly highlighted the fact that there are differences of opinion between Ministers on congestion charges, which are easy to focus on.
My final point is about joined-up thinking. This report identifies that a countrywide package of traffic-calming schemes could be introduced at a cost of £3 billion, and that that could result in the national health service saving about £100 million a week. I know that the Committee wants the Government to look at that package again. I hope that the Government will allow some joined-up thinking and action to take place by recognising the substantial savings—potentially £100 million a week—that could be derived from introducing those traffic-calming measures, and that they will therefore offset the expenditure against the savings that will be made elsewhere. If the Government were to do that, it would be a good example of joined-up thinking.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that many local authorities currently seem very reluctant to introduce 20 mph zones, even though they can do so? I am also concerned that, in my experience, the local police say that if there is not an enormous amount of capital expenditure they will not police such zones.

159WH
Therefore, in my area at least, it has been impossible to have 20 mph zones outside several schools where we would like to have them.
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. If the Government were to allow this joined-up thinking to operate, and if they recognised all the possible savings that could be made, they might be willing to assist local authorities to introduce the measures to which she has just referred, and which, on cost grounds, local authorities are probably not in a position to introduce at present.
The Transport Committee has clearly set out measures—many of which are very simple—that could greatly improve road safety. I urge the Government to be bold; they should implement these recommendations. With thousands of lives at stake, everything is to be gained.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that 10 hon. Members want to participate in this debate, and that they include the two Front-Bench spokesmen. Clearly, it is important that the Minister and the shadow Minister should have an opportunity to make positive contributions to this debate. Therefore, I ask all hon. Members to be as disciplined as possible in their remarks, so that everybody can have their say.
3.33 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I declare an interest. I am a co-chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, a charity that provides parliamentarians with research-based solutions to transport safety issues.
When I started reading the report, I was immediately struck by its trenchant language; it was biffing the Minister about the head. However, by the time I had reached the end of the report, I realised that the language was justified. The report is nothing less than a clarion call for action on behalf of all those who lose their lives, suffer ridiculously serious injuries or are bereaved when loved ones lose their lives on the roads. We should not wait a minute longer to take the action that we know needs to be taken to reduce the number of casualties.
In the light of those comments, the Government's response is disappointing. It does not address the seriousness of the issue or of the report itself, which deserves a much better response than the Government have given so far. I welcome the Government's support for the position of the Transport Research Laboratory, which sometimes receives unfair criticism for its reports of research findings. From all the research in this country and around the world, we can say that high average speeds and variability in speed lead to more crashes on the roads, and that a driver is six times as likely to be involved in a crash if he is travelling 25 per cent. faster than average speed. Our priority should clearly be to reduce the fastest speeds to achieve the greatest gain in road safety. As a rule of thumb, we can achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in crashes for every 1 mph reduction in average speeds.
160WH
I want to touch on the four themes of leadership, public support, resources and the future. In terms of leadership, the Prime Minister launched "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", which contains our casualty reduction targets for the next 10 years. The targets are challenging. They will require leadership and a consistent approach across the road safety lobby. However, we have seen several mixed messages from the Government so far.
Outside the subject of road traffic speed, we have seen the Government duck the issues of pedestrian protection and the reduction of the alcohol limit for drinking and driving. On road policing directly, last year saw the second round of local audits of the crime and disorder reduction local partnerships. I conducted a survey of every police force in the country, to ask them whether their audits had included requests to the public for their responses on road traffic policing. Only about half of them did so. Naturally, that reduces the opportunities for the public to say that they want road traffic policing to be a priority.
When I asked police forces why they had not consulted on the issue, I received responses such as that of one assistant chief constable who said:
"It is my understanding that the priorities for Crime and Disorder strategies were felt to be more likely to be focused on crime and disorder rather than road safety, not least because road safety is being dealt with elsewhere."
A second force wrote that it had positively been advised by the relevant Government office that road traffic matters should not be included in the audit process. What sort of message is that to the country about the Government's determination and leadership in driving down road casualties?
Worse may be to come. The first national policing plan is due to be published at the end of November. The Home Office is now up to the 10th draft, and I understand that it contains not a single mention of road traffic policing. I hope that the Minister will make inquiries about that and have something to say about it to the Home Office if it is the case. The Government clearly have to get a grip and provide leadership, not least so that they do not let down all those dedicated individuals in councils, the police, health services and other organisations who are trying to reduce the number of casualties. The Government have to show leadership to the public and the commentators.
I come now to the issue of public support. Generally, the public would ask three questions about speed. First, what is the limit? They need to understand what the speed limit is for the road that they are on, which means that the Government have to say something about the national pattern of speed limits and the signing of them. The Committee made a simple and sensible suggestion about permitting repeater signs for 30 mph speed limits. The Government have responded disappointingly even to that basic recommendation.

Secondly, is the limit realistic? Drivers want to obey the law, but if they cannot see the sense of a speed limit and think that it is positively unreasonable, they will be hard pressed to obey the law even if they want to, unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, they are positively made to by a strong police presence. It is important to adopt a consistent approach to setting speed limits and to be able to justify them, so

161WH
that when drivers see a speed limit sign, they trust that the limit is reasonable. Then it is important to enforce limits consistently, so the third question is whether the limit will be enforced.
The first element in enforcing speed limits is signage, but there are other issues, such as engineering—whether we can use traffic-calming measures to make people keep to a certain speed limit—safety cameras and police officers. I have said enough about signage. Engineering is probably the simplest, cheapest and most effective way to reduce speed limits. We have had some success in Stafford, where the authority introduced 20 mph speed limits. We recently received a report on the first of those schemes after it had been operating for 18 months. A whole-estate approach was taken on the Highfields estate, and there was no rat running as a result of the traffic calming. In the five years before the implementation of the scheme there were 20 crashes resulting in serious or slight injury; fortunately, there were no fatalities. In the 18 months following the introduction of the scheme, there was just one crash causing slight injury—a dramatic improvement in safety achieved for a reasonable financial outlay.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for organising the PACTS briefing this morning, during which I was able to raise the issue of the safer city project in Gloucester. I shall be careful what I say, however, because the last time that I raised the issue I received more correspondence in the vein described by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) than I care to mention. That shows that we cannot take it as read that people understand why traffic calming is used and why we try to make drivers behave more responsibly. It is not always the natural speedsters who are critical. It is often those who are disabled or people who work for the ambulance service who seem to have a problem with some of the measures, so education must be part of the process, not a final add-on. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Kidney: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we show leadership. Both as a Government and as politicians, we have a responsibility to explain why traffic calming is necessary in certain areas in our constituencies. It is important that we justify the measures and stand up to be counted. That is why I raised the subject of speed cameras.
We have received the first-year reports of those forces that have taken advantage of the netting-off scheme, which uses some of the income from speeding fines to pay for speed cameras. In those areas covered by the scheme, 47 per cent. fewer people were killed or seriously injured at camera sites. In the eight pilot areas, where the scheme has been running for longer, there has been an 18 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.
Speed cameras are popular with the public. I differ slightly with the Committee in its criticism of the Minister's decision on the conspicuity of cameras. I believe that his decision is an example of good old-fashioned political nous, heading off possible criticism that the scheme is more about tax revenue than road safety, which would make it unpopular.
The presence of police officers is vital. In the summer, I spent a day of the recess on patrol with a police officer on the M6 motorway. In a commendable scheme, four
162WH
police authorities have pooled their officers to police the motorways in a consistent way throughout the west midlands. The scheme shows how thinly resources are spread; with more resources, the police would be able to give a better service to the public who use the roads. That service would include not simply stopping people and punishing them but reducing casualties and congestion. There is a need for police officers to be physically present. That brings me on to resources generally, so I shall say no more about police forces.
Local authorities have received a welcome boost of Government finance for local transport plans. That is appreciated and is becoming noticeable on the ground. Through local transport plans, an integrated approach has been adopted, with an emphasis on public transport, walking, cycling and safety. Staffordshire, which has a casualty reduction partnership, has an impressive record. It took the lead with speed cameras in 1995 and there have been dramatic reductions in casualties on the roads. An estimated 250 people who would have been killed or seriously injured since 1995 are alive and walking about today because the presence of speed cameras reduced road speeds. They are good value for money, and it is a good amount of money. It is ironic that the problem that local authorities are encountering is skills shortages; there is a lack of the right sort of engineer to implement the measures for which they now have the money.
I said that I wanted to talk about the future. Mention has been made of intelligent speed adaptation. That refers to speed limiters, which can recognise the speed limit where a vehicle is and can consequently limit its speed. They are not new; they are used on heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles and some of the top ranges of motor car offer them as an optional extra, something attractive. I have been to the Motor Industry Research Association premises at Nuneaton and driven the second prototype intelligent speed adaptation car, which is being trialled. It drives like any other car and one does not notice any difference in performance except that it will not let one exceed the posted speed limit. It is a remarkable vehicle. I believe that it represents the future and could cut something like one quarter of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
The next demonstration of the car for Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be on 20 November at Brent Cross. Six parliamentarians are invited on that occasion. I am sure that if there is more interest, other demonstrations can be arranged. The next stage is a programme that will start in Leeds next year. Twenty vehicles with intelligent speed adaptation will be let loose on the roads of Leeds to see how they work on a bigger scale.
What we need to hear from the Minister is not that it will be left to the market to see how speed adaptation develops but that certain things will be done to ensure that it is a success. The most obvious is the digital mapping of speed limits. The Government should say now that they will provide the resources to make that happen, so that by the time that we are ready for the scheme to be national, the infrastructure is in place. The other little thing that the Government could do is to encourage some fleet operators to offer their fleets for larger trials of speed adaptation and give it the opportunity to prove itself.

163WH
We need five things: a commitment across government, including in guidance on crime and disorder reduction partnership audits and in the national policing plan; to have all Government Departments signed up to the road safety agenda; a clear, consistent message, designed to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving; clarity in speed limit policy; and best practice in education, engineering, enforcement and evaluation. Most of all, we need leadership from the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, let me give the House more specific guidance. A number of people still want to speak. I have no authority to demand this, but I should be very grateful if Back Benchers would limit their remarks to 10 minutes. That will give the Front Benchers full opportunity to participate.
3.48 pm
Gregory Barker: I am mindful of your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall endeavour to conclude in much less than 10 minutes.
I pay tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for her terrific introductory speech and to all the Committee for having produced this excellent report. I am particularly glad that in introducing the subject the Chairman showed such passion and vigour. We should all be passionate about the subject, because it is a matter of life and death. I have particular reason to understand that because, early in September, my teenage nephew was knocked down on a road on the way to school. But for the incredible professionalism and dedication of the East Sussex ambulance service and then the intensive care team of doctors and nurses at the Royal Sussex county hospital, he would not be alive today. Although he remains in hospital, I am glad to say that it looks as though he will make a full recovery.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the impact that the different speeds of 20 mph, 30 mph and 40 mph can have on the survival rates of those involved in traffic accidents. The points that he made were spot on. They must not be lost amid arguments about expenditure, budgeting and inconvenience to drivers. We must think of the casualties first and last.
I want to articulate the feelings of those in many rural areas, especially in my constituency. People there feel that their areas are blithely given a mandatory 40 mph speed limit, when so many towns and urban areas will as a matter of course be given a 30 mph or even 20 mph speed limit. East Sussex county council is currently undertaking a village speed limit review. In the county, 41 villages have been identified that have no speed limit at all. The council is in the process of identifying the right level of speed limit to be imposed. It thinks that the limit might be 30 mph, but in some cases it might be 40 mph, depending on the investigations into current speed.
I believe passionately that all communities, rural or urban, should as a matter of right be able to put a 30 mph speed limit through the centre of their communities. In my village of Peasmarsh and the
164WH
neighbouring village of Beckley, there is a 40 mph speed limit that takes one straight past the school in Beckley and the village shop in Peasmarsh. It runs past the memorial centre, and there is not even a proper crossing. Elsewhere in my constituency, whether in Catsfield, Herstmonceux, Boreham Street, Bodiam—I could go on much longer—people are desperate to slow down the traffic that runs through the heart of their communities.
East Sussex county council has a prioritised action list of 140 villages identified as in need of traffic calming, but the budgetary restrictions on the council mean that only between four and six of those calming measures can be carried out each year. Even if no further scheme is identified, that means that it will take at least 20 years before all those schemes are implemented. Then and only then can the council begin to think about a mandatory 30 mph limit in all villages. That is clearly totally unacceptable. I want the Government not only to empower local authorities so that they take can action in theory, but to deliver the resources so that they can take it in practice.
Two points occurred to me during the debate. The first is about driver habits and technology. This year, I have bought a more high-performance car, which is capable of faster speeds. In fact, the impact on my driving behaviour has been to lower my speeds, especially in built-up areas, because that sporty car has a digital display in the dashboard that tells me my speed. It has a much more direct impact on my driving than the old-fashioned needle dial. I can see instantly when it flicks above 30 mph. I am aware that the speed indicator is vague on many cars. New technology has a role to play in confronting drivers with their speed.
The second point is about taking a delegation of my constituents last year to Poundbury in Dorset to look at the development there. I was struck by how town planning in the building of that new community had reduced the role of the car. There is no proliferation of signage, but the design of roads has made them safer for pedestrians. All too often in villages or housing estates, there are broad, sweeping roads with wide corners and clear views, which just give a clear indication to a driver to put his foot down. It certainly does in my village, Peasmarsh. In Poundbury, however, blind corners have been built deliberately so it is impossible for drivers to get up any speed at all before they have to brake, halt and turn. Town planning has an important part to play in preventing future accidents.
I know that the Minister is a decent man and will aspire to implement many of the recommendations in this excellent report, but it is no good willing the end if one does not will the means. I would like him directly to address what he is going to do to ensure that the recommendations in the report are actually implemented, on a time scale that will be meaningful to people who have young children now, and who do not want to wait until they have grown up and left school before their roads are made safer. What will he do to ensure that a fraction of a vast Government budget of £418 billion will be diverted to saving the lives of our children?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I hope it is appropriate to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just in case there is not time later on to cover the point. The hon. Gentleman will know that most of the safety plans

165WH
throughout the country are delivered by local authorities and through the moneys that we put into local transport plans. As has been pointed out, those have been substantially increased in the past two years: one of the members of the Committee says twofold, but I would say they have increased threefold in the last two years. Those are moneys for local councils to take decisions. Will the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) commit a future Conservative Government to those levels of spending on local transport plans?
Gregory Barker: Sadly, I am only a lowly Back Bencher, so I cannot commit a future Conservative Government to anything. A very senior Member sits alongside me, but I have a feeling that he will keep mum. I take on board the Minister's words about the funding of the transport plan. Can I, therefore, have an assurance from him that he will intervene, and contact the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the threatened cut of up to £44 million in the funding for East Sussex county council is not implemented? Some £44 million stands to come out of the budget of East Sussex county council.
The Government have vast resources available. They have to wrestle with priorities, but I cannot think of a higher priority than saving the lives of children, elderly people, and the thousands of people who die unnecessarily in car accidents every year.
3.57 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: As local authorities, the highways agency and car manufacturers grapple with technological advance, and as the police deal with increasing demands on their time, this grim report has come as a timely reminder to us all that inappropriate speed is one of Britain's biggest killers. We are all trying to achieve, through the initiatives that we have talked about today, a culture shift in driver habits similar to that concerning drink driving in the 1970s and 1980s. I welcome the report's assertion that we should have an evidence-led speed management policy. I was particularly pleased to see that the recommendations of the British Medical Association were adopted in paragraph 15. It now seems that health statistics will be built into the database of accident spots.
Has the Minister considered whether the insurance industry could play a role in establishing an accurate picture of where road traffic accidents occur in Britain? Every time I look at my insurance policy bill, it is always a reminder to me that the industry is aware of every last penny that is spent on road traffic accidents in Britain.
The emphasis in the document on reducing risk is important. The £10 million that the Government are about to spend on the pilot network of pedestrian training schemes, particularly in deprived areas, should be welcomed. At the risk of derision from everyone in the room, I have to say that I am a member of the Tufty club generation, and we have to bring up a new generation of young people who have road safety at the heart of their education.
Paragraph 30 of the report, which recommends an increase in dedicated cycle routes, is timely. In a letter, my neighbouring Member of Parliament, the Minister for Transport, told me that he had doubled the funding
166WH
for dedicated cycle routes. That may have been partly in fear of the Chairman of the Transport Committee and partly because he is a committed cyclist. I was tantalised by the announcement from the Department for Transport, which said that my constituency, West Bromwich, East, was to be the recipient of some of the additional money. Imagine my disappointment when I realised that it had the column wrong, and it was the constituency of Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Sylvia Heal), which was receiving a grant for a primary care trust to do cycle education training. You cannot win everything; we may have better luck next time.
People know that speed kills, but I am not sure whether they appreciate when they are the wheel of a vehicle what different speeds do. I wonder whether the Department for Education and Skills has a role to play in that respect. For instance, the national curriculum might use the speeds of vehicles when practical examples are required in maths training. Although the information is built into the highway code test, young people are schooled to pass the test rather than to make the correct risk assessment when they are driving. There is no Education Minister present today, but I want us to make progress in that respect.
Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many young people are allowed to take their cycling proficiency test in school? Lots of American high schools organise driving tests, which the students take in school. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that idea?
Mr. Watson: It is an excellent idea, which we could explore in future debates.
The report focused on particular types of drivers who are most vulnerable to speeding, and I want to focus on the commercial sector. The role of business in accident prevention is often overlooked. Accidents caused by speeding company cars and other working vehicles claim an incredible number of lives each year, and the figures are on the increase. More than 1,100 people die every year in work-related road accidents in company cars or commercial vehicles. Statistically, company car drivers are the worst motorists—last year, almost a third were involved in an accident—and they are significantly more likely to have been involved in a road accident than any other group. For a variety of reasons, company car drivers tend to be less responsible than other drivers. Three quarters of them make telephone calls while in their cars. More worryingly, 16 per cent. admit that they are always under pressure from their bosses to drive to ever-increasing deadlines. No matter how good the speed management of a road, drivers who feel pressurised to speed will continue to do so. The only thing that will change that is a serious call in the workplace to change the way in which businesses treat their drivers, but companies would sooner keep their costs down and increase their short-term productivity by encouraging employees to drive inappropriately fast.
Fortunately, in the long term, statistics can demonstrate financial incentives for companies to change their car-driving policies. The average cost of repairing a company car is £750; a van repair costs nearly £1,400 and a commercial vehicle £4,500. Those figures do not include the cost of lost productivity of an employee taken out of the work environment.

167WH
There is an incentive for companies to introduce risk assessment schemes, but when only one in five commercial drivers and company car drivers receive risk assessment, it is no surprise that the TUC has today called for the Health and Safety Executive to put pressure on companies to give adequate risk assessment training to their employees.
There is a lot more I would like to have said on this matter, but in deference to my colleagues who have not spoken I shall close this part of my speech. I want to mention briefly the engineering involved in road traffic management. It has been said that traffic-calming solutions are often simple, but I wonder whether the pool of expertise in traffic calming on which local authorities can draw is being used appropriately in areas where there are unusual roads.
One of my constituents, a retired police sergeant, Mr. Leonard Phillips, wrote to me recently about the Newton road in my constituency, which has a difficult junction and a blind bend on an incline, and is currently a 40 mph road. After 20 years of savage accidents and in spite of three speed cameras, a speed-checking warning camera and numerous traffic signs, we still have not got the engineering right to reduce the number of road traffic accidents. My personal view is that we should simply lower the speed limit. Council engineers inform me that there would be other safety hazards if they were to introduce traffic lights.
I wonder whether the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions could have a pool of experts to provide a best practice guide for local authority engineers. I also wonder whether there are disparities in road traffic safety budgets between local authorities. If my own borough of Sandwell were to receive an increase, we might be able to get a long awaited zebra crossing on the Hamstead road, which causes many of my constituents great concern.
A mild criticism of the report is that paragraphs 60 and 61 on the siting and colour of speed cameras were a little harsh. It seems logical that we should put speed cameras at the most appropriate places on roads and that we should target accident black spots first. As I said at the start of my speech, if we want to achieve a culture change in Britain, we must take public opinion with us. Motorists and the public alike have a genuine fear that if we allow unfettered use of safety cameras, we will simply have a forest of safety cameras that are used to generate revenue rather than to increase safety. However, I understand my colleagues' concern that the colour yellow might give prior warning to speeding drivers.
I end my remarks here so that everyone can speak this afternoon.
4.7 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I shall be brief, as many of the things that I would have said have been said already in hon. Members' fine speeches.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke brilliantly. She produced a splendid report that I, like others, support.
I will address my remarks primarily to my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues, as there are historic precedents for changes in the law governing
168WH
driving and motoring that we should bear in mind. In the past, we delayed introducing measures that have since saved thousands of lives, and people died in the mean time as a result. Delay is deadly, and I hope that the Government will take the bull by the horns and act quickly so that many lives are saved.
The introduction of the law on crash helmets is an example. I do many things in my constituency. I am a patron of the local acquired brain injury group, several members of which had crashes on motorcycles before crash helmets were required and were damaged for life. Of course, many others died. After that, we had the issue of seat belts. I was one of the people who bought seat belts for my car, fitted and wore them. I was mocked by some of my more macho friends who thought that it was a little feeble and that I should be bold and drive fast. We all know that culture. I told them that I wanted to live. I studied engineering and applied mathematics when I was younger, so I know about the laws of motion and the forces of deceleration. We know what happens to a tomato when it is dropped from a first-floor window on to a concrete pavement. I think of that when I think of the human body hitting a solid object. We must think in those terms. The human body is frail, soft and easily damaged. I have often said that if one walks along the pavement into a lamp post at 4 mph, one can do serious damage to one's head. Imagine the impact at 40 mph. A little understanding of engineering and science helps in these matters.
Two of my dear friends in my youth died in car accidents. They might not have died had they worn seat belts. As soon as seat belts were introduced, people immediately adapted to them and there was no problem. However, there was a serious problem about wearing seat belts in other people's cars. I used to wear a seat belt in other people's cars and was chastised by my friends, who felt that I was accusing them of being bad drivers. I used to reply, "No, it's not you; it's the youngster who tears round the corner and crashes into you." At that point, they would make some unparliamentary remark about my cleverness, but I shall leave that on one side.
Every year that we delayed implementing the compulsory wearing of seat belts, 300 people died on the roads and many thousands more were seriously injured. Simply by implementing the compulsory wearing of belts, which did not cost much, we have saved tens of thousands of lives. Therefore, acting quickly now that the evidence is before the Government is vital.
A local police officer has made representations to me that, whatever we do in technology terms, we must also have the personnel to police it. Technology is not a perfect substitute for police officers in the traffic division. We need traffic police as well as technology to ensure that the law is enforced.
Tom Brake: I raised the issue of speed cameras and hand-held devices with my local police force, which said that it took four officers to use them: two at the point where they used the gun, and two at the point where they tried to stop the driver, in case there was an altercation. That means that 25 per cent. of the police in the London borough of Sutton are taken off street patrolling to use the hand-held device, so I agree that resources are key to the issue.
Mr. Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

169WH
I repeat that the Government must act and should not be nervous about challenging the remnants of the macho culture to which I referred. It is diminishing; people are becoming more sensible and the culture is changing. There was a time when the motorist was such a fearsome beast who would vote against any Government who dared to impose restrictions on driving that every Government trembled every time they challenged him. However, that is not the case now. Families with children, elderly people and the great majority of motorists know that the restrictions are sensible. Therefore, the Government have nothing to fear from public opinion by acting quickly and strongly to reduce death on the road.
4.12 Pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and the rest of the Committee on producing an excellent report, not least because of the wealth of information that it brings together. The wealth of detail that it provides fully justifies, if anyone needed further justification, radical measures to tackle the menace of speeding on our roads.
I endorse in the strongest terms possible the Select Committee's call for the urgent and radical action that is required to effect a dramatic reduction in the numbers killed and injured on our roads. I, too, welcome what the Government have done so far. In my city, thanks to funding from the Scottish Executive, 11 20-mph zones are in operation, and another 20 are in the pipeline.
However, I share some of the disappointment expressed by some hon. Members that more has not yet been done to take the Government's safety strategy further forward. We seem to be caught in a world of feasibility studies, demonstration projects and pilot studies; a more comprehensive approach is needed on implementation. I know that there are demands on civil service time and the Government have limited time to introduce legislation, but it was a pity that, after the end of a consultation on road traffic penalties, the Government took almost a year and a half to come up with a response. It is a little concerning that the response does not say when we might see in legislation some of the required changes. I hope that the Minister will say today when we will see some of the changes recommended in the review.
The problem with a delay in making legislative proposals is that it can give the wrong message and suggest that we are not taking the issue as seriously as others. We must make it clear by legislation and effective enforcement that when we say we want to change attitudes we mean it. The most effective way to change attitudes is to underline it with effective enforcement and powerful legislation.
I urge on the Government early implementation of the recommendations of the road traffic penalties review, particularly regarding two-tier penalties for speeding to make the consequences of speeding over a certain limit even more serious. I support the Select Committee's recommendation about the decision to paint speed cameras yellow and to impose restrictions on where they can be sited. It was a mistake, not just because of the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member
170WH
for Crewe and Nantwich gave earlier, but because it risks sending out the message that catching speeding motorists too effectively is somehow unfair and that a little bit of speeding is okay. We must challenge and change that. I hope that the Government will reconsider the guidance that they have issued on speed cameras.
Mr. Kidney: I mentioned earlier that we have had cameras in Staffordshire since 1995. The police have had no problem with painting them yellow, giving notice about where they are and choosing where to put them. They even put the locations on the internet. None of that has damaged their ability to reduce accidents involving fatalities and serious injuries. Is my hon. Friend making too much of a meal of this point?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I respect what my hon. Friend says, but there is little indication either way of the effects of different approaches to speed camera positioning. I accept that in some cases advance warning about speed cameras can encourage speed reduction but—this point is made in the report—it is dangerous to give the message that it is only at those points that one might be caught for speeding. In Scotland, where the matter is devolved, our cameras are still grey. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the effect on policy in Scotland and England.
Speed cameras are an important method of tackling this problem precisely because installing them is now self-financing. Although some of the measures suggested by the Select Committee to tackle speeding are expensive and we should not shy away from spending, many would not require large sums of money, or much legislative time. On the national speed limit for instance, I find it hard to understand how we allow vehicles to be driven up to 60 mph on so many country lanes and minor roads. Like most hon. Members. I am old enough to remember the time when the national speed limit was 50 mph. The current limit was put in place simply by an order. A one-paragraph order could bring it down to 50 mph again. It would not require Second and Third Readings and Committee stages in both Houses. It could be dealt with very easily and speedily.
We do not need legislation to encourage the police and the prosecution authorities to ensure that they enforce the existing speed limits rather than allow, as they still do in too many places, a 10 mph leeway. Let us spend more money on street safety schemes. Let us also make it easier to put speed reduction schemes such as 20 mph zones in place. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that we must make it legislatively possible for 20 mph zones to be put in place. In my city of Edinburgh, the council tried to operate the schemes and found that carrying out the physical work required by the guidance could be a major task that might inhibit full implementation. The council wants to introduce a 20 mph scheme in Edinburgh's new town in my constituency, but the guidance requires entry points into a 20 mph zone from a 30 mph zone to be marked with physical entry features, not just by signs. As hon. Members will know, the new town is a world heritage site, so it is not a matter of laying down cheap concrete. The entry points must be high quality and prestigious

171WH
architecturally. The council estimated that it would cost £500,000 to introduce a 20 mph zone in an area of only one square mile. Ideally, the default speed limit in urban areas might be 20 mph. It would be easier to declare 20 mph zones in larger areas within towns and cities, which would reduce costs dramatically and help to put speed limit schemes into effect more quickly.
Perhaps because I have young children, I feel strongly about this issue. Having children made me much more aware of our severe accident record for children in comparison with our generally good accident record compared with the rest of Europe. I want to tell the Minister that I am not alone in feeling so strongly about the issue. The attendance of hon. Members at today's debate suggests the strength of feeling on the matter. I have never heard anyone at my surgery complaining about speed limits or speed cameras. Rather, people come to see me time and again demanding action to control speed limits and stop traffic speeding through their streets. Constituents want more 20 mph limits and more home zones—and they want them now. They want speed limits enforced, not ignored. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that, and I ask the Government to build on what they have already achieved with more action, more quickly.
4.22 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I shall be brief. As always at this stage of the debate, it has all been said. I shall not elaborate on points that have already been made, but I want to respond to a couple of issues that have not been fully covered.
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) in stressing the extent to which the planning system can cause problems when traffic calming measures are put in place. If I were not present here today, I would be attending a presentation on traffic calming. The area where I live has been fortunate in getting its humps taken out: it is a cul de sac, so the humps did not seem an effective use of funds. For the rest of the estate, however, we are seriously considering putting traffic calming measures in place. Why getting that done has taken so long is partly a question of money. When the process started, the funding did not seem too great, but it turned out that an inordinate amount was involved. Is there enough flexibility in the system for people to have limited but effective traffic calming in their areas?
Returning to this morning's briefing, it was interesting to hear about behavioural changes in drivers rather than physical barriers alone. It may not be cheap, but if physical barriers can be used to make people think harder about how they are driving, it could be a way forward.
I have had previous dealings as a councillor. I am still a parish councillor, as I always tell people, so I have a vested interest because I shall be putting the measure forward and we will ask for a contribution. The planning system involves delay and, in the past, I have visited people with objections to try to persuade them to remove them. I have had some success with that. It is not often that a politician claims success for something that he has done directly, although maybe he does claim success for things that he has not done.
172WH
The way in which a small group of people—sometimes business men with vested interests—can create effective opposition, despite the fact that the vast majority of people want traffic calming, should be examined. I know that that is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I hope that, if and when we get planning changes, the rule will be examined through negotiation and liaison with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to try to make the desired changes more rapid. Most people want to slow down vehicles and they want action sooner rather than later.
My next point has been alluded to several times in the past, but I shall make it a direct challenge to the Minister. I cannot understand why we are shilly-shallying around by not banning people from using mobile phones while driving. I speak as a cyclist, which is why I am here today. I ride my bike around Stroud, which is why I am much fitter than I used to be. There is one thing that I find galling and that puts me in more peril than anything else. In my experience, nine out of 10 motorists are very good with regard to cyclists, but one out of 10 puts the safety of a cyclist in the lap of the gods. If that one out of 10 is using a mobile phone, the cyclist prays. Those motorists pay no attention whatsoever.
Mr. Hopkins rose—
Mr. Drew: I have obviously started something here. I certainly give way.
Mr. Hopkins: I wonder how my hon. Friend would deal with several of the motorists in my constituency who use mobile phones but have darkened windows in their cars so that one cannot see them using the phones.
Mr. Drew: There is always somebody who can come up with a worse experience.
I do not know why we cannot ban people from using the damn things. People do not need to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving, although the Minister will probably find a reason why. I know that there was a private Member's Bill relating to this, but I hope that we can get on with doing something.
Mr. Jamieson rose—
Mr. Drew: We will get the answer now.
Mr. Jamieson: Just in case we do not have time to cover this point at the end, my hon. Friend might have noticed that we put out a consultation during the summer with a view to introducing legislation that would ban such use of hand-held mobile phones.
Mr. Drew: I am pleased. I am always in favour of consultation, but sometimes we want action.
I draw a parallel with what we did about drink driving. Evidence showing that we reduced incidents by two thirds demonstrates that if we provide the leadership about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) spoke, we can change cultures. It is not easy, but it does happen over time.
I have already intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), so I shall say briefly that the report is good and gives us much to work with.

173WH
I must be careful about what I say about the safer city initiative because it does not extend to my constituency. I shall expand a point that I have made previously. A lot of work must be done to persuade people that holistic changes matter in addition to individual aspects such as traffic calming or the changes to driving behaviour that are encouraged. That requires time, effort and money. The initiative has obviously worked, but no doubt I will receive much criticism from Gloucester citizens for saying that and I will be told to keep my nose out of it. However, I occasionally ride through Gloucester—we do not yet have private estates in terms of cities.
Hon. Members mentioned problems in rural areas. Displacement is the largest current problem caused by congestion. That is the problem that I have with congestion charges, because we must understand where motorists are likely to go. They are likely to use cutthroughs in rural areas. The standard of driving is that of the one in 10 motorists to whom I referred. They drive like a bat out of hell because, if they have been caught up in congested areas of cities, they try to make up time by driving very fast on rural roads. The situation requires enforcement rather than believing that just changing speed limits will make a difference. Many of our villages do not have pavements and people have to rely on walking or cycling to cover short distances—although not sufficiently, in my opinion. If we are to encourage that, we must reduce the speed of traffic. That is achievable. It involves making general changes to speed limits, and the use of repeater signals, so that we can make it clear what speed people should be driving at. I accept that saying, "We did not know that this was a limited area," is an excuse. I hope that those things will happen.
The Government have a big agenda to address, and the Select Committee has done us a favour by setting that big agenda and taking it forward. I hope that all of us—the hon. Members who are present and the people who have come to listen to the debate—agree that this is an incredibly important issue.
I recently received a letter asking why I do not believe in the death penalty, as there are so many child killers out there. My response to that is always, "Well, there are other child killers who—maybe—we do not take seriously enough, and they happen to be people who drive cars." I do not want to use emotive language, but we could do something about that. It would lead to a genuine bonus because many more children would live, due to the changes that we would introduce.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I want to say that we are on target, so I hope to call the three remaining speakers before the winding-up speeches.
4.31 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I welcome the report—although perhaps not quite as much as other hon. Members, judging by the tone of the debate. I agree that speed is a problem when it is excessive or inappropriate—those terms are often used interchangeably.
I am a motorist, and I am conscious of the extraordinary improvements in my life that a fairly fast method of conveyance has made possible. I am the
174WH
Member of Parliament for Hemel Hempstead. In the past, the Member of Parliament for that constituency would not have been able to see his children every morning, but I can do that, thanks to a motor vehicle. After I get the train, I am able to convey myself across the Hertfordshire countryside so that I can take my children to school most mornings when I do not have very early meetings.
Motoring is life-enhancing and enjoyable. I speak as an ex-long-distance lorry driver. I have taken motor cycles over most of the countries of Europe. I have driven a sports car for many thousands of miles. Motoring has been one of the pleasures of my life. The fact that it gets you from A to B faster than a horse and cart or a paddle boat is an integral part of that enjoyment. Motoring extends our horizons and it gives us opportunities that we would not have if we did not have motor vehicles. I therefore do not want to start by condemning speed as such.
I do condemn two things, the first of which is excessive speed, which I define—as did the old highway code—as travelling at a speed at which you cannot stop in the distance you see to be clear. That seems to me to be the most fundamental problem. Accidents are often not caused by the straight-line speed of a vehicle, although I do not deny that sometimes—say, when a crash is caused by a blow out—the straight-line speed of the vehicle might make the resulting injuries more serious than they would otherwise have been. However, for the most part, travelling at excessive speed is not the problem. One must drive one's vehicle not in such a way that one avoids hitting people at 10 mph rather than at 30 mph, but in such a way that one avoids hitting people at all.
In the motoring world, a sense grew that motoring was so enjoyable that roads were entirely for motorists, so I welcome the part of the report that points out, as we did in a debate in Westminster Hall 15 months ago, that roads are meant to be shared by lots of different users. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about his cycling. Many people other than motorists are road users—cyclists, horse-riders, pedestrians and children playing.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McWalter: In a moment.
We should understand that ownership of our roads is shared—there is a varied set of stakeholders. That creates different characteristics, and people should fulfil their obligations depending on the character of road that they are traversing. There is utter confusion at the moment. I know of a road so full of different colours, markings and scratchings that nobody has a clue what they mean—the markings are supposed to take the place of a pedestrian crossing, which would be more expensive. People did slow down for about the first three days after they appeared, and promptly resumed their speed when they realised that the markings did not mean very much.
I would have liked something about road markings to have appeared in the report. One of the most fundamental and brilliant road markings in British

175WH
motoring history is the speed limit that, in effect, says, "You must go at no miles per hour." It involves painting the road black and white and adding a flashing orange light. It says, "If there is somebody in the vicinity of the entrance to this piece of road, you have no priority and you must stop." It is one of the most brilliant pieces of road safety provision. Now we have a complete mess, which was not sorted out by the debate 15 months ago, and I welcome the opportunity to begin to sort it out. However, that will not happen if we fail to distinguish between excessive speed and speed as such.
I have been fighting tooth and nail in my constituency to get 20 mph limits, so I am pleased to hear that some hon. Members have achieved them. As the report says, in a couple of my villages—Nettledon and Water End—cars whistle through at such a rate that it is impossible for someone sensibly to visit a neighbour living on the opposite side of the road. There is a 30 mph limit—East Sussex will be envious of that—but nobody respects it and it is never policed. In any case, the road is a rat run and the limit is never protected. I do not merely want a 20 mph limit: I want that limit to be policed.
I welcome what the report says about rural roads, where I want a 40 mph limit to be introduced. I said that I enjoy motoring, but I do not enjoy motoring on roads that only have passing places where vehicles are hurtling at me at 60 mph. If I am doing 30 mph, an impact with a another vehicle travelling at 60 mph would be a 90 mph impact, and one or the other, if not both, of the drivers would perish, unless I am quick enough to get out of his way—it nearly always is a "he".
The report is right to urge a 40 mph limit, but it must be policed. However, limits are never policed and where there are clear limits, people will continue not to honour them. Where are all the traffic police? They are on the only roads that are not meant for shared use—motorways. There should be no pedestrians or learner drivers on motorways: they are intended for motorists. It is interesting that the "Toad of Toad Hall" fixation, in which the only people who matter are motorists, extends to policing. If policing traffic is about protecting horse-riders, cyclists, pedestrians and children at play, traffic police should be where those people need to be protected. We have failed utterly to do that.
The fixation with motorway limits is a fixation about the death of motorists, but people are 10 times more likely to perish on a rural road or a council estate road than on a motorway. Because of the fixation with speed, the report appears to be opposed to the idea that cars and motor cycles allow us to do things that we could not otherwise do. I know that the Committee vote must have been fairly close on the matter. As I urged the Minister in the previous debate, there is no reason why motorists should be limited to 70 mph on roads that are entirely for motorists.
I spent most of the summer doing 80 mph on French roads—the limit is 81 mph. That is not especially dangerous, although it becomes dangerous when someone approaches from behind at 130 mph with the intention of blowing the other driver off the road. That is dangerous and causes accidents, and in two weeks in France it happened to me more often than it happens to
176WH
me for the other 50 weeks of the year in Britain, because our driving codes are a great deal better than theirs. Of course, it still happens in Britain, but has anyone ever heard of someone being prosecuted for travelling too near another driver at an unreasonable speed? I never have. What happens is that people are prosecuted for the straight-line speed that they are doing, even if they have temporarily speeded up to 90 mph to get out of the way of a car that is travelling at 130 mph. Both drivers are penalised in that situation. We should try to arrive at an understanding of speeding whereby we prosecute "hurtling", as I called it in the previous debate. That means prosecuting people who travel at a speed at which they cannot stop within the distance they see to be clear.
We have to establish a sense of shared ownership of most of our road system, and the report goes a long way towards doing that. We should give local authorities the opportunity of creating not only 20 mph zones but 5 mph zones in places where children play. We should not conduct the debate in such a way that we think entirely about speed, rather than excessive speed. It is time that we recognise that motoring brings tremendous benefits and value to people in terms of family life and other things. If we can get the balance right, we should accept the report and even entrench it, but we should ensure that the traffic activity is conducted away from motorways. Let the motorways be policed by cameras, but we should also allow higher speeds on motorways to ensure the journey times that people now expect without the dangers that currently oppress them.
4.42 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I welcome the Select Committee report and the opportunity to take part in the debate. I must own up to the fact that in a previous life I worked in the transport and planning department of the Greater London Council and oversaw some project administration in west London. Some of my babies are still out there. Today, I shall focus on my constituency and its experience in dealing with road traffic management. I shall cite cases of constituents of mine, some of whom have been tragically affected when speeding has caused the death of a loved one.
One hon. Member said earlier that more pedestrian crossings were needed. I do not know if it is the case today and I do not claim to be an expert, but when I worked in transport and planning, the experts' argument was that there were more accidents at pedestrian crossings than elsewhere. That is an easy answer. If a slower speed limit is not imposed on the approach to pedestrian crossings, people may be doing 30 or 40 mph when they come up to the crossings. Pedestrians often have a false sense of security when they walk on to the crossing, thinking that cars are going to slow down.
That is the heart of the debate. An holistic approach is needed to the problem. It is not just that we need to reduce speeds—we must also consider the nature of the community in which the car is travelling and whether we make it easier for the car. Should the road and the built environment be dominated by the motorist's needs or by the needs of the community and pedestrians? I shall elaborate on that later.
The Government should be congratulated on their efforts to encourage speed reduction, as well as on tackling issues such as home zones and urban planning.

177WH
We should not regard roads as separate from the residential areas where we live, or the places where we shop or work. Some of the problems are caused by the officers in charge locally who advise councillors. If they do not agree with communities who want lower speed limits, they can produce dozens of reasons why those lower limits should not be introduced, such as not enough people are being killed or maimed; people will not obey a reduced speed limit; or the route is part of a major road.
Like many Members present, I represent a mining constituency. It includes urbanised areas as well as villages in the countryside. There are many A-roads where the speed limit changes from 60 to 40 mph, and there is no effort to reduce the speed limit when the road goes through a small village. One such area is Austerfield, which I shall mention again.
There is a real problem with changing the mindset of people who have operated in a pro-car, pro-road culture for many years. Many councillors in Doncaster—certainly the cabinet member responsible for the matter, councillor John Hoare—are engaged in trying to consider the community's needs, which are not merely based on statistics that determine that a certain number of accidents or deaths must take place before speed reduction can be considered. I urge the Government in their guidelines to local authorities and through the Local Government Association to ensure that the voices of communities that demand lower speed limits are heard, not simply dismissed if they do not fit in with the technicalities of calculating the statistics on road deaths.
Austerfield is on an A-road, and people wanted to reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph. It took two years for them to obtain an order, and I am pleased to say that the notice has now been put up on a lamppost. I do not want to be too partisan, but two Conservative councillors went along with the recommendations from officers that the speed limit should not be reduced. That is a classic example of councillors listening to the experts rather than to the local community and not feeling able to counter the experts' arguments.
In that case, we successfully opposed the recommendations, but there are many other communities in which the people want to reduce speed limits. In Warmsworth, residents raised a petition for a 20 mph zone, but were told that it would not be possible to implement it before 2004. Auckley parish council wanted to introduce a 20 mph zone outside three local schools and has been specific about which areas it wants to target, but it has been told that the issue is low priority. There is a problem with the mindset of some highway officers who are unresponsive to public demands.
Resources have also been mentioned, but so many issues have been raised today that a bottomless pit could be required to take them all. It is often argued that road safety measures cost too much. As I have seen when I have gone in to do battle with highway officers, they sometimes provide so much for one particular area—chicanes, road bumps, signs, road markings—that traffic-calming measures can be introduced only in a few other areas.
I am not an expert in the matter but, as a layperson, I question why it is necessary to overload one stretch of road with so many different types of traffic-calming
178WH
measures to achieve a result. As a driver, and as one who has listened to constituents who live in areas where such schemes have been introduced, I have found that the flashing sign is one of the most effective measures. If a sign starts flashing when a driver approaches a village, it has a huge psychological impact. More is not necessarily best. If a measure is effective, and if it would allow us to cover more areas, so be it. It is not good enough to deny some communities a simple flashing sign on the basis that millions of pounds have been spent on one or two stretches of road in Doncaster.
Also on the subject of resources, we should look laterally at the other pots of money from which the Government provide funding. Some hon. Members say that such money is not allocated to their constituencies but we in Doncaster have neighbourhood renewal money and new deal for communities money. Some of that money can be used to examine the built environment to make it safer for people and to improve the quality of their communities and homes. If the way in which traffic and the road environment has an impact on the home environment is not examined, it should be. If the money were used, that would relieve pressure on the Highways Agency's other budgets so that it could get on with dealing with those areas that currently receive no money.
Much more lateral thinking is needed across departmental boundaries about how we can examine the whole picture. The Department of Transport should ensure that other Departments with responsibilities for regeneration, planning for quality homes and streets, and policing have a budget to examine that important issue. I have seen for myself how urban planning in communities throughout Europe has had a huge impact in slowing cars down by, as was mentioned earlier, creating obstacles for them to go round and making it difficult for them to go from A to B. In this country, we are sometimes too focused on detail such as high-quality lighting. I am not against that, but the danger is that we will create an environment in which the car is king—or queen—and rules the roost.
Several new housing developments are being built in my area. If we must change, let us assess the impact of planning on such developments and how we can make what can be very large estates much more amenable to communities. We should have kids playing in the streets, not just another outpost of car culture. We need planning to determine how roads are built around an estate.
Town and parish councils are another source of resources, although they might not like me saying that. I pay tribute to Mr. Barry Livsey and his town council, Finningly, which paid for a speed gun for the local community constable. In partnership, one can work with others to find resources. The Countryside Agency has a fantastic fund called the "Vital Villages Campaign", which provides several types of grant for transport and for slowing down cars going through communities. The key point is that we must make people aware of such sources of money so that they can work in a more imaginative way across different funding lines to achieve what they want to achieve.
We know that not wearing seat belts was a major cause of road deaths. It is a fantastic tribute to a Labour Government and to Barbara Castle that we managed to change the law on seat belts. Speeding, drinking alcohol,

179WH
driving without a licence or insurance, driving when disqualified, and the use of mobile phones all present real challenges for the Government.
In concluding, I should mention Mr. and Mrs. Fox, who tragically lost their son in a road accident because of speeding and who keep me informed of their campaign for reducing speed limits. The Department of Transport should discuss with the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Solicitor General how the criminal justice system deals with survivors and victims of road accidents and their families. I sometimes think that dealing with speeding offences is not seen as warranting the same sensitivity as when someone is raped, murdered or severely injured. I will not go into detail, but there are many questions to be asked about how Mr. and Mrs. Fox's case was dealt with. It is important to note that people deserve justice, and it needs to be understood how seriously a speeding offence can affect real people's lives.
4.53 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I would like to declare that I am joint chairman of the all-party road safety group along with two other Members, one of whom is here this afternoon.
I congratulate the Committee on its report. I would also like to thank the Select Committee Chairman, who addressed a public meeting in my constituency in September in Carver. Concern was expressed at the meeting about the road traffic regulations and a speed limit that is believed to be excessive—a belief with which I agree. There is also an attempt to reduce to 30 mph the speed limit on the A623 through Carver. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) would doubtless agree that the presentation was very effective.
I would like to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). When we make representations to local authorities on the introduction of new speed regulations, they seem to come up with a huge number of things that need to be done to put them into place. Perhaps the Minister should review the type of regulations that local authorities insist are complied with before they will even consider putting in 30 mph speed limits or any road-slowing mechanisms. We tend to go for a gold-plated job, rather than considering whether more could be done for similar money that would have a far greater impact.
There is another matter on which the Committee should be especially congratulated. The very nature of its report means that it has brought plenty of publicity to the issue. If I have a criticism of the Government it is that I recall we had a debate in the Chamber on road safety every year until 1997. Since 1997, similar debates have not taken place on the Floor of the House, which I regret. They enabled us all to think a little about some issues that surrounded road safety. I do not think that there is a problem with the commitment of any politician on road safety. We all come across fatalities in our constituencies. West Derbyshire has a huge number of visitors, with more than 20 million people coming into the Peak national park each year. Obviously, the result is serious road congestion problems, but also fatalities on the roads.
180WH
It is important that the Minister consider how local authorities bring in regulations and other speeding measures. When I was at the Department of Transport with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we launched a campaign that still runs today—the "Kill your speed, not a child" campaign. The report shows the difference that speed makes to the likely outcome of an accident. Nine out of 10 pedestrians would be killed if a car hit them at 40 mph, but half of them would be killed at 30 mph. At 20 mph, nine out of 10 pedestrians would survive. We have to put that message across.
We must also tell the Government that they should look closely at how local authorities implement safety measures. When roads are constructed, the implications for and the impact on neighbouring roads should be considered. The A50 in my constituency is basically a link road between the M1 and the M6. I have never regarded it as the Doveridge bypass, as I was pressing for it to be. The impact of its completion on subsidiary roads in the area has not been dealt with at all, and such matters can bring serious problems.
I was told that the speed limit on the A623 could not be reduced to 30 mph because it would cost a lot to put up all the necessary signage, make certain road pattern changes and possibly put down differently coloured tarmac to make people aware that they were entering a 30 mph area. One night, I drove through a village called Idridgehay that had a 30 mph speed limit. There was no warning, only a 30 mph sign as one enters the village. People respect the limit because they know that there is danger, but they need to be warned of the danger in such areas.
Although I congratulate the Committee and thank its Chairman personally for coming to West Derbyshire to listen to that specific case, I urge the Government to consider how local authorities sometimes use all the regulations that have to be implemented as a reason not to do anything, or to do deal with an extremely limited number of cases. The Minister could make a quick impact in that regard, which would benefit everyone. I could say much more on the issue, but as time is short I shall leave him with that message.
4.59 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: This has been a really good debate. Following up on the point made so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), when I was the Minister responsible for roads and road safety, we had an annual debate in the House of Commons main Chamber, which went on for five hours. We can see from today's debate that three hours is not enough to do justice to one aspect of road safety. I hope that the Minister will take back a strong message to the powers that be that we need a full debate on the wider issues of road safety in the main Chamber during the new Session. I congratulate the Committee and all who have spoken in this debate on the wisdom that they have brought to it. We know that the issue is serious for so many of our constituents.
It is a mistake for us to be caricatured as anti-motorist. I know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs Dunwoody) was only joking when she said, in response to an interruption, that that was the motorists fighting back. That sort of joke can be

181WH
misinterpreted. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) brought a degree of balance to the debate. We must emphasise that we have, for the most part, highly responsible and good motorists in this country. We have the best road safety record in Europe, but our motorists have to put up with the highest tax burden on motoring—£38 billion a year. They also have to put up with the lowest investment in roads anywhere in Europe, apart from Greece, and they have to put up with that lack of investment at a local level as well.
Let us pay some tribute to our motorists, and give some balance to the debate. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, what is important is that speed should be appropriate for the circumstances. Obviously, all speed limits can only be a proxy for the requirement set out clearly in the highway code that people should not go too fast for the circumstances. One does not need a PhD to explain that if it is raining, icy, dark and windy, or if there are children around, people will have to moderate their speed more than in cases where those circumstances do not apply.
We thought at one moment that the Government were going to adopt a completely new 20 mph speed limit for all urban areas. That would be a very big mistake. I do not know if the Minister is going to announce it this afternoon, but I think that if he were, it would be a big mistake. It is quite obvious to people that on many urban roads, in particular circumstances, a speed of 30 mph is perfectly all right. To have a mandatory 20 mph speed limit would be the wrong solution.
When I was in government, we introduced the 20 mph zones, and we introduced the idea that to reinforce those zones we had to have engineering measures that would reinforce the requirements on the motorist to respect any changes in conditions. When I was a Minister I went to Holland—I do not know if the present Minister has been there—to look at some of its zones, in which there is a very good road safety record.
I want to concentrate on one aspect: road engineering. Inevitably, if a Committee produces a report just on speed, it will miss out other areas in which the Government can assist. Traffic-calming measures are largely issues of engineering. The Transport Research Laboratory report No. 382 is entitled "The Numerical Context for Setting National Casualty Reduction Targets". It is an important report and one of the speakers has already referred to the laboratory and the expertise it brings to the subject. It says that in setting out the different policies and the different impacts that they can have on reductions in road casualties, new road safety engineering measures are highest in the league table. Some of those are the areas covered in this excellent report. Road safety engineering measures require resources.
Perhaps it is just spin or leaks from the Department, but I am concerned about what the Government may do to try to meet the demanding but quite proper road safety targets that they have set. The previous set drove down road casualties significantly. Perhaps the Government are worried, as I am, that in 2001 there was the first increase in deaths and serious road injuries for many years. However, it would be wrong of the Government to think that they can just blame motorists and say that it is all because motorists are driving too
182WH
fast. Many accidents are caused by errors of judgment that have a disproportionate impact. A small or momentary error of judgment, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead will know from his experience as a lorry driver, can result in a fatality.
The essence of engineering measures is to try to reduce the impact of those errors of judgment in terms of road casualties. That is why we introduced motorways and dual carriageways. That is why we have crash barriers down the middle of motorways and white lines. It is amazing that, under this Government, a special pressure group has been set up to try to have white lines painted more clearly on some country roads. That should go without saying. The local highway authority should be responsible for keeping white lines clear. Those steps and traffic-calming measures are designed to mitigate the impact of errors of judgment.
We cannot force people to use pedestrian crossings, but we can encourage them to do so if we provide them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, one sometimes wonders whether there is a mismatch between the resources allocated to safety on the trains, for example, and those allocated to safety on the roads. For a relatively modest investment, one can put in pedestrian crossings and get a very good return.
Another example of something that provides a good return on an investment is 20 mph zones. On page 5 of the response to the Committee's report, the Government say in answer to recommendation (d):
"We are giving separate grant funding of £3.5 million over financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03 to 28 local highway authorities to introduce 20mph Zones".
Let us consider exactly what that means in context. It means that 28 local authorities will have £125,000 each to spend over two years. However, £125,000 scarcely buys one zone or pedestrian crossing. By giving so little money, the Government are washing their hands of the responsibility to go for it in a big way. If we could get motorists to travel at much lower speeds in urban areas, particularly where there are children, we would have an enormous dividend in improved road safety and be able to reverse the awful statistic that this country has a much higher number of child deaths than elsewhere. I hope that the Government will consider the issue of resources and not just play party politics with it.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that there would be an extra £145 million a year to deal with some pinch points on our main road network, but what is £145 million, given that motorists collectively pay £38 billion a year in taxes? Spread over five years, £145 million is only £1 per motorist per year. That is not big money, yet the Government dressed it up as a major announcement. They need to put many more resources into this area, as the Committee identified. However, just talking about putting more money into transport plans is not the whole answer, because those plans embrace public transport as well as expenditure on roads. I hope that the Minister will respond to the legitimate cry for help and more resources for local authorities.
5.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): This has been a full and interesting debate in which 14 contributions have

183WH
been made. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her Committee on their report and on giving us the opportunity to debate such an important matter. My hon. Friend did not do herself proud: I have enormous admiration for her. She is dogged and determined, but I have always found her most charming. The report has given us the opportunity to review a number of important matters. My hon. Friend started with chilling statistics. Nine people a day are killed on our roads and about 10 times as many are seriously injured. The figure for minor injuries was so large that she struggled with it for a moment: more than 250,000 each year suffer a minor injury. Although we have one of the best records in the world for casualties on roads, those figures are not satisfactory and are certainly not matters for complacency.
Together with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), I did a project with schoolchildren in my area. We asked them what they would like local government to do. It was interesting that the top issue was road safety, speed and the danger they felt when on the road. We have taken that forward with the local authorities and have taken some of the matters back into central Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) made an important point. It is not speed in itself that concerns us, but the casualties of speed. We must tackle the problem of inappropriate speeds and people simply ignoring speed limits. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) raised the case of his nephew who was knocked down and is still in hospital. Will he convey the best wishes of the House to his nephew? We wish him a speedy recovery.
I shall make some general remarks and then try to answer as many of the specific points as I can. The report makes a vital contribution to the road safety debate. It is just over two and a half years since the Prime Minister announced our road safety strategy. The strategy sets challenging targets of a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured, and a 50 per cent. reduction for children, which reflects the large numbers of children who are killed or injured. The information that the Select Committee has provided will help us to reform and refine our policies as we progress towards our targets and objectives.
We have a generally good record on road safety, but we want to improve it. It will not be easy. We noted the Select Committee's concerns that on the surface we appear to be moving too slowly and that the promises made in the strategy are taking too long to come to fruition. We in government share the Select Committee's impatience to get action on so many of the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised. However, we must ensure that the action that we take and the resources that we use on any matter of road safety, particularly where speed is involved, are proportionate and appropriate to achieve the desired outcome.
I am aware of the re-education and effort needed to deal with complex matters involving engineering and human behaviour. However, we are confident that we are well on target to meet those ambitions to reduce casualties on our roads by 2010. As a number of hon.
184WH
Members have pointed out, inappropriate and excessive speed accounts for about one third of all road deaths and injuries. In real terms, that equates to over 1,000 deaths and 10,000 serious injuries each year. Although some commentators have challenged that, there is plenty of evidence and we have had a realistic estimate. We welcome the Select Committee's support, based on the evidence that it received during its deliberations. We are not surprised that it found the scale of the speeding problem unacceptable. I assure the hon. Lady, the members of the Select Committee and the House that it is unacceptable to the Government as well. We are aware of the need to take action to deal with excessive and inappropriate traffic speed and to reduce its effects on accidents, with the tragic consequences and suffering that they bring.
We are working on many fronts with local authorities, as it is they that have the local knowledge and, in many instances, are best placed to introduce measures, supported by guidance and funds from the Government. A good example is the success of the Gloucester safer cities project. For five years it has considered road safety, in particular how speed management can be addressed over a wide area. Although its final report is not due until next spring, the results so far are very encouraging—deaths and injuries are down by as much as 38 per cent. I commend the project to those who have not had a chance to see it as an example of the efficient use of resources to achieve interesting and valuable results.
The "Road Safety Good Practice Guide" was published in 2001 to assist local authorities and practitioners. A number of hon. Members have said that good practice should be distributed. This guide is an excellent example of how we can pass experience from one area to another, so that they can learn from each other. I strongly commend the document to those who have not seen it. We shall keep it regularly renewed so that it is always relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made some important points in addition to the matters raised in the report. She spoke about the importance of Government departments working together. I agree with that. We have worked particularly closely with the Home Office on matters of sentencing and with the police. A number of hon. Members have questioned the commitment of the police force and the Home Office to road policing. A brief statement has been sent to me by the Home Office. It says:
"We fully recognise the important contribution that road traffic policing makes to reducing deaths and injuries on the roads. That is why improving safety and reducing casualties is one of the police service's over-arching aims and objectives. We do not propose to change this."
I hope that that will assist hon. Members who raised the point.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister interpret that as meaning that there will be a clear statement to chief constables that road traffic policing must be part of their core responsibilities, or as being a general statement that we are worried about road safety?
Mr. Jamieson: Of course, that is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I think that the statement that I

185WH
read out is clear. There is no intention to change the fact that it is an over-arching aim of the police service to commit itself to traffic policing.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the important fact that safety cameras and the safety camera partnerships have reduced casualties. I strongly believe that cameras should be clearly visible. They show that that is a place where casualties and hazards occur. However, the proof of the pudding is the fact that, at the sites where cameras have been placed, there has been, on average, a 47 per cent. reduction in casualties. That is the evidence that we need that the cameras should be clearly visible.
Tom Brake: If research were to demonstrate that covert cameras were more effective in reducing accidents, would the Minister support a change?
Mr. Jamieson: If good evidence were produced to show that any road safety measure was effective, of course we would look at it carefully and implement the measure where appropriate. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, on the sites that were chosen because they suffered from having a considerable number of casualties, the presence and visibility of the camera substantially reduced the number. That is not mere academic research, but practical and tangible evidence before our eyes, which we cannot ignore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke about sharing good practice and traffic-calming measures. My previous comments on the document suggest how to achieve that. To underline an important point, it is local authorities that deliver many road safety schemes that help to reduce casualty rates, particularly in connection with speed. We have provided guidance to local authorities, so that their local transport plans include appropriate measures for improving road safety. Most important, we have provided the resources for local authorities to carry that work out.
I referred in an intervention to local authority funding. My hon. Friend's authority has had twice as much funding for local transport plans in its current financial year as it had two years ago. Substantial resources will help local authorities to deliver their plans. It is important for hon. Members to examine the local transport plans in their constituencies carefully to establish whether they are meeting their constituents' objectives.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) chided us for not spending enough. We may not be, but I can assure him that we are spending substantially more than was spent under Conservative Governments. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will not, perhaps the hon. Member for Christchurch will intervene to clarify whether the Conservative party would meet and match our funding targets for local transport plans.
Mr. Chope: The Conservative party is committed to doing all that is necessary to reduce casualties on our roads. Unlike the present Government, who have presided over an increase in fatalities for the first time in a generation, we had consistent policy success in reducing such fatalities.
Mr. Jamieson: I think that that was a no, but it is good to have that cleared up.
186WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich also spoke about child casualties and asked why we are waiting for schemes to be developed. Several good schemes, such as the home zone scheme, already involve schools. One in my own constituency has been hugely successful, even within the short period in which it has operated. The safer journey to school initiative and many others adopted by local authorities are a response to people's needs in their own locality. There is no blueprint for improvements, which must be appropriate to local needs.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some interesting points, although sadly he is no longer with us. Other hon. Members referred to signage of speed limits and 30 mph repeaters. The problem is that they would have to be rolled out throughout the country. Every authority would have to follow the same system; otherwise, confusion would arise between areas that did and those that did not follow it. This has been part of our law and has proved effective during the past 70 years. It is probably one of the most understood aspects of our road speed system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about placing cameras in areas where no casualties had occurred. It is rather like sending healthy people to hospital. In a new development where a road had been built dangerously, we have to ask how that had happened. These matters should be considered at the early stages of the planning and development process. They were not considered on many estates years ago, but then many people living in estates had no cars. Today they do and these matters should be built into the design of our estates.
Mr. McWalter: I note with interest my hon. Friend's idea that an estate can be built dangerously. Surely the only danger is if the estate is used inappropriately. If the local authority is properly empowered, there is no reason why an estate should not he built where low speeds are an expectation. There is no such thing as a dangerous estate.
Mr. Jamieson: I beg to differ. Some of the estates built in my constituency in the 1960s had long straight roads with many intersections and were very dangerous. Now they have been traffic-calmed and given chicanes and traffic islands, and the casualty rate has substantially reduced. When we are building estates where people will be living, working and shopping, we should construct them so that pedestrians are safe to go about their business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made important points about the effect of speed on pedestrians. He may recall the advertisement from my Department about the effect of travelling just 5 mph over the speed limit. The advertisement had high recognition value and, I believe, quite an impact. However, he was right in saying that we must change people's attitudes to driving and speed. We have recently studied the training of new drivers and completed a consultation on that matter. We were given some good ideas, especially by young people.

187WH
Another project that will start in a few weeks is the hazard perception test, which will be part of the driving test. It will involve putting hazards up so that people can see whether they are driving appropriately, as people may approach hazards at too great a speed.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will not give way, as there is little time left and the hon. Gentleman was not present for the whole debate.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised several points, not least about the Evening Standard report, which came as a considerable surprise to us. We did not know that we had made an announcement that all road speeds were to be reduced to 20 mph, but it is a newspaper's job to speculate. I think that the paper was anticipating some guidance that we shall give authorities on how they may introduce lower limits. In the end, such matters are for local authorities to decide. On local roads, local authorities must make the decisions, as they are best placed to respond to the local communities and take appropriate action, using the extra money that comes through the local transport plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has a good record on road safety, and I appreciate his contributions. However, I shall gently take him to task on a couple of issues. He said that we had ducked the issue of pedestrian protection, but we certainly have not. By getting a voluntary agreement with manufacturers in Europe on pedestrian protection, we have brought forward by two years the
188WH
implementation of the proposals. More people will be alive and fewer will be injured because of the action that we have taken.
My hon. Friend also said that we had ducked the issue of drink driving, but we certainly have not. We have the toughest penalties in Europe, some of the most stringent enforcement and the most powerful advertising. We have not ducked those issues but faced them head-on with appropriate and proportionate action.
This has been an excellent debate. Unfortunately, as always, there is insufficient time to cover all points. If hon. Members want to raise further points and want to correspond with me, I shall be happy to respond. However, I must conclude to give my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich the opportunity to make some concluding remarks.
5.28 pm
Mrs. Dunwoody: With the leave of the Chamber, I seek briefly to commend my colleagues who have taken part in the debate. The debate has been serious and has acknowledged the importance of our report. It is important that when the House considers a specific safety problem, whether it is safety on rail, on road or in the air, it gathers evidence that informs elected Members of the size of the problem and the urgency of the need for change, and emphasises the need for our constituents to do something in their general interest. I believe that my Committee has contributed to that process, and that the Government realise how serious the matter is.
I make only one plea: do not let us have to come back here in 12 months' time and have the same debate for the same reasons and with the same difficulties. We are all motorists, pedestrians and users of transport, so let it be safe.
It being half-past five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Medicines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 September, when she will publish the results of the Working Group on Access to Medicines for the Poor. [74447]

  Clare Short
  The High Level Working Group on Access to Medicines brought together Government, foundations, international organisations and the pharmaceutical industry. These stakeholders worked together on the Report to the Prime Minister which will be published shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the timetable for each stage until the opening of the A303 (T) Stonehenge improvement scheme, with specific reference to the(a) Countess Road flyover and (b) Chicklade bypass; and if he will make a statement. [72616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]The proposed timetable for the A303 (T) Stonehenge Improvement scheme is—

  publication of draft orders

  early 2003

  public inquiry

  late autumn 2003

  decision

  2004

  start of works (subject to the above)

  2005

  completion

  2008

  The construction of a flyover at Countess roundabout is part of this scheme and, subject to the completion of statutory procedures, is expected to open in Summer 2006.

  The A303 Chicklade Bottom—Mere Improvement is one of the schemes that were remitted to the London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS). The study recommended that this improvement should be taken forward to provide, with other improvements to the A303, an improved strategic route into the south west of England, and is supported by the South West Regional Assembly. The representations received on the study are being reviewed and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent airports have powers to restrict aircraft use by reference to engine noise levels. [74827]
  906W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Restrictions on aircraft use by reference to engine noise levels must be compatible with the recommended standards and resolutions of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and with the relevant directives and regulations of the European Union, in particular Directive 2002/30/EC on rules and procedures relating to operating restrictions at airports. Subject to these constraints, and to the airport's licence conditions, an airport may restrict the access of aircraft on noise grounds, either absolutely or subject to conditions, provided it does so in a non-discriminatory fashion.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government's Code of Practice on Written Consultation applies to multi-modal studies; and if he will make a statement. [75604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In certain circumstances Ministers can decide to depart from elements of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office in December 2000. We decided in October 2001 that the Multi-Modal Studies should not be bound by the Code's requirement for a 12-week consultation period for their consultation exercises.

  The main reason for departing from the Code is that consultation is not a one-off exercise but an integral part of the Study process. Key stakeholders and the wider public are consulted at various stages during a Study. In addition to specific consultation events, members of the public and key partners are kept informed of progress through tailor made leaflets and newsletters. Most Studies have also established specific websites or have a page within the Government Office website where key documents are posted.

  Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to propose a Harbour Revision Order to reconstitute the Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority; and if he will make a statement. [74549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received an application from the Authority itself for a Harbour Revision Order to reconstitute the Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority. This Order was formally advertised (in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Harbours Act 1964) in May and June of this year. No formal objections were received during the 42 day period for such objections to be made and we hope to be in a position to make this Order in the near future.

  Zero Sulphur Fuels
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are in place to ensure zero sulphur fuels are available within the UK. [72378]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A new European Directive is in the closing stages of agreement that will, subject to final negotiation between the Member States and the European Parliament, require sulphur-free petrol and diesel to be widely available from 1 January 2005, with all petrol and diesel sold for road-use being sulphur-free from 1 January 2009. This Directive is expected to be adopted in the coming months.
  907W
  Two recent initiatives will ensure sulphur free petrol and diesel fuel is increasingly available in the UK over the next few years.

  In his last Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced plans to introduce duty incentives favouring sulphur free fuels in 2003, subject to agreement with the European Commission. This announcement was aimed at providing the oil industry with early notification so that they could plan their investment in the necessary refining technology accordingly.

DEFENCE

  Terrorism
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the reserve forces will continue to support operations as part of the campaign against international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [76115]

  Dr. Moonie
  With the expiry of the call-out order made last October, a new order has been made to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support military operations in Afghanistan and related operations arising as part of the campaign against international terrorism. The new order is effective until 30 September 2003. Over 500 reservists were called out under the order made last October, of whom over half were called out compulsorily. The reservists are providing an invaluable contribution to the operations and we are most grateful for their continuing commitment and their employers' support.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Beryllium
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the agreements and protocols banning the sale of Beryllium to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. [74390]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The United Kingdom is not a signatory to any agreements or protocols banning the sale of Beryllium.

  British Energy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she expects to present her proposals for the restructuring of British Energy to the European Commission; [74379]

  (2) When she expects to receive the plans for the restructuring of British Energy required under European Union rules governing state aids. [74380]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty require proof of the repayment of the loan, or termination of the loan guarantee, or the submission of a restructuring or liquidation plan to the Commission within six months of authorisation of the rescue aid measure, subject to 908W
  extension by the Commission. The UK has indicated to the Commission that it will communicate with it within the timescales required by the Guidelines.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards the sale of British Energy's North American assets. [74375]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decisions have been taken and no commitments given on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the overseas visits made by(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department since June 2001, stating for each the (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [74591]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House details of overseas visits that DTI Ministers have undertaken since June 2001.

  The costs of these overseas visits, attributable to the Ministerial budgets, during this period are as follows:

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  £68,508

  Minister of State for Energy & Construction

  £174,466

  Minister of State for E Commerce and

  Competitiveness

  £56,598

  Minister of State for Employment Relations

  Industry & the Regions

  £37,829

  Minister of State for Trade*

  £68,854

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for

  Competition, Consumers and Markets

  £11,238

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Small

  Business and Export Control

  £40,775

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Science

  and Innovation

  £46,781

  Note:

  *These charges are shared with the FCO.

  Details of overseas travel undertaken by officials are not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available online, (b) if copies were available in print, (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [69796]

  Ms Hewitt
  Records relating to consultation documents issued before the introduction of the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations on 1 January 2001 are riot held centrally. All consultation documents published after 1 January 2001 are available in printed form and are published on the Department's website.

  The list of consultations undertaken by the Department since 1 January 2001, and the dates they were opened and closed, are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to respond to the letter of 10 July from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North about Mrs. M. Lynch. [74868]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have answered today.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy applies to the provision of(a) entertainment and (b) gifts to (i) staff, (ii) ministers and officials and (iii) others by BNFL and its subsidiaries. [73945]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]BNFL's policies on the provision of entertainment and gifts are a matter for the company.

  Ministers and officials if receiving entertainment or gifts from BNFL, or any other company, must maintain standards of propriety in accordance with DTI and Cabinet Office guidance.

  Fuel Stocks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has held in the last three months with(a) the oil industry, (b) the road haulage industry, (c) UK emergency services and (d) representatives of business organisations about the secure supply of fuels in the event of an oil price spike consequent upon a conflict in Iraq: and if she will make a statement. [74440]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]The Department maintains an ongoing dialogue with the oil industry and other Government Departments who have primary responsibility for the road haulage industry and the UK emergency services. There are agreed procedures in place in case of possible disruption of fuel supplies. We stand ready to discuss issues of the security of oil supplies with other business organisations, should they wish to do so. We shall continue to keep the situation under review.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement concerning fireworks. [76117]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 15 October I announced tough new measures to cut the number of firework injuries. The new measures, which will also cut down on the problems of noise and nuisance, include:proposed new regulations banning air bombs;
  a crackdown on illegal markets in fireworks with improved co-ordination of intelligence between Customs and Excise, Health and Safety Executive and Trading Standards Departments; and
  a new drive to encourage local councils to use their powers to curb the problem of noise and nuisance caused by fireworks.
  Also:
  Home Office are piloting fixed penalty notices of £40 in four areas for over 18s caught throwing fireworks in the street.

  910W
  The announcement coincides with the launch of a new hard-hitting national safety campaign including posters and TV to highlight the injuries teenagers have suffered from fireworks misuse.

  European Directives
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the EU directive introduced on reducing further emissions of gases from coal and oil-fired power stations and the implications for electricity prices. [72349]

  Mr. Wilson
  Among its provisions, EC Directive 2001/80/EC, otherwise known as the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), requires that so called "existing plants" (defined as those for which the original construction or operating licence was granted prior to 1 July 1987) comply with emission limit values (ELVs) for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dust, by 1 January 2008. Such limits apply to all large combustion plants with a rated thermal input of 50MW or above, not just to power stations.

  As an alternative to meeting ELVs, existing plants may be subject to a National Plan. Such a plan would reduce the total annual emissions of these pollutants to the levels that would have been achieved by applying the ELVs referred to above to the existing plants in operation in the year 2000, on the basis of each plant's operational performance averaged over the last five years of operation up to and including 2000.

  The LCPD leaves it open to Member States to decide whether, instead of pursuing the specified ELV approach, to develop a National Plan approach, which could offer some additional flexibility, while meeting the broad aims of the Directive.

  Existing plants may, however, as a derogation from the LCPD, opt to operate for a maximum of 20,000 hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015 during which time they may operate with less stringent emission limits. At the end of this period, existing plants opting to operate under the 20,000 hour derogation must close.

  We do not yet know which approach to implementing the LCPD would best suit the UK's needs. Such a decision will need to take account of the costs and benefits of each approach, as well as the UK's energy policy objectives. There will be consultations before a decision is taken.

  The implications for electricity prices will not be clearer until consultation and appropriate analysis of future options has been completed.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on Electronic Signatures is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [68549]
  911W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee last met on 8 July 2002 and there are no further plans to meet. The UK is normally represented by an official from the Department of Trade and Industry. The DTI delegates at this committee represent all of the UK.

  The Scottish Executive is regularly consulted on, and is fully involved in discussions, at official and Minister level, with the Department on the formulation of EU policy which touch on matters which fall within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if a comprehensive UK-wide assessment has been carried out to identify brownfield sites with sufficiently consistent wind speeds suitable for wind farms. [74514]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government strongly supports the setting up of wind farms on brownfield sites. It is encouraging that a number of projects of this kind are coming forward. We are preparing a UK Wind Speed Database, to be made available on the DTI website, to help developers identify areas of potential opportunity.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Candy Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what information she has collated regarding the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 on the dissemination of personal details for the distribution of unsolicited mail; [75152]

  (2) if she has plans to make the dissemination of personal details for the distribution of junk mail dependent upon specific permission of an individual. [75153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mailing Preference Service operated by the Direct Marketing Association helps reduce the amount of unsolicited mail received by individuals who register with the service.

  Under the Data Protection Act 1988, if personal data is being disclosed to a third party for marketing purposes, an individual has the opportunity to opt out. Responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act lies with the Information Commissioner, who is independent of Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e)banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74686]
  912W
  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Wishart) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1177W, and to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 24 January 2002, Official Report, column 999W.

  In the financial years 2001–2002 and 2002 to date, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has paid a total of £883,027 to two public relations firms for the "Know Before You Go" public awareness campaign. This sum includes design and implementation of the campaign together with management fees. The two firms are: AEA Technology Environment and Biss Lancaster Euro RSCG.

  We have also spent a total of £14,687 on consultancy advice and focus groups related to UK public attitudes towards the European Union. The firms involved were LA Associates/Peter Kellner and ICM Research.

  Providing information on external consultancies other than public relations/communications firms would incur disproportionate costs.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's travel advice on Indonesia. [76174]

  Mr. Straw
  On the night of Saturday 12 October, as soon as we heard of the atrocity in Bali, we recommended against all travel to Bali and all but essential travel to elsewhere in Indonesia.

  In the light of further information and consideration, I have now agreed that we should advise against all travel to Indonesia and recommend that all British citizens should consider leaving Indonesia if their presence is not essential.

  I have also authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from the British Embassy in Jakarta.

  British citizens who remain should exercise extreme caution especially in public places, including clubs, restaurants, bars, schools, places of worship, outdoor recreational venues and other locations frequented by foreigners.

  Baroness Amos, Foreign Office Minister responsible for consular issues, will arrive in Bali this evening, where she will meet with British nationals, their families and friends caught up in this terrible incident. She will also be talking to senior members of the Indonesian Government in Jakarta on Saturday both to discuss the operation in Bali and how to strengthen our co-operation against international terrorism.

  We have a 24 hour operation on the ground in Bali, made up of consular officers, police officers trained in family liaison, and volunteers. We will be reinforcing this team further.

  We are also revising our travel advice for a range of other South East Asian countries to highlight the need for vigilance given the ongoing risk of terrorist activity.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the rules are governing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco(a) on Court Service premises, (b) in administration areas and (c) by staff on duty outside Court Service premises. [74161]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Staff are expected to use their judgement about alcohol consumption. Any member of staff unfit for work due to the consumption of alcohol could be subject to disciplinary action and dismissed. Members of the public will not be admitted onto court premises whilst significantly under the influence of alcohol, and are forbidden from bringing alcohol onto court premises.

  The smoking policy guidelines aim to provide smoke-free working conditions for those staff who want them, while offering limited facilities for smokers, and help for those who wish to stop smoking. Local arrangements may differ, but in general, those offices and courts with a smoking policy will enforce "no smoking" in staff corridors, toilets, lifts and other common areas, and at meetings and seminars. Before local arrangements are introduced the views of smokers and non-smokers are sought and any differences resolved by agreement. Overall consideration has to be given to the wishes of non-smokers.

  Income Tax
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Lord Chancellor's proposals are for the amalgamation of divisions of the General Commissioners of Income Tax in Cleveland and North Yorkshire. [76118]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 1 October 2002 an Order the Lord Chancellor made came into force, under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, amalgamating Divisions in both North Yorkshire and Cleveland as follows. The Hartlepool and Stockton Divisions shall be merged into one new Division to be called Hartlepool with Stockton; and the Teeside South and Langbaurgh Divisions shall be merged and into a new Division called Teeside South with Langbaurgh. The amalgamation was made at the request of the General Commissioners in all of the Divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the Divisions in the Counties of Cleveland and North Yorkshire. I have placed a copy of the Order amalgamating the Divisions in the Library of this House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  University Places
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanism she intends to use to guarantee places at universities for students whose exam marks are upgraded as a result of re-marking. [74623]
  914W
  Margaret Hodge
  Universities UK and SCOP, the representative bodies of universities and Higher Education colleges, have already advised all their members to honour the offers they made prior to the publication of A level results in August. If, as a result of the review, a student is now eligible to take up a place, they will be able to do so, either this year or in 2003.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has held since 1 September with Universities UK and higher education providers to discuss the implications of downgrading of A-levels and the implementation of guaranteed places. [74694]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: My right hon. Friend met Professor Roderick Floud, President of Universities UK, on 27 September in order to discuss the implications of the A-level grading review.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money for individual learning accounts has been(a) claimed, (b) paid and (c) withheld or is in dispute in each month since August 2001; and if she will make a statement. [74291]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The amounts claimed, paid, and withheld at the end of each month from August 2001 to end September 2002 are set out in the following table. The amounts in the withheld column relate to those claims from registered Individual Learning Account (ILA) providers which are subject to validation checks and/or investigation. The claims withheld are those which are in dispute.

  At the time of closure on 23 November a total of £19.4 million relating to learning episodes confirmed on the ILA Centre system was awaiting payment and therefore outstanding. Following validation checks payments for eligible learning relating to this amount were subsequently made in December and January.

  ILA programme rules allowed bookings to be made 6 months in advance of the learning episode, so booked learning could be confirmed up to and including 22 May 2002. A paper based claims and payment system was introduced in January 2002 to allow providers to confirm and claim for delivery of this advanced booked learning. Claims, payments and amounts withheld are reflected in the table. In addition an estimated sum of £5.3 million remains unclaimed relating to advance booked learning by providers who cannot be invited to claim until all investigations are complete.

  Month

  Amount claimed (a)

  Amount paid

  Amount withheld/in dispute (c)

  August 2001

  24,672,600

  *26,216,174

  1,580,245

  September 2001

  26,401,842

  25,818,692

  583,150

  October 2001

  39,173,099

  *39,251,249

  0

  November 2001

  51,334,141

  31,789,658

  113,100

  December 2001

  0

  3,495,594

  11,280,502

  January 2002

  0

  *2,241,238

  2,422,450

  February 2002

  559,290

  *507,636

  107,854

  March 2002

  3,299,073

  *1,937,840

  1,365,652

  915W

  Month

  Amount claimed (a)

  Amount paid (b)

  Amount withheld/in dispute (c)

  April 2002

  2,078.824

  *1,555,490

  540,489

  May 2002

  1,048,282

  *928,924

  199,303

  June 2002

  380.898

  *382,371

  68,672

  July 2002

  424,740

  *376,857

  170,918

  August 2002

  20,535

  *20,564

  1,702

  September 2002

  22,069

  *23,671

  0

  Note:

  (Payments marked* include amounts released from earlier claims which had been previously withheld.)

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have been(a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) released without charge, (d) cautioned, (e) prosecuted, (f) acquitted,

  Quarter Ending

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  (g)

  (h)

  (i)

  (j)

  Dec 01

  27

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Mar 02

  6

  10

  12

  10

  June 02

  2

  Sept 02

  10

  Note:

  698 registered learning providers have been referred to the Department's Compliance Unit.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases of apparent abuse of individual learning accounts by providers have been referred to(a) the Individual Learning Accounts Compliance Unit (b) her Department's Special Investigations Unit and (c) the police; and if she will make a statement. [74290]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since 23 November 2001, 698 registered Individual Learning Account (ILA) providers have been referred to the ILA Compliance Unit. Of these, 150 have been passed onto to the Department's Special Investigation's Unit (SIU). The Compliance Unit has completed reviews on a further 228 providers. For 70 providers no evidence of irregular claims was found. The remaining 158 providers were sent letters by 1 October setting out the results of the review work and the basis for a settlement. In addition a further 320 providers are awaiting follow-up by the Compliance Unit.

  Of the 150 registered learning providers referred to the SIU, 99 have been referred to the police.

  Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual learning account providers currently have payments withheld; and if she will make a statement. [74292]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  From commencement of the Individual Learning Account (ILA) programme to the end of September, £16.8 million of claims from 267 registered learning providers has been withheld pending the results of investigations.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when an announcement will he made on a successor scheme to the individual learning account. [74293]
  916W
  (g) convicted, (h) fined, (i) given a community service and (j) jailed in connection with abuse of individual learning accounts, in each quarter since October 2001; how many registered individual learning account providers have been referred to the individual learning accounts compliance unit; and if she will make a statement. [74289]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In connection with abuse of the Individual Learning Account (ILA) programme, which was closed on 23 November 2001, at the end of September 2002(a) 57 individuals have been arrested (12 individuals were arrested in September 2001), (b) 11 charged, (c) 12 released without charge, (d) 10 cautioned, (e) 1 prosecuted, (f) none acquitted, (g) 1 convicted, (h) none fined, (i) 1 given a community service order and (j) 1 jailed. The table below shows the position by quarter from October 2001.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government is committed to introducing a successor scheme to Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs). The new scheme will build on the best and most successful features of ILAs and take into account the lessons we have learnt from the design and delivery of the programme. It is our intention to make a further announcement later in the autumn.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Culture Promotion
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding her Department provides to promote British culture abroad. [73913]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not directly fund the promotion of British culture abroad. However, the British Tourist Authority often features aspects of British culture in its programme to attract visitors to this country and many other institutions and events which receive funds from the Department play a significant part in establishing international awareness of British Culture.

  Gambling
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish her response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's report on gambling. [75901]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have today laid before both Houses a Command Paper (no. 5622) setting out the Government's response to the report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee—"The Government's Proposals For Gambling: Nothing To Lose?"

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies her Department has undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed mid-term CAP review; [72358]

  Mr. Simmons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's discussions with the EU regarding the reform of the CAP. [72360]

  Alun Michael
  Discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP are continuing within the EU. Elements of the package were discussed at the Agriculture Council earlier this week. The Government have submitted evidence to the Select Committee's Inquiry into the reform of the CAP.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement about reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. [72375]

  Alun Michael
  Discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP are continuing within the EU.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans exist for dealing with further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [72361]

  Mr. Morley
  Contingency plans for a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease are set out in Defra's interim contingency plan, which is available on the Defra website with an electronic mailbox for comments.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her assessment of the reports she has received over the last four months on the foot and mouth outbreak. [72373]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 22 July 2002,Official Report, column 669.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next expects to meet representatives of the livestock farming sector to discuss the lessons to he learned from the recent foot and mouth epidemic. [72374]

  Mr. Morley
  I and my ministerial colleagues meet livestock industry representatives on a regular basis. My noble Friend the Minister for Food and Farming chaired a meeting last month with a wide range of interested parties to discuss the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry reports.

  Livestock Auction Marts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what future role she envisages for livestock auction marts. [72363]
  918W
  Mr. Morley
  Livestock auction markets have an important role in the marketing of farm animals between the various stages of production and some markets may be suitable for a range of activities or for more diversified marketing. This issue is of particular importance where large numbers of cross-bred breeding stock and store stock for fattening are sold off the hills to lowland farms such as, for example, in the Northern Uplands. We are in contact with industry interests to help identify and respond to day to day issues as well as to consider together the longer-term marketing framework.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the result of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [72364]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK secured good outcomes on many issues including key agreements on:new targets and timetables on access to sanitation, production and use of chemicals, reduction of biodiversity loss, restoration of fish-stocks, creation of marine protected areas, implementation of national strategies for sustainable development;
  urgent actions on access to reliable and affordable energy for all and to increase the share of renewable energy worldwide, illegal logging and fishing. corporate social responsibility, and a framework of programmes to move towards sustainable production and consumption patterns.
  Over 300 multi-stakeholder partnerships to help deliver action on the ground, representing significant additional resources. The UK instigated or supported more than 20, including the Prime Minister's five sectoral initiatives on financial services, water, energy, forestry and tourism.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the outcome of the World Summmit on Sustainable Development and its follow up. [76116]

  Margaret Beckett
  The World Summit on Sustainable Development addressed some of the greatest challenges of our times. For over a year I had said the Summit should be about more than just fine words. It should be about a step-change—a move from words to concerted action and implementation. And it was. I also made clear from the beginning that separate fora would take forward discussion on climate change and on trade, including trade in agricultural produce.

  So Johannesburg built on the success of last year's Doha talks on the new trade round, the Marrakech accords on climate change and this year's Monterrey conference on financing for development. It reaffirmed and strengthened the international community's commitment to sustainable development, and reinvigorated the Rio Earth Summit agreements as well as the UN Millennium Development Goals on poverty eradication. There are no silver-bullet solutions, no miracle cures. But what we do have is a new political commitment, momentum and energy for the attainment of a sustainable world.

  As in all negotiations, we were rightly ambitious, given the agenda we had. I judge the final deal reached between the 180 participating countries—for which the UK, led by the Prime Minister, negotiated hard—to he a successful outcome. We went to Johannesburg to

  919W
  make a concrete difference to people's lives. I believe that we succeeded. And, whilst I understand the disappointment of those who pushed us for more, I believe that what was achieved, taken in conjunction with the UN Millennium Development Goals will, if implemented, represent a revolution in the lives of the poorest people on the planet, and the beginnings of a revolution in how we treat the planet itself.

  The Summit agreed an impressive plan of implementation. We agreed a new target to halve by 2015 the proportion of people living without basic sanitation. This will save millions of lives in developing countries, and support existing goals on safe drinking water and health. There are also new targets and timetables on chemicals, biodiversity, marine protection and fish stocks. These and other commitments will galvanise action and set standards for the next 10 years or more.

  The Summit also agreed joint actions on reliable and affordable energy provision for the poor and to urgently and substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources. The provision of energy is a prerequisite for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The Summit did not set a global target for renewables, but even those countries which resisted a global target have nevertheless committed themselves to domestic action. At the Summit the Prime Minister announced that the UK's Export Credit Guarantee Department will make available £50m per year to renewable energy exports to developing countries.

  And on climate change, Johannesburg issued a ringing call for countries to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Three key developing countries—China, India and Brazil—recently ratified. Crucially, in his positive statement at the Summit, the Russian Prime Minister Kasyanov again signalled that Russia is preparing to ratify the Protocol. The Canadian Prime Minister, Chretien, said that Canada will make a decision on ratification later this year. We are hopeful that the Kyoto Protocol might enter into force in early 2003.

  Over 300 new partnerships were also launched at the Summit representing in excess of $235million in resources. We are familiar with the idea of partnerships at home. But this is a bold new idea for the UN. These partnerships will be the unique inheritance of Johannesburg—they are not a substitute for multilateral commitments, but they will provide additional and complementary resources. For example, the EU "Water for Life Initiative" and the UK-led multistakeholder partnership for water and sanitation will support the delivery of the new sanitation target and the existing goals on safe drinking water and health.

  Johannesburg has given the global community a strong mandate for intensified action at global, regional and national levels. More fundamentally, it has forged close links between development and environment policy, in the service of sustainable development. There is now a widespread agreement that development assistance should be directed at helping the poor and that it needs to be sustainable if it is to be of lasting benefit. Sustainable management of natural resources and of the environment are essential for poverty
  920W
  eradication. This now needs to be reflected in the poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies of developing countries.

  We shall work with our partners in the international institutions—the UN, the G8 and the OECD—to ensure that development and environment policy are mutually supportive. We need to ensure that the follow-up to Johannesburg, Monterrey and the Millennium Development Goals is coherent.

  International trade, and climate change issues already have dedicated international processes of their own. On both, the UK Government is taking a lead role.

  The Prime Minister has hammered home the case for trade reform, especially of agricultural subsidies. Developing countries need improved market access, so they can sell their produce fairly, without being hampered by trade-distorting and environmentally-damaging subsidies in the developed countries. This is the single most important issue we need to follow up after Johannesburg. Improved market access and subsidy reform are a joint concern for development and environment policy. Currently OECD countries give around $55billion in overseas aid, but subsidise their agricultural industries by around seven times that amount. CAFOD have suggested that through the CAP the average European dairy cow gets a $2 subsidy a day—the same as the daily income of half the world's population. We will continue to push for reform of agricultural subsidies both within the WTO and, within the EU, on the Common Agricultural Policy.

  On climate change, later this month I shall be in Delhi for the next stage of the UN negotiations on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

  The implementation of the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy will be a driver for change in Europe. In particular, it will need to reflect the Summit agreement to develop a global ten-year framework of action programmes to accelerate the shift towards sustainable production and consumption. We need to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation—to get more from less. The industrialised North has agreed to take the lead on this and it must be central to the EU's Strategy. This means action on a whole range of issues such as energy efficiency, waste minimisation—a real challenge for us in the UK—and integrated product policy.

  But equally important is action we will take at home. We will integrate the Johannesburg agreements and relevant follow-up into UK policy and action, with a sharp focus on the use of technological innovation to deliver sustainable development. If, as a nation, we achieve greater resource efficiency, this will not only help our environment but also improve our competitiveness.

  On energy, we are working towards our 10 per cent. renewable electricity target by 2010. We are making great strides in both energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. On climate change we have been leading globally in the Kyoto process. We are on track to meet our Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and have put in place a

  921W
  comprehensive programme of measures to meet our more ambitious domestic goal to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent.

  The Government will shortly publish an Energy White Paper that addresses how to set the UK on the longer term path to a low carbon economy, as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and others have recommended. In particular, the Commission has recommended we put ourselves on the path to 60 per cent. reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. We will respond formally to that recommendation at the time of the White Paper, but already it is clear that action on that scale—in the UK and internationally—is what is necessary.

  This Autumn we shall be taking receipt of, and later responding to, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit's report on how we manage waste, stemming growth, and promoting recycling and re-use.

  Last week I hosted a meeting with leading UK stakeholders, to discuss the follow-up action by government and stakeholders at UK level. This provided a useful forum for us to discuss the proposals developed by stakeholders and within government, and to establish some shared conclusions on the implications of the Summit.

  Our next review of progress toward sustainable development, which will be out early in the new year, will include further details on how we intend to take the Johannesburg outcomes forward. Over the course of the next year, we will also be reviewing the UK Sustainable Development Strategy and meeting our Summit commitments will form a significant part of this.

  Perhaps the most innovative feature of the Summit was the emphasis on partnerships between governments and civil society; particularly NGOs and business. The UK delegation therefore included Members of this House, representatives from the devolved administrations, local government, the UK Sustainable Development Commission, from business and NGOs. And since this was a Summit on the future, 4 youth representatives. Besides the formal government negotiations there was a wealth of other events and initiatives. UK participants were active everywhere and made a huge contribution to the overall outcome. Governments must take the lead in setting the framework for sustainable development, they cannot deliver it alone.

  Johannesburg demonstrated that it is possible to reach agreement on practical steps towards a more sustainable world. We must, and will, keep moving forward. In the words of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan; "This Summit will put us on a path that reduces poverty while protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples, rich and poor, today and tomorrow. We have to go out and take action. This is not the end. It's the beginning."

  Hunting
  Mr. Goodman
  to ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the outcome of consultations on the future of hunting. [72366]
  922W
  Alun Michael
  I am now in the last stages of the process I announced on 21 March in my statement to the House,Official Report, column 457.

  During this period I have written three times to all Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, and a wide range of organisations seeking comments and evidence. Last month I held three days of public hearings in Portcullis House when all three main campaign groups joined me to hear and question evidence given by experts.

  This has been an exceptionally open and, as has been acknowledged on all sides, transparent process. I am now carefully examining the evidence I have received both in response to the letters and in the hearings, and I shall shortly bring forward proposals based on the principles and the process set out in my statement to this House on 21 March.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the outcome of consultations on the future of hunting. [72380]

  Alun Michael
  I am now in the last stages of the process I announced on 21 March in my statement to the House,Official Report, column 457.

  During the last half year I have written twice to all Members of Parliament, Peers and a wide range of organisations seeking comments and evidence. In addition, last month I held three days of public hearings in Portcullis House when all three main campaign groups joined me to hear and question evidence given by experts.

  This has been an exceptionally open process. I am now carefully examining the evidence I have received both in response to the letters and in the hearings, and I shall shortly bring forward legislative proposals based on the principles of minimising suffering and recognising utility.

  Farmers (Wet Weather Aid)
  Mr. Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Areas if she will give wet weather special aid to farmers. [72368]

  Alun Michael
  We have no plans to make national financial assistance available for the effects of wet weather. However, the Government is fully aware of the problems facing producers in certain areas of the United Kingdom, and through working closely with the European Commission, we have been able to bring forward payments to affected producers, and to secure exemptions for them from certain CAP scheme rules.

  Household Waste
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the proportion of household waste that was recycled in the last year for which figures are available. [72369]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest data from the Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000–01 show that the total proportion of household waste recycled or composted in
  923W
  England in that period was just over 11 per cent.—an increase of about 1 per cent. over the previous year.

  WEEE Directive
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provisions have been made to comply with the requirements of the WEEE directive. [72370]

  Mr. Meacher
  The WEEE directive is still in draft. The text should be finalised later this year and this will allow detailed implementation plans to commence. There has already been significant consultation with business and other stakeholders. This will continue.

  Surplus Fruit and Vegetables
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of fruit and vegetables were destroyed by the EU in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what funding was provided for this purpose. [72372]

  Mr. Morley
  Provisional figures for the marketing year 2001–02 indicate that some 0.6 million tonnes of fruit and vegetables were withdrawn from the EU market at a cost of 59 million euros (approximately £36 million).

  Landfill
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the amount of waste going to landfill. [72379]

  Mr. Meacher
  Environment Agency data from 1998–89 indicate that around 57 per cent. of waste produced by households, commerce and industry (including construction and demolition) is landfilled in England and Wales. 2000–01 figures for municipal waste in England show 78 per cent. going to landfill.

  The UK still landfills too great a proportion of its waste; this is neither sensible nor sustainable. However, in view of local authority recycling and composting targets, the forthcoming Landfill Directive targets to reduce the landfill of biodegradable waste and additional targets for the reducing the landfill of industrial and commercial waste, we would expect to see disposal to landfill to begin to decline over the next few years. Following the publication of the Strategy Unit's waste strategy review, the Government will consider what further action it can take to assist in this process.

  Sustainable Farming
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the timetable for implementation of the Curry Report is; and if she will make a statement. [72381]

  Alun Michael
  In November, the Government intends to launch a new Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food in England. This strategy will include a response to all of the Policy Commission's recommendations,924W
  and will be informed by the wide-ranging process of stakeholder engagement that followed publication of their report.

  Waste
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of waste in the last 12 months was incinerated; and if she will make a statement. [72365]

  Mr. Meacher
  A total of 9 per cent. of municipal waste is currently incinerated in England. The latest data for industrial and commercial waste, including construction and demolition waste, indicate that just under 4 per cent. is incinerated.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representions she has received on the disposal of hazardous waste by incineration; and if she will make a statement. [72352]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have met representatives of the high temperature incineration industry. We are seeking to address their concerns in working towards a thorough assessment of the options for the disposal of hazardous waste.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to(a) receive and (b) respond to the Performance and Innovation Unit's review on waste. [72357]

  Mr. Meacher
  I expect the Strategy Unit to have completed its review of the UK waste strategy by the end of November; and I will look forward to considering its findings then.

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much local authorities have received to defray the costs of storing refrigerators. [72359]

  Mr. Meacher
  In December 2001, we announced a grant of £6 million for local authorities to cover their costs up until March 2002 for the storage and disposal of refrigerators.

  In addition, we announced special grant funding of £40 million for local authorities to cover their costs for this financial year. Additional help for future years was included in the Spending Review announced on 15 July.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 13 July, Reference MC 172596/am, what information she has submitted to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and its Advisory Council on Ecosystems about the proposal of Dr. David Conover that big fish should be returned to the sea, in the interests of total biomass harvested. [74195]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not drawn ICES' attention to the work of Dr. Conover. Our scientists have considered carefully Dr. Conover's work but have concluded that
  925W
  his conclusions are likely to have limited relevance to fish stocks exploited in the waters around the UK. One of the main reasons for this is that there are relatively few large fish in our waters. The priority in our fisheries is to help overfished stocks to recover by reducing the overall fishing rate on all sizes of fish and to help juvenile fish to survive beyond the age of maturity.

  Carbon Sequestration
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State (Environment)'s letter 171977/JW of 16 September 2002, what action has been taken to follow up issues about magnesium carbonate and carbon sequestration. [74448]

  Mr. Meacher
  Cement manufacture is a carbon intensive process and carbon dioxide emissions from this source in the UK are about 1 per cent. of our annual total emissions. Magnesium carbonate as an alternative to Portland Cement for use in the buildings and construction industry is claimed by a manufacturer in Australia to reduce the carbon emitted in manufacture and absorb carbon in use.

  The Department of Trade and Industry funds a programme by the Buildings Research Establishment (BRE) that reviews development of low energy cements. Research is needed to prove the structure, durability and performance of magnesium carbonate in the UK context as well as confirming the claims for carbon sequestration and low embodied energy. BRE will he submitting an application for a research project on magnesium carbonate in this year's DTI Partners in Innovation competition round, and if successful the work would start in April 2003.

  CAP
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the Government's response to the European Commission's mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [72350]

  Alun Michael
  Discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP are continuing.

  Flooding (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provision there is to provide support to(a) home owners, (b) farmers and (c) businesses whose properties have been, or may in the future be, subject to flooding in the Huntingdon constituency. [74223]

  Mr. Morley
  Flooding is a natural phenomenon and whilst it is not possible to eliminate the risk totally, the flood and coastal defence operating authorities have permissive powers to reduce that risk. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to pay compensation to those affected by flooding as it is generally an insurable risk. However, we may be able to assist in reducing Government requirements on those affected, for example by relaxing the eligibility rules for agricultural support schemes or by considering estimation of VAT liabilities where floods have damaged paperwork. Businesses in need of this type of 926W
  help should contact the relevant department if the need arises. Assistance to householders affected by flooding is provided by local authorities in the immediate aftermath of flooding, and in the case of serious hardship help may be available from the Social Fund.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what guidelines the Environment Agency monitors dioxin emissions from Waste Disposal incinerators; to whom the Environment Agency is accountable in this respect; and if she will make a statement. [73481]

  Mr. Meacher
  As set out in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID), the Environment Agency requires operators to measure emissions from municipal waste incinerators at least every 3 months during the first 12 months of a new installation. In subsequent years operators must take at least two measurements per year.

  Dioxins in England and Wales can be measured using two validated methods; a European standard BS EN 1948 and the USEPA Method 23. Historically, USEPA method 23 has been used and is considered an acceptable standard for dioxin emission limit values of lng/m3 and above. However, WID will impose a limit of 0.1ng/m3 from 28 December 2005 and, as the Agency has already started moving towards this new limit, European Standard EN 1948 is being used in the majority of cases for regulatory compliance monitoring of municipal waste incinerators. EN 1948 has been validated on a large number of European incinerators, the measurement uncertainty has been determined and the appropriate quality assurance/quality control measures have been introduced. Both methods require samples to be taken over a period of six to eight hours. Samples are then removed for laboratory analysis using sophisticated and time consuming techniques.

  The analysis of dioxin levels is a difficult and expensive process which only a few laboratories in the UK are able to carry out. The laboratories are independent, with a broad client base including Government agencies as well as various sectors of industry. The laboratories are subject to quality assurance schemes (such as UKAS) and are fully open to individual and Government scrutiny.

  The Agency is currently researching other ways of sampling incinerator emissions of dioxins. A research programme is in place investigating the performance of continuous dioxin sampling systems that have recently been employed in some European countries.

  The Agency is accountable for its activities in England to the Secretary of State. Regulation of the incineration industry by the Agency and its predecessors has been very effective. Over the past eleven years there has been a very significant decrease in the discharge of dioxins from municipal waste incinerators. In 1990 they released 605.26g ITEQ, but by 1999 this figure had fallen to 1.05g ITEQ. In 2001 the sector released 0.81g ITEQ.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many waste disposal incinerators she expects to be required in the United Kingdom for the implementation of the Government's Waste Disposal Strategy 2000. [73487]
  927W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government has no plans that local authorities should provide any particular number of incinerators.

  They are required to take account of the policy framework set out in Waste Strategy 2000 (Cm4693–2), including achieving targets set for recycling and recovery and the need to progressively divert increasing amounts of waste from landfill.

  With the growth in municipal waste of 3–4 per cent. per annum in recent years, fulfilling our obligations through minimisation and recycling, although desirable, may not be feasible alone. In that case there is a range of technologies, in addition to conventional incineration, available for treating and disposing of waste. This includes those advanced conversion technologies which qualify as sources of renewable energy under the Renewables Obligation Order 2002.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of dioxins emitted from waste disposal incinerators she estimates enters the food chain; [73488]

  (2) what assessment she has made of what happens to dioxins emitted from waste disposal incinerators which do not enter the food chain. [73489]

  Mr. Meacher
  Concentrations of dioxins in food are controlled by the levels in the surrounding environment, the critical factor for which is the concentration in air. Air concentrations are controlled by emissions from primary sources and by complex exchanges/recycling of dioxins with water, soil and vegetation. Dioxins may subsequently enter the food chain through vegetation and the diet of animals.

  It is not possible to estimate what proportion of dioxins emitted from municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators enters the food chain but, because they contribute less than 1 per cent. of total dioxins emissions, we can say that they make only a minor contribution to levels in food.

  Dioxins which do not enter the food chain remain in the environment and low levels of dioxins can be detected in all environmental media. In the UK the mean levels are currently approximately:
  Air (ambient rural) 10 femtograms per cubic metre
  Air (ambient urban) 100 femtograms per cubic metre
  Soil (rural) 5 nanograms per kilogram
  Soil (urban) 30 nanograms per kilogram
  River sediments 20 nanograms per kilogram,
  where one femtogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a millionth of a gram (10-15 g) and one nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram (10-9 g).

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take measures to ensure that dioxin emissions from waste disposal incinerators are monitored more frequently. [73483]

  Mr. Meacher
  Municipal solid waste incinerators are regularly monitored by operators on a six monthly basis to check compliance with the EU wide emission standards. It is a breach of operators' authorisation conditions not to carry out this monitoring.
  928W
  Additionally, the Environment Agency carries out independent check monitoring at a minimum frequency of once per year. All monitoring results, including those carried out by the operators, are available on public registers.

  This monitoring frequency is in excess of the bi-annual monitoring required as a minimum by the new Waste Incineration Directive. It is open to the Environment Agency to require or perform more frequent monitoring if that is considered necessary.

  In tightening this year the authorisations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 of existing municipal solid waste incinerators, the Environment Agency has applied a condition requiring the operators to report on a review of techniques for continuous dioxin monitoring, including cost, availability, accuracy, detection limits etc by 1 January 2003.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will further limit the acceptable amount of dioxin which may be emitted from waste disposal incinerators. [73484]

  Mr. Meacher
  Dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators are limited by authorisation conditions issued under the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime. This regulatory regime is being subsumed into the even more exacting Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Existing installations will have to apply for IPPC permits by 31 August 2005.

  Additionally, we are currently transposing the new Waste Incineration Directive (WID), which will further tighten dioxin emissions standards tenfold to 0.1 ng/m3—the level considered technically achievable when the Directive was finalised in 2000. This will apply to all new incinerators within its scope by 28 December 2002, and to existing plant by 28 December 2005.

  The Environment Agency has also recently varied the authorisations for existing municipal solid waste incinerators to reduce the dioxin emission limit to that required by the WID ahead of the required timescale. The IPPC Directive requires that permit conditions for these incinerations be set on the basis of best available techniques (BAT) for incinerator design and operation, and that those conditions be reconsidered in the event that future substantial changes in BAT make it possible to reduce emissions significantly below the WID standard without imposing excessive costs.

  Landfill
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which landfill site operators have submitted site conditioning plans; in each case(a) what classification they are seeking for their site, (b) for what capacity and (c) what substances; and which operators have not submitted plans. [73723]

  Mr. Meacher
  To comply with the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, landfill operators had to submit a conditioning plan to the Environment Agency (EA), for each individual landfill site, by 16 July 2002.
  929W
  As part of that plan, operators have to state which of the three types of landfill they wish the site to be classed as—hazardous; non-hazardous or inert.

  The latest information indicates that conditioning plans have been submitted for over 940 landfill sites, with some 228 seeking to operate as hazardous waste landfills. The total number submitted represents approximately 90 per cent. of the plans that were expected by the EA. The Agency are currently checking the plans that have been received and are actively chasing-up the remainder.

  Details of conditioning plans have to be placed on the Agency's public registers, however operators can apply for information concerning individual sites to be witheld if it is commercially confidential. Pending resolution of any such claims the information cannot be made public.

  Nevertheless by early September the EA expects to be in a position to publish a complete list of landfills for which conditioning plans have been received and will indicate on that list which sites have been classified as landfills for hazardous waste.

  Public Buildings
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 376W, on public buildings, if she will name the projects sponsored; and if she will make a statement on the Design Champion's personal input in respect of each. [73641]

  Mr. Morley
  As Design Champion for Defra I am sponsoring the building projects at Old Rectory Farm in Surrey and at Drayton in Warwickshire for the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) programme. I have received briefings on them and commented on design issues.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason parliamentarians are not included in the Schedule on page 27 of the Access to the Countryside (Provisional and Conclusive Maps) (England) Regulations 2002 (S1 1710); and if she will make a statement. [73415]

  Alun Michael
  The Regulations provide for provisional reduced scale maps to be made widely available for inspection, both in the locality to which they relate, and on the internet, at www.countryside.gov.uk/access/mapping. They will also to be sent to a similar range of organisations as receive draft maps, including land manager and user representative bodies, as well as parish councils and local access forums. The maps are costly to produce and bulky to store: in view of their availability on the internet and in Members' constituencies, I believe it would be unwelcome and unnecessary to supply paper copies to all Members. However, the Countryside Agency has agreed to supply reduced scale draft, provisional or conclusive maps showing Members' constituencies to any Member on request.

  Meat Imports
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what controls on meat imports are in place to guard against foot and mouth and other diseases. [73654]

  Mr. Morley
  All legally presented consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU Member States must have been produced in accordance with Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Imports from third countries must have been produced to standards at least equivalent to those in the Directive. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary office is responsible for carrying out inspections in third countries from which fresh meat is imported into the community.

  In respect of the importation of meat into the United Kingdom and the risk posed by FMD, European Community legislation permits us to import meat from certain countries where FMD is present but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Community legislation allows us to take appropriate safeguard action, which may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts of that country.

  All imported meat in to the United Kingdom from third countries must enter at a designated Border Inspection Post where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These checks ensure that import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport.

  The Government accepts more needs to be done to tackle illicit trade. An Action plan was published at the end of March which contains a range of measures. A progress report was issued on 8 July. A copy can be viewed on the Defra Illegal Imports website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/illegali).

SCOTLAND

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken against employers in Paisley North who have failed to pay the national minimum wage. [73680]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The information is not held in the format requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, Inland Revenue has specialist enforcement teams based in Aberdeen and East Kilbride who are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. The teams follow up complaints made by workers and third parties about non-compliance and use other Revenue risk based data to identify employers for enquiry. Since April 1999, the teams have conducted 1,910 inspections and recovered over £660,000 in wage arrears for low paid workers in Scotland.

  Electoral Register
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she expects to publish proposals under section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure MSPs are entitled to a free copy of the electoral register. [73721]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The draft of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2002, which contains provisions enabling the supply of free copies of the full version of the electoral register to MSPs, was laid before Parliament on 16 October. Subject to parliamentary approval by both Houses, the Order will come into force 14 days after it is made.

  Rail Freight Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to ensure that rail freight services between Scotland and the continent via the Channel Tunnel will recommence their operation. [73730]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government has ensured, through close co-operation with the French authorities, that initial physical security measures at Fréthun are almost complete and are proving effective. We will continue to work to ensure completion of the agreed measures later this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the French Minister for the Interior met on 26 September at Calais and reaffirmed their commitment to the measures set out in their communiqué of 12 July. On the specific issue of rail freight services, they announced that security considerations were no longer a constraint on rail freight service levels. France is committed to increasing the levels of security at the site, including gendarme presence, as the rail traffic increases.

  At present the Channel Tunnel is fully operational for freight operators, including services between Scotland and the Continent, between the hours of 14h00 and 03h00. The SRA, EWS and SNCF are discussing the progressive restoration of a full and reliable 24-hour service.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to help eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland. [73729]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government is working in partnership with the Scottish Executive to tackle fuel poverty. Measures the Government have taken include the £200 Winter Fuel Payments for people aged 60 and over; the cold weather payments for people on Income Support and some other benefits; and reducing VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Director General for Criminal Justice System Information Technology
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Director General for Criminal Justice System Information Technology was appointed. [73227]

  Hilary Benn
  The Director General for Criminal Justice System Information Technology was appointed on 12 December 2001.

  Criminal Justice
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will respond to the widespread public belief found in "Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System", Home Office Research Study 245, that prison was the most effective sentence for reducing crime. [73783]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no doubt that, for some offenders, prison is both an appropriate punishment and a factor in reducing crime. The same Home Office study also shows that the general public sees prison combined with supervision in the community as a sentence, which is effective in reducing crime. 72 per cent. of the general public in the study thought that a sentence of three months followed by three months supervision was more constructive than six months imprisonment. That system of combining custody with supervision is proposed in our Custody Plus scheme outlined in the white paper "Justice for All".

  Other disposals such as restorative justice schemes and drug treatment schemes also received high ratings from the public in this report. The Government does believe that the public should be given better information about the alternatives to custody that exist and their effectiveness in reducing crime and re-offending.

  Sentences are not just about reducing crime, however; there may be many reasons for imposing a particular sentence including protecting the public, punishing the offender or rehabilitating the offender. We need therefore to retain a range of different types of sentence appropriate for different offenders and different crimes.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take in response to the finding in "Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System", Home Office Research Study 245, that the provision of simple factual information about crime and sentencing had an impact on confidence in the criminal justice system. [73784]

  Hilary Benn
  In the Criminal Justice White Paper "Justice for All" it was proposed to create a Sentencing Guidelines Council (para 5.15). One of the functions of the Council will be to publish Guidelines "in a way that is easily accessible to the public as well as to the judiciary and other legal practitioners" (para 5.16) and sentencers will be required to take those guidelines into account both in their decisions and in framing the reasons for their decisions. This is designed to provide a common point of reference for the public and to enable greater consistency in sentencing across the country.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/ companies.[74685]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Department is unable to provide a full answer with the level of detailed information sought on external consultants and companies that provide public relations, communications advertising, marketing, accountancy, and banking services for the period in question. Records are not held centrally and therefore to provide a full response for the Home Office and its Agencies would incur disproportionate costs. We are, however able to provide a total expenditure figure for external consultants and other companies listed from June 2001 to date which is £41,671,404.94.

  Murder Convictions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those convicted for murder since 1972 have subsequently reoffended on release; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the crimes committed on reoffending. [74547]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 1972, eight per cent. of persons released from prison following a conviction for murder were reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years of release. The most common offences on reconviction were theft and handling (45 per cent. of those reconvicted), violence against the person (22 per cent.) and burglary (13 per cent.). Around one per cent. of those released were reconvicted within two years for an indictable crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; these crimes include homicide, serious wounding, rape, robbery, and arson endangering life.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 July, Ref 56636, if there is a backlog in the National Asylum Support Agency dealing with correspondence; and what the average deviation is from the last three and ten working day targets. [73929]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]The Operations Section of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is currently receiving an average of 1,800 letters per week which have a target of three days for completion. These are requests for payment of the additional single payment and replacement certificates to enable supported asylum seekers to receive free prescriptions etc. Officials are meeting the three day target for processing these applications.

  In addition the Operations Section is receiving an average of 1,400 items of correspondence relating to more complex issues such as requests to be relocated.
  934W
  Currently there are 2,000 cases which have not been finally resolved. But all have received action within the 10 day target and cannot be finally resolved because of the need to obtain additional information.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the return to Afghanistan of those not in need of international protection. [75902]

  Beverley Hughes
  A Tripartite Agreement by the Government, the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was signed on Saturday 12 October 2002 in Kabul following the successful conclusion of negotiations. The Agreement provides for return to Afghanistan in a managed and phased manner of those who have been established to have no protection needs. The United Kingdom is fully committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. As part of this it is important that return to Afghanistan is sustainable and the Agreement commits the United Kingdom Government to providing support to those returning, in Afghanistan, to ensure they are able to reestablish themselves in their homeland.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how pregnant women who are seeking asylum are informed of their eligibilty for the maternity grant; and how many claimed the grant in the last 12 months; [73973]

  (2) how asylum seekers are informed how to claim the £50 one-off payment to which they are entitled after six months; and what proportion claimed this in the last 12 months. [73972]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on eligibility for all support payments including the £50 additional single payment and the £300 maternity payment is given to asylum seekers by voluntary organisations grant funded by the Home Office. This information will also form an integral part of the briefing given to all asylum seekers whilst they are going through the Induction Centre process.

  Information on maternity payments can also be found on the Home Office web-site.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of applications made for additional single payments or payment of maternity grant. Information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 12 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Sard Aram Aziz. [74568]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 July from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Ifra Raja. [74565]
  935W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 25 July from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Kourosh Jahanshahi. [74564]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 2 October 2002.

  Immigration
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom were detected(a) on entry and (b) in the country in each month since March 2001. [73982]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]Provisional information on the number of clandestine entrants detected and served with illegal entry papers in the period April to December 2001 is given in the table.

  Clandestines detected and served with illegal entry papers

  Month

  On-entry

  In-country

  Total

  April 2001

  60

  3,460

  3,525

  May 2001

  335

  2,865

  3,205

  June 2001

  70

  2,530

  2,600

  July 2001

  130

  2,820

  2,950

  August 2001

  150

  2,870

  3,020

  September 2001

  115

  2,600

  2,715

  October 2001

  75

  2,950

  3,025

  November 2001

  80

  2,835

  2,915

  December 2001

  80

  2,345

  2,425

  Note:

  Provisional data, subject to possible change.

  Figures rounded to the nearest five, and may not sum due to rounding.

  It should be noted that the figures relate to the date on which the illegal entry notice was served. In-country detections could relate to an individual who entered the United Kingdom in an earlier period.

  More recent information is not yet available. Figures on illegal entry papers served are published annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom", the 2001 edition of which was published on 26 September 2002. Figures for 2002 will be published in the second half of 2003. Early indications are, however, that the use of technology to detect claudestine entrants is increasing detection rates.

  Euro
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the cost to his Department of changeover to the euro; and if he will make a statement. [73694]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It is not yet possible to estimate how much it would cost the Home Office to change to the euro. The department is taking action to ensure that it would be ready to implement any decision by the Government. The cost would depend on a number of decisions yet to be taken including timing and the details of conversion policies.

  Charter Airlines
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for charter airline operators to provide mass data on all passengers carried on their planes. [71421]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended by section 119 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) gives the power to an examining officer to make a written request to an air or sea carrier for information relating to passengers and goods on all air and sea journey to and from within the United Kingdom. This is an important measure to help us fight terrorism.

  The Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002 is the enabling power for this provision. The Order was approved by Parliament on 22 July and came into force on 22 August.

  Discussions are continuing, which include carriers from all sectors of the industry, including charter airline operators, on the detailed implementation of the Order, and I have assured the industry that the powers will not be used, except in an emergency, until our consultation is complete.

  Mandatory Life Sentences
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedural changes are being made following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 May in the case of Stafford concerning the release of mandatory life sentence prisoners. [75903]

  Hilary Benn
  Mandatory life sentence prisoners who have served the minimum period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, have their cases reviewed periodically by the Parole Board. A t present responsibility for their release rests with the Secretary of State. This responsibility cannot be conferred on the Parole Board or any other body without primary legislation.

  As an interim measure, the Home Secretary has decided to change the administrative arrangements for the review and release of mandatory life sentence prisoners. These administrative arrangements will apply to all such prisoners whose next Parole Board review begins on or after 1 January 2003. The changes will mean that in most instances these prisoners' cases will be heard initially, as now, by the Parole Board on the papers which will make a provisional recommendation. If prisoners wish to make representations about provisional recommendations it will then be open to them to request an oral hearing before the Parole Board at which they may have legal representation. They will normally receive full disclosure of all material relevant to the question of whether they should be released. They will also be able to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Similarly the Secretary of State may also require an oral hearing of the Board in cases where he believes further examination of the evidence is required.
  937W
  If, at the end of the review process, the Parole Board favours the release of a mandatory life sentence prisoner once the minimum period has been served the Home Secretary will normally accept such a recommendation.

  The Stafford judgment affects only the process by which the decision is made on whether to release mandatory life sentence prisoners. It does not relate to the period of detention which such prisoners must serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, or Parole Board reviews that take place before the end of that period. There will usually be no change to the dates set for Parole Board reviews of prisoners who have served that period. Those prisoners serving whole life tariffs do not have their cases referred to the Parole Board.

TREASURY

  Tax Avoidance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department is undertaking of tax avoidance by captive insurance companies based in UK overseas dependent territories; and if he will make a statement. [74798]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue regularly monitors the effectiveness of measures to prevent tax avoidance by captive insurance companies.

  Inland Revenue Special Investigation Section
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenues have been recovered by the Inland Revenue's special investigation section in each of the last five fiscal years; and if he will make a statement. [74799]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Special Investigations Section ("SIS") is the Inland Revenue's specialist unit that seeks to tackle tax avoidance. The nature of the compliance work undertaken by SIS is such that the yield can vary significantly from one year to the next. The yield for the last 5 years is as follows;

  Year ended 31 March 1998

  £109.3 million

  Year ended 31 March 1999

  £171.5 million

  Year ended 31 March 2000

  £111.7 million

  Year ended 31 March 2001

  £66 million

  Year ended 31 March 2002

  £90.4 million

  The yield for the first 6 months of the current year is already greater than that achieved for last year.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify the components of the line labelled Tax Credits in table A10 in the Comprehensive Spending Review document, Command Paper 5570; whether it includes all personal tax credit expenditure that is classified as negative taxation; and if he will make a statement on the reduction in the figure between 2002–03 and 2003–04. [74709]
  938W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax credits line in Table A 10 of the 2002 Spending Review white paper (Command Paper 5570) covers spending on tax credits which is classified as expenditure by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the National Accounts but as negative taxation on the basis of OECD revenue statistics rules. Spending on tax credits classified as expenditure under both ONS and OECD guidelines is included in Table A2 of the 2002 Spending Review white paper.

  The tax credit figure in Table A10 falls between 2002–03 and 2003–04 because of changes in personal tax credits. Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) is classified partly as expenditure and partly as negative taxation under OECD guidelines but entirely as expenditure in National Accounts, so the Table A10 tax credit figure for 2002–03 includes the proportion of WFTC scored as negative taxation under OECD rules. However from April 2003 WFTC is being replaced by two new tax credits, the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and the ONS have announced that these new tax credits will be classified in line with OECD classification rules in the National Accounts. Therefore no expenditure under these new tax credits scores in the tax credits line in Table A10 for 2003–04 onwards and the total falls considerably from 2002–03.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to communications data as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, how many officials from(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise he estimates will be authorised to seek access to communications data; and how many times officials have sought access to such data from communications providers such as Internet service providers under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Customs and Excise estimate that the number of authorised officials will be about 200. The Inland Revenue are not yet in a position to estimate a figure, but in any event authorised officials in the Inland Revenue will be restricted to the grades equivalent to Senior Executive Officer and Higher Executive Officer. In the last year, Customs and Excise officials have sought access to such data approximately 35,500 times and Inland Revenue officials approximately 11,700 times.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list external(a) public relations/ communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74688]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the 2/3 limit on pensions received by employees earning less than £25,000 per annum and belonging to final salary schemes with an accrual rate of 1/60 per year; and if he will make a statement. [74548]

  Ruth Kelly
  On 15 March 2001 the Government announced a review aimed at developing an administrative simplification of the pension tax rules. This is, amongst other things, looking at limits on pensions. The Government has said that it will consult on the recommendations arising from this review later this year.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have moved out of employment of HM Treasury owing to reorganisation of the machinery of Government as a result of the creation of, and changing of functions of(a) the Office of Government Commerce, (b) the Debt Management Office and (c) other Chancellor's departments and agencies since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [74797]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of people transferred permanently or on loan as a result of the creation of the following organisations were:

  (a) the Office of Government Commerce—25

  (b) the Debt Management Office—11

  In addition, 94 staff transferred to the Treasury from DTI before transferring to the Financial Services Authority when it was established.

CABINET OFFICE

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to ensure that the emergency services have sufficient resources needed to deal effectively with the consequences of a substantial disaster. [73773]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since September 2001, all three emergency services have increased their holdings of personal protective equipment that will enable their personnel to work in hazardous environments after any incident involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents. In addition, the fire and ambulance services have purchased extra equipment with which to decontaminate and treat persons who have exposed to any of these agents.

  Purchases of extra search and rescue equipment for use by fire brigades are also planned.

  In addition, a nation-wide programme has been instituted for the joint training and exercising of senior officers from all three emergency services for such disasters.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new methods are planned to ensure effective communication between the emergency services in the event of a substantial disaster. [73762]
  940W
  Mr. Alexander
  The police service have already begun to roll out a national radio network that will allow intraoperability between all forces if, and when, officers from different forces need to talk to one another.

  The current radio systems of the fire and ambulance services are now due for renewal.

  The Cabinet Office has ensured that the specifications include the requirement that the replacement systems are capable of interoperability with the systems of the other emergency services as well as intraoperability within their own service.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government are taking to establish a review on local authority spending in the area of emegency planning. [73761]

  Mr. Alexander
  Local authority spending is being reviewed in the context of the work on a Civil Contingencies Bill. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 July 2002,Official Report, column 727W, which sets out further details of this work.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent measures have been taken to(a) modernise the Child Support Agency and (b) make it more efficient. [74416]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to Members on 19 September 2002 by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the new Child Support Agency Charter in the Library. [74718]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy was placed in the Library on 9 October.

  New Deal
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent developments in the New Deal for Disabled People, with particular reference to(a) client participants and (b) recruitment and continuity of providers. [74671]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Since the national extension of the New Deal for Disabled People programme began, it has helped over 5,000 people into jobs and more than 25,000 have registered with Job Brokers to actively pursue employment.

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) parliamentary questions and (b) letters to him from hon. Members remain unanswered; broken down by those which are (i) one

  941W
  month old, (ii) two months old, (iii) three months old, (iv) four months old and (v) over six months old. [73918]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 15 October 20021: The table shows the number of outstanding parliamentary questions in the Department on 16 October 2002, which are over one month old.

  Month Tabled

  Number of Parliamentary Questions Outstanding

  May

  1

  July

  13

  The table shows the number of letters in the Department which had not received an answer at 15 October 2002.

  With a Received Date Between

  Number

  1 & 2 months

  601

  2 & 3 months

  385

  3 & 4 months

  201

  4 & 6 months

  367

  greater than 6 months

  474

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what capacity his special advisers are involved in drafting answers to parliamentary questions tabled by hon. Members. [73921]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Officials with responsibility for the policy take the lead in drafting answers to parliamentary questions, which are then cleared by Ministers before a final reply is sent. There is no formal role for special advisers in this process, but they may from time to time be consulted by Ministers and/or officials about draft replies.

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether borrowing by NHS foundation trusts will be backed up by Treasury guarantees. [74550]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the financial regime for National Health Service foundation trusts are currently being developed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will have other income streams in addition to standard NHS funding from the Treasury. [74551]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service foundation trusts may have limited access to other income streams, in a similar way to existing NHS trusts, in addition to standard NHS funding from Her Majesty's Treasury. Their prime purpose will be to treat NHS patients.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will be able to develop services for private patients in addition to existing pay beds in their particular hospitals or clinics. [74552]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provision of clinical services to National Health Service patients will remain the principal objective for NHS foundation trusts. However, as is the case for existing NHS trusts, the new organisations will 942W
  be able to treat private patients including foreign nationals who may live in the United Kingdom but are not eligible for NHS treatment.

  The governance and regulatory framework that we are developing for NHS foundation trusts will ensure that appropriate controls are put in place to prevent these organisations from developing private business at the expense of developing services for NHS patients.

  Foundation Trust Consultative Group
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Foundation Trust Consultative Group. [74553]

  Mr. Hutton
  To develop the policy on National Health Service foundation trusts, the Department has sought a wide range of specialist advice. In particular, since December 2001 Chief Executive Officers from NHS trusts that have achieved three stars in the NHS performance ratings have been consulted on a range of issues. Key topics for discussion have been development of new freedoms and policy development on NHS foundation trusts. We expect these arrangements to continue.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there to award,(a) Northamptonshire and (b) Norfolk and Norwich NHS trusts foundation trust status. [74554]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 25 July, the Department published NHS Foundation Trusts: Eligibility Criteria and Timetable. Amongst other criteria, applicant National Health Service trusts need to hold and retain three star status in the NHS performance ratings. Northamptonshire and Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trusts will not be eligible to apply for NHS foundation trust status this autumn because they did not achieve three star status in the NHS performance ratings announced in July 2002.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his departmental officials are involved in work on foundation status for NHS trusts. [74555]

  Mr. Hutton
  At present, there are nine Departmental staff working full time on National Health Service foundation trusts. However, as policy on NHS foundation trusts embraces a wide range of issues a number of other staff are also contributing to the policy development as and when required.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Countryside Protection
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to finalise the details of the service delivery agreement in respect of protection of valuable countryside around towns and cities; and if he will make a statement. [74794]

  Mr. McNulty
  A service delivery agreement relating to all of the Office's public service agreements will be published later this year.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2002 Official Report, column 800W, what information his Department has collated on the levels of under-occupancy in social housing in each borough in London; if he will list the financial compensation package and cash incentives available from each local authority in London to encourage tenants to move from an underoccupied property to more suitably sized accommodation; what assessment he has made of the impact in London of the good practice guidance on managing underoccupation published by his Department in April 2001; and what further action he plans to encourage local authorities in areas of high demand to develop a strategy for addressing underoccupancy. [74155]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally, and would only be provided at disproportionate cost; the information on financial compensation package and cash incentives available from each local authority in London to encourage tenants to move from an underoccupied property to more suitably sized accommodation will be available from the House of Commons library; the ODPM has not made an assessment of the impact in London of the good practice guidance on managing under-occupation; the ODPM has no firm plans to take further action to encourage local authorities in areas of high demand to develop a strategy for addressing underoccupancy.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure by his Department was on each estate action programme in the borough of Tower Hamlets since 1985; and what this was as a percentage of the total cost of each programme. [74146]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The records of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets show the total expenditure for each of the estate action projects in Tower Hamlets since 1985, and the Department's contribution as a percentage of the total cost of each project are:

  Estate Action Schemes

  Total Cost of Project £m

  Departmental contribution as % of Total cost

  Aberfeldy Estate

  0.764

  50

  All Estates on Isle of Dogs

  14.1

  100

  Anglsey House

  0.378

  100

  Ashpark House

  0.32

  100

  Bancroft

  9.556

  46

  Barken tine

  42.46

  92

  Barkentine 3

  22.034

  98

  Barley Mow Estate

  4.466

  54

  Bazely Estate

  0.392

  55

  Bengal House

  5.122

  61

  Berner Estate

  1.766

  100

  Bethnal Green Estate

  3.414

  36

  Birchfield House

  1.301

  62

  Boundary Estate

  1.964

  63

  Bow Bridge

  0.16

  100

  Brinsley House Tarling East

  0.88

  100

  British Street

  2.295

  12

  Brownfield Estate

  2.593

  7

  Brune House Complex

  1.938

  61

  Burley House

  0.6

  100

  Burnham Estate

  0.971

  68

  Channel House-Ocean Estate

  2.265

  67

  Chicksand Estate

  2.418

  77

  Christenurch

  0.511

  45

  944W

  Estate Action Schemes

  Total Cost of Project £m

  Departmental contribution as % of Total Cost

  Cleveland Estate

  0.796

  69

  Coventry Cross East

  0.23

  100

  Coventry Cross West

  0.28

  100

  Cranbrook Estate

  4.19

  24

  Cranford Cottages

  0.12

  100

  Crossways

  0.15

  100

  Cubitt Town-Thermopylae Gate

  1.042

  32

  Digby Greenways

  10.57

  63

  Dorian Estate all blocks in

  Stepney

  0.307

  100

  Galleon House

  4.192

  78

  Holland

  0.712

  97

  Isle of Dogs

  3.5

  100

  Jefferson Estate.Madison & 50

  2.754

  John Scurr

  4.807

  46

  Lefevre Walk

  9.769

  85

  Leobold Building

  9.544

  43

  Limehouse Fields

  1.347

  85

  Limehouse Fields

  0.705

  71

  Lincoln Estate

  1.3

  100

  Locton

  1.959

  52

  Maddocks House Tarling West

  0.87

  100

  Malmesbury

  0.5

  100

  Manchester Estate

  2.685

  98

  Mansford

  1.83

  8

  Martinu Estate

  0.886

  100

  Mercers, mountmorres,

  0.2

  100

  Midhurst House

  0.32

  100

  Minerva

  2.67

  100

  Monteith Estate

  8.583

  52

  Newdieate House

  0.304

  100

  Ocean

  2.594

  73

  Ocean (Bothnia, Malaka, Tunis)

  1.7

  76

  Ocean (Play Area)

  0.44

  9

  Ocean Estate Security Works

  0.219

  100

  Ocean(Muslim Prayer facilities)

  0.44

  9

  Parkview/Crankbrook

  0.66

  100

  Perring Estate

  1.484

  50

  Ranwell East

  0.356

  100

  Ranwell West

  1.09

  69

  Ring House-Martineau Estate

  2

  100

  Riverside Estate

  0.343

  100

  Robin Hood Gardens

  1.516

  77

  Robin Hood Gardens 2

  0.52

  100

  Roche Estate

  3.003

  81

  Rogers Estate

  2.78

  64

  Roman Road North

  0.677

  83

  Samuda Estate

  2.395

  45

  Samuda Estate phase 2

  0.094

  0

  Samuda Estate. Hedley House

  0.665

  79

  Samuda Housing Office

  1.6

  100

  Sandhurst House

  0.14

  100

  St Georges Estate

  2.428

  70

  St John

  1.844

  85

  St Peters

  0.081

  100

  St Vincent

  0.804

  100

  Studland House

  0.5

  100

  Teviot Estate

  1.07

  49

  Tredegar Road

  0.45

  100

  Vaugham Estate

  1.033

  100

  Wapping Estate

  0

  0

  Watney market

  19.027

  85

  Wellington

  13.997

  86

  Winterton.

  19.948

  86

  Total/Average

  285.688

  76

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many formal and official inter-ministerial meetings
  945W
  his Department has held with the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) Scottish Executive department, (b) subject and (c) date. [72715]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information is not available in the form requested. Ministers from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have frequent meetings with Ministers from the Scottish Executive, both formal and informal, covering a broad range of topics.

  Flooding
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to address problems with flooding in areas of new housing development. [72362]

  Mr. McNulty
  In July 2001 the Government published Planning policy guidance note (PPG) 25 Development and flood risk. This introduces a risk-based approach to planning for new development that gives priority to lower risk areas. Within high-risk areas priority is given to those areas that are already developed. Built development should be wholly exceptional within the functional flood plains that are essentially unobstructed by defences and existing development.

  Those proposing new development are advised to carry out a flood-risk assessment. This should assess the risks of flooding to the development, its impact on flooding elsewhere (including the impact of increased
  946W
  run-off due to development) and identify any mitigation measures that may be required. Where flood defences or other mitigation is required because of a new development, its provision and future maintenance should be fully funded by the developer as part of the development.

  In February 2002, DTLR published Preparing for floods. This contains interim guidance for improving the flood resistance of domestic and small business properties. It provides practical advice for existing property owners whose properties are at risk of flooding and for all those involved with construction of new properties or renovation of existing buildings in areas of flood risk. The Environment Agency, together with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, has also produced guidance on temporary measures to protect against flooding (such as flood boards) and on what to do after a flood.

  Green Belt
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on development on green belt land. [72377]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government policy on the Green Belt remains as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2, which states that protecting the countryside from encroachment is one of the main purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Since 1997 approximately 30,000 hectares of land have been earmarked for addition to the Green Belt.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St Albans): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Afghanistan
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with United Nations officials and the United States Government about the implications of the discovery of human remains and scattered clothes near Shiberghan in northern Afghanistan; what are their conclusions; and what action they are taking.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, sadly, it is alleged that there are a number of mass gravesites in Afghanistan, including the one at Shiberghan. We have discussed these allegations with United Nations and United States officials, and we welcome Hamid Karzai's and regional leaders' statements that they will co-operate with investigations into these sites.
While it is for the Afghan Transitional Authority and the Afghan people themselves to decide how to deal with past crimes, we stand ready to play a supportive role if assistance is requested. We would expect the United Nations to be at the heart of any investigation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does she not agree that, apart from the seriousness of the situation that she describes in its own right, if we are to win the battle for hearts and minds in this great strategy in which we are all involved, it is absolutely essential that in Afghanistan we demonstrate not only a relentless commitment to resources and work for economic and social reconstruction, but an equally relentless commitment to justice and human rights? Does she not further agree that we can be neither directly nor indirectly part of any inadvertent attempt, perhaps, to cover up what may have happened and that these matters must be pursued with vigour and expeditiously??
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend said. So far, our discussions with the United Nations indicate that the most proper way forward would be to engage in a two-stage approach to the investigations—first, forensic investigations and the dignified reburial of those who are in the mass graves, and, later, when the security situation improves, more detailed witness interviews and investigations. The security position is such at the moment that there are concerns that to pursue matters rigorously right now with some of the
952
potential witnesses might leave them open to danger. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that two-stage approach is sensible.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister applaud the impressive work done by the government of Hamid Karzai to overcome the bitter ethnic rivalry that is the root of the violence that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to? Does she recognise that, if further massacres are to be avoided, we must build a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic regime in Afghanistan? Further to the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, what help are we giving by enabling the Afghan Government to overcome ethnic conflict and, in particular, to uphold human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Although we are concerned with the example that my noble friend cited, I hope that my initial answer indicated that there are a number of these sites, which may have resulted from atrocities by different groups. It is important that all of them are pursued. The noble Baroness asked what we are doing in particular. The Tokyo Conference pledged some 4.5 billion US dollars to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom's contribution to that has been £260 million. In addition, we have contributed some 33 million dollars to security sector reform. The United Kingdom Government are playing a full part in the reconstruction effort.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, how many prisoners are still held by the Northern Alliance, and for how long will they be held? Will Her Majesty's Government use their best endeavours to make sure that those people are either tried or released?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are varying reports about the number of prisoners still held by the Northern Alliance. At the moment it is extremely difficult for our diplomats to get out of Kabul to verify what is happening in prisons in Afghanistan. The noble Lord will know that the security situation does not allow for that. However, the United Nations is sending out a human rights specialist this weekend. Ms Asma Jahangir will be looking in particular at mass gravesites, but that indicates the level of concern about human rights issues in general in Afghanistan. The noble Lord's question about what has happened in prisons is very pertinent and must be pursued.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her welcome reappearance at the Dispatch Box, which all of us are delighted to see.
Are the recently suggested steps to extend the international security force beyond Kabul to other parts of Afghanistan not very urgent in the light of the evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? Are

953
steps being taken to extend the reach of ISAF to other major cities and even beyond to the countryside of Afghanistan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome back.
The United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised ISAF activities in the first place limited its area of operation to Kabul and the surrounding area. Any expansion of the ISAF area of operation would require an enormous commitment of resources, and there is no guarantee that what worked in Kabul would be effective throughout the country. Any expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul may make the task of leading the force much more complicated. However, I take the noble Baroness's point that it is not just a matter of what is happening in Kabul. Indeed, the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, demonstrate that there are concerns throughout the country. The international community must keep the matter under constant review.

West Coast Main Line Franchise
3.8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the announcement that Virgin Trains will receive an additional £200 million from the Government as an interim payment pending renegotiation of a revised scope of the West Coast main line franchise, why the Strategic Rail Authority has not sought new tenders for this franchise in order to demonstrate value for money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the agreement between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains covers both Virgin franchises for the current year and the Cross Country franchise for next year. The value to Virgin will not exceed £106 million this year, and it will be less next year. Following a full audit, the SRA will negotiate with Virgin about the long-term future of the franchises. If no agreement can be reached, they will be terminated early and a new competition held.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full Answer. If his figures differ from mine, why was that information not published at the time of the announcement? It was published by Stagecoach; nothing has yet been announced by the SRA. My question is more fundamental. Around £200 million is being awarded to Virgin for three years
954
interim. Is it normal for a government to hand out such slugs of money without any competitive tendering process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not recognise the £200 million that my noble friend referred to. I am surprised by what he said about the figures that I gave not being published before. I shall have to write to him; I understood that they were in the public zone.
We must distinguish two different stages. First, the payments for this year and next year. That was necessary, and it would have been necessary, for any franchisee. The company is losing money and greater progress on the West Coast main line modernisation had been expected. That would have brought more money in for the West Coast main line franchise. There is no advantage in having a change of franchisee now. That would be disruptive for those involved and, more importantly, disruptive for passengers. So this is the minimum necessary.
I said in my Answer that we would be renegotiating in good faith the company's long-term franchise. There is no undertaking that we will reach agreement. If we do not, there will be a competitive tender. That is the right time for a competitive tender.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real scandal is the fact that railway infrastructure costs have increased by between three and five times since the railways were privatised? Will he please give the House an assurance that the Government will use their best efforts with the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the rail regulator in order quickly to end this scandalous waste of public money, not on railway infrastructure, but on paying all the people who are hanging on to the coat-tails of the people who do the work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to agree with the general condemnation made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Question is about the West Coast main line, and it is true that the cost has escalated from a little over £2 billion to £10 billion. That shows incredible lack of control and forethought by Railtrack. We must get a grip of it, and we are getting a grip of it. However, we were able to get a grip of it only after it went into administration and we were able to take the company back again.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one must have sympathy with Virgin Trains? The fact is that it has purchased the new Pendolino fast train but cannot use it for a number of years because no suitable track is available.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we have had to make a stabilising grant over the next couple of years. Yes, it was expecting to benefit from the renewal and upgrade of the West Coast main line and that has not yet happened. Clearly, as a result, it is losing money and, clearly, to that extent it is not its fault.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that in any event in the first stage there will be a negotiation with Virgin Trains and that if it were not satisfactory to the Government, they would be prepared to call in the franchise and reoffer it? Why not do that at this stage when it is clear that things are not going anywhere near how they were expected to go?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly recalls what I said. Yes, we would seek to negotiate first before terminating the franchise early, which is the position in which we would find ourselves. As has been pointed out, Virgin Trains has purchased the tilting Pendolino train, so surely it is best to try to reach an agreement first with those who have made an investment. If that does not work to the satisfaction of the Government, the taxpayers and the passengers, we have the power to terminate the agreement. I believe that that is the right way round.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Will my noble friend confirm that Virgin Trains has fulfilled its franchise in terms of refurbishing its rolling stock and ordering new trains? That is a strong reason why the agreement with the SRA as brokered is one we should welcome and look forward to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is what I was trying to say but, as so often, my noble friend Lord Faulkner has said it better.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the borrowings by the Strategic Rail Authority, which are after all borrowings in the public sector, will not count as public sector borrowings and are being managed off balance sheet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been misled by some of the publicity during the weekend. He must be talking about the speech Mr Bowker made on Tuesday. The proposal that Mr Bowker made for securitising fares for the future is only one of a number of options he is putting to the Government for the future financing of the Strategic Rail Authority. No decision has been taken on these financing options.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not extending sympathy to Virgin Trains be treated with complete derision by the hundreds of thousands of passengers who are fed up to the back teeth with its operations on the West Coast main line?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend will have noticed that I confined my sympathy to the financial situation in which Virgin Trains finds itself through no fault of its own. I have made no comment on the quality of its service in other ways, in which other people—notably in this House—are more successful than I am.

Temporary Workers: EU Directive
3.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked He Majesty's Government:
What are their reasons for refusing to support the European Commission's proposal for a directive on working conditions for temporary workers (7430/02).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the Commission's intention to protect temporary agency workers and to promote agency work in the EU. But, by European standards, we have a large number of agency workers in this country and it is important that the directive works in practice in the UK and helps us to deliver full employment. To ensure this, we are seeking to introduce further flexibilities such as a longer derogation from the equal treatment principle.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he dissent from the press reports which appeared during the weekend and recently indicating that the Government are wholly opposed to the draft directive? Does he agree that temporary workers are among the most vulnerable of all workers and that new Labour is firmly on their side?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am pleased to confirm that we are not wholly opposed to the directive. However, we believe that it must be amended so that it will work in practice in the UK. Above all, we want to ensure that it will not lead to a situation where outsiders—that is, people entering the labour market for the first time—are penalised by insiders by too strong regulations which could lead to a substantial decline in agency work.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not glaringly obvious that if one makes the employment of temporary workers more burdensome one will reduce the number of temporary work opportunities? Is that what the Government want?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we want to introduce more flexibility so that it is not more burdensome. But, clearly, there are cases in which, for example, people are employed for a year and it is difficult to say that they are not in the same position as permanent employees. They are known in the jargon as "permanent temps" and they should have the same protection as people who are employed on a permanent basis.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, contrary to what has been said from the Benches opposite, does my noble friend agree that the philosophy behind the issue is that so-called atypical workers—that is, temporary, part-time, contract workers and so forth—in the

957
European labour market become typical workers and that unless we are to have a two-tier labour force, and if we want to encourage such workers to be part of the labour force, we need to ensure that there are pro rata terms, in a broad sense, for them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that part-time and temporary workers are becoming a large part of the labour force. The Government believe that all workers are entitled to decent and fair minimum standards. In the case of part-time and fixed-term work, directives covering those categories have led to those minimum fair standards being put in place. However, particular circumstances apply to agency workers and in giving them fair minimum standards we must be careful that we do not place on them disproportionate burdens, leading to a reduction in the number of agency workers. They perform a valuable service in the economy.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said, but does he accept that, particularly during periods of relatively high employment in London and the South East, there is significant exploitation of temporary workers, particularly single-parent women? Should not the Labour Government be seeking to protect such groups?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that there is significant exploitation. Our survey clearly shows that agency work suits a large number of people who want agency work rather than permanent employment. Indeed, agency work can help some people to effect a lifestyle choice as it enables them to fit in a job around family commitments. It is therefore by no means clear that people are being exploited. On the contrary, I think that agency work can be a stepping stone for labour market outsiders—the unemployed, starters and other non-participants before beginning agency work—to enter the market.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although there are many legitimate reasons to employ temporary workers, such as to provide cover during holidays, employers sometimes employ them on a long-term basis, often denying them benefits such as sick pay, holidays and a superannuation scheme? Is there not a good case that such employers are exploiting temporary workers and should be taken to task?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I hope I made clear, we think that there are circumstances in which people can be exploited. We are therefore consulting on our relevant domestic legislation to ensure that people cannot be exploited, particularly in matters such as transfer fees. In this particular case, however, we think that a derogation of more than six weeks would be appropriate. Nevertheless, we agree that there is obviously a point at which people become permanent employees and should receive the same
958
pay. There are situations in which people should be protected, but we think that the six-week time period is too short.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the states that already have stringent national legislation restricting the use of agency labour are experiencing high unemployment and have—in the case of France, and soon in that of Germany—economies that are in serious trouble? Will he confirm that he does not want to take us down that route?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that we think that agency workers perform an important function, and that we are therefore concerned that this legislation should be made more flexible. Other European countries such as Ireland and Germany are sympathetic to our position and see the same problems with the directive.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, listening to the remarks from the Opposition Benches, has my noble friend been reminded of the fact that they opposed the minimum wage, which has now been widely accepted across the country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reminding me of a fact to which I had foolishly not referred earlier in the debate.

Football: Racist Abuse
3.23 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are prepared to take to protect black British footballers from racist abuse when representing their club or their country in matches played abroad.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government share the revulsion which has been widely expressed following events during England's match in Slovakia, and fully support the Football Association in the prosecution of its formal complaint to UEFA. Racist chanting is a criminal offence in the UK. Where this is not the case overseas, UEFA is responsible for working with national football federations to ensure that such behaviour is not tolerated. In the light of events in Slovakia, UEFA must be prepared to impose tough sanctions where necessary.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very robust and welcome reply. I am also sure that she will wish to join me in congratulating Wales on its magnificent victory last night over Italy, and perhaps in drawing a veil over England's performance against Macedonia. Reverting to the disgraceful scenes in Bratislava on Saturday—when Emile Heskey and Ashley Cole were subjected to

959
taunts not only from the crowd, but incredibly from the stretcher bearers as well—is she aware that those were merely the latest in a long line of similar events involving British footballers playing at club level in Europe this season? Her comments on punishment will be widely welcomed. Does she agree that punishments should include the closure of grounds when such offences take place and the playing of matches behind closed doors?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it was indeed a bad night for England last night, but my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is a happy man today. I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind my noble friend's comments. We should remember, however, that this is a matter for UEFA. I am quite positive in my expectation that UEFA is taking extremely seriously the events in Slovakia. I also think that there is greater recognition in European football that it needs to follow the UK's example in combating racism in football, a very serious matter which damages this nation's great sport.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sport, including football, has achieved so much in Britain in helping to break down racial barriers, particularly through role models from ethnic minority groups playing on our teams? Is she therefore not alarmed by recent press coverage of a leaked document from the Performance and Innovation Unit at No. 10 Downing Street stating that no evidence has been found to show that taking part in sport increases social inclusion or encourages the young from all communities, through our sporting icons, to participate in sport?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness's question is a rather long way from that on the Order Paper about racism in football. However, I believe that sport of all kinds, football included, is one of the many routes that should be taken to increase social inclusiveness for all young people.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the British Government have been very good about giving information about potential hooligans to all nations to which English football fans travel, it would only be just for us to expect those nations to enact at least some form of anti-racism policy where British players are exposed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I know that the Football Association frequently discusses these matters with UEFA. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport is also discussing these matters with the Football Association. It is a matter for foreign and European Union governments to decide what
960
legislation they wish to have to ensure that racism in football, and indeed in any other sport, is not accepted in those countries. As I said, however, there is evidence that other European countries are taking this matter seriously. They are looking at what has happened in the UK and at our legislation, and they may wish to take that up further.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating Ashley Cole and Emile Heskey on being so bold as to call for banning the Slovakian team from coming to Britain? Does she also agree that, although the UK is doing very well, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that such incidents do not occur in our own stadiums? Will she assure the House that her department is doing all it can to ensure that British Muslim and Asian youngsters are encouraged into the football arena?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is very important that all English—indeed, all UK—football clubs take any form of racism among their supporters extremely seriously. Racist chanting is simply unacceptable. However, I think that there has been a big improvement in the way in which football supporters behave at football matches within the UK. I am nevertheless aware that it is very dangerous to be complacent about this, and we require the football clubs, governing bodies and supporters' clubs to continue to monitor and evaluate the situation.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's question, of course it is important that young people from any group, whatever their ethnic background, should be encouraged to play in all the sports that are available to them and that talent should be recognised whatever the racial background of the person concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister agree that such general racial abuse would indicate that there are general grounds for consideration when minority ethnic people from, such countries seek asylum here?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear that I understood what was behind the right reverend Prelate's question. The matter of asylum seeking is far from that on the Order Paper. However, I should perhaps earlier have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on all his work in promoting and supporting the Kick It Out campaign, of which he is the chairman, which has done so much to try to cut out all racism in our football stadiums.

Business of the House: Prorogation
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the Statement I should briefly mention that, subject to the progress of business, the House will prorogue on Thursday, 7th November.

Housing Benefit
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend Andrew Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a statement on the reform of housing benefit. I am today publishing a prospectus setting out our proposals—Building choice and responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit.
"The system we have inherited is complicated, costly to administer, vulnerable to fraud and difficult for tenants to understand. For too many people it means endless form filling and delays in payment. It is often a factor preventing people from making the move from welfare into work.
"Currently we expect local authorities to reassess 4 million individual claims every year, whether they have changed or not. Nearly 2 million pensioners whose circumstances rarely change are expected to fill in a 40-page form every year just to get their housing benefit renewed. Local councils are compelled to deal with a bewildering array of overlapping rules for tenants in the private rented sector. This cannot be right.
"We need a system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands, one that supports work, and cuts the risk of fraud. Both the Work and Pensions Select Committee of this House and the Audit Commission have highlighted the need for change, as have many outside observers. It is time to get on with this reform.
"It is clear that we need to break fundamentally with the past and bring in a fairer, simpler system. So we propose to introduce standard local housing allowances for private rentals—initially in 10 pathfinder areas. The allowance will be flat rate, based on area and family size. The amount paid will, as now, be income related. It will be paid direct to the tenant, except where vulnerable tenants are unable to manage their own affairs, or where substantial arrears have built up.
"No one will be worse off when these pathfinder schemes start next year. In fact, tenants who find a suitable home with a rent less than the standard allowance will be able to keep the difference. This puts the decision and responsibility in their hands.
962
"The reforms will build on the steps we have already taken to improve administration and to begin the process of restructuring rents in the social rented sector. It is our intention to roll out reforms nationally and to develop ways of bringing in the social housing sector. This will be carefully informed by our assessment of the initial pathfinder areas where we will work closely with local authorities, landlords, tenants associations and advice agencies. Consultation will be led by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-secretary, Mr Wicks, for whose work on these proposals I am very grateful.
"The reformed system will offer greater simplicity and certainty for tenants and landlords; extend tenant choice and responsibility; dramatically cut delays, and support our wider aims of improving public services, tackling poverty and extending opportunity.
"Because they are simpler, standard local allowances will speed up the claims process, reducing the uncertainties people face as their circumstances change and make trying a job a more attractive option. What is more, later this month right across the country we will start introducing a rapid reclaim facility for when a job does not work out. We will also remove the need to make a new claim when someone gets a job. This means that housing benefit will simply run on until the in-work rate is calculated.
"We are taking other steps to improve the service for everyone: Jobcentre Plus clients will be able to make claims over the telephone, and from next autumn pensioners will no longer have to fill out a new housing benefit form every year.
"We are committed to working in partnership with councils to improve performance through clearer standards and increased accountability. We are already seeing progress. In March we set out clear standards for housing benefit performance. We will build on this by providing £200 million for training and modernisation over the next three years to help councils committed to improvement. We shall also challenge poor performance and stand ready to intervene where local authorities fail to deliver an acceptable service.
"It is crucial that we also crack down on fraud. This package of reform will do just that. First, it will simplify the housing benefit system in order to free resources for the fight against fraud. Secondly, the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants to set high rents will be removed. Thirdly, we are providing £60 million to support the tighter checking of claims, stopping fraud getting into the system in the first place.
"The Government are committed to taking action against rogue landlords who abuse the system. As soon as parliamentary time allows, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to legislate to tackle the minority of rogue landlords and boost our drive against poor conditions.

963
"It is also important that tenants understand their obligations to behave in a neighbourly way. As we made clear following the Private Member's Bill of my right honourable friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Government are looking at housing benefit sanctions, as part of our wider strategy to tackle nuisance neighbours through stricter tenancy agreements and improved anti-social behaviour orders.
"The reforms I am announcing today—by making tenants responsible for payment of their rent—reinforce the link between rights and responsibilities.
"In conclusion, reform of housing benefit is essential. These proposals combine simplicity and streamlined procedures with greater individual choice. They offer a better deal for tenants, a better deal for landlords and a better deal for local authorities. We must now work together to make them a success".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on housing benefit made in another place. However, it begins rather strangely by referring to the deficiencies of the system which this Government inherited. But, of course, they inherited the system a considerable time ago. Indeed, the 1997 Labour Party manifesto put much stress on that. Since then, there has been little by way of action. A Green Paper was produced which I believe had only one chapter on housing benefit. Reports have been produced by the Social Security Select Committee and by the Audit Commission but I believe that this is the first time that specific proposals have emerged in this detailed area.
The 2001 Labour Party manifesto stated that the Labour Party would,
"simplify housing benefit and its administration, distinguishing between people of working age and pensioners".
I did not quite understand that at the time. Does the proposal that we are discussing do anything to fulfil that manifesto commitment? What is involved as regards legislation? Can these proposals be implemented by secondary legislation or do they require primary legislation both with regard to the pilot scheme and any extensive schemes which may develop from that? I am glad that the Government will consult the Social Security Advisory Committee which they seem to have neglected to some extent. Can we have an assurance that its views will be taken into account before the pilots are introduced?
There are one or two aspects of the Statement that, being a simple soul, I find rather puzzling. Page 3 of the document states that the present system,
"is tied too closely to actual rents, not to the local market".
I do not understand what the local market is apart from actual rents. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
I turn to more detailed aspects of the Statement. The Minister said very clearly in the Statement that no one will be worse off and estimates that half of housing
964
benefit claimants in the deregulated market will gain. The combination of those two claims seems to imply a considerable increase in public expenditure: perhaps the Minister will tell us what that amounts to.
The Minister clearly told us that if what is now described as the standard local housing allowance is greater than the rent being paid, the individual will be allowed to keep the difference. That is a somewhat strange proposal because housing benefit is presumably intended to enable someone to have housing, and an adequate amount has to be provided. However, if the amount provided is greater than the actual rent, it is difficult to see how that balance can be described as a housing allowance. What happens if the standard local housing allowance is less than the rent being paid, given that this is a means-tested benefit? How is the individual supposed to pay the rent?
I have difficulty understanding some of the concepts involved. A combination of such points seems to involve considerable cost. When we see the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, will the amount being paid be the same as it is now or will it show a steady increase over time?
Will the Minister tell us exactly what is meant by "local" in the context of the standard local housing allowance? Will it be a standard amount for each local authority or will the amount be larger or less than the amount taken by local authority areas?
The Minister rightly referred to the question of fraud, which we debated in great detail during the passage of the Social Security Fraud Act. At the time of the 1997 manifesto, the then incoming government estimated that fraud was £2 billion a year. What is the Government's current estimate of housing benefit fraud
There is grave concern—we on these Benches have previously stressed it—about the relationship between central government and local authorities so far as the prosecution of offenders is concerned. A year ago, I believe, a Written Answer stated that for 2000–01 there were 100,000 or so cases in which fraud was established but that only 1,100 had been successfully prosecuted. Why is that so? Will the Minister give us up-to-date figures, which presumably are now available? There does not appear to be the degree of co-operation with central government that one would like from local authorities in tackling fraud.
Finally, will the Minister give us some idea about timing? The document states that the achievement of the universal standard rate will be achieved only towards the end of the decade. Does that refer to both markets: the social housing market and the private market? If so, when do the Government expect—perhaps I should say "hope"—that that change in the system will be introduced? I refer to the completion of the pilots and to the wider extension of the scheme. During that interim period, will only new applicants come on to the new system, not those in the present system, or will there at some stage be a big bang, as it were, by which all claimants who currently receive benefit will be included and changed to the new system?
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that it is a capital error to prepare one's response to a Statement before it is delivered. This morning I picked up reports that the Government intended to introduce the flat-rate system. My party had considered the flat-rate system and in 1996 I had the honour of serving on the working party. At a consultation session at our Edinburgh conference, we turned that system down by 48 votes to nil.
I had prepared my preliminary response along those lines. I have not exactly torn up that response because there are still one or two valid points in it that I want to make. However, the majority of it the Minister will never hear; it will not see the light of day.
I had not anticipated the delightful ingenuity of the provision of paragraph 17, which states that if the tenant can find a property that is cheaper than the amount of housing benefit, the tenant will keep the difference. That creates a genuine incentive to look for a cheaper property. It brings us somewhere nearer to a genuine market and it meets the main concern of my party about the flat-rate proposal. We accepted the principle of the 1986 Act that income support is not meant to be used to pay the rent and that there is enough pressure on income support already; anything that meant that people would have to pay their rent out of income support would cause us great dismay.
The Government have found a way out of that. Remembering our debates on the Tax Credits Act, I am tempted—I appreciate that the Minister cannot possibly respond to this—to suggest that I see the Minister's own hand in the proposal. It involves her sort of ingenuity. If it is hers, I congratulate her on it; if it is not hers, I should like her to pass on my congratulations to those who are responsible.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins; that is, that there will be a public expenditure consequence. If the Minister can enlighten us on that, I should be glad to hear her response. If people cannot be housed, they cannot work, and if they cannot work they cannot pay income tax. That, too, has a public expenditure consequence. If we are to attempt to calculate the public expenditure consequences, we should take both points into account. Netting will be an extremely difficult operation but if it is not done we shall not have any idea of the net gain or loss. I am inclined to think that the gain may perfectly possibly be greater than the loss. In any case, the increase in the sum of human happiness would justify what is being done.
I also warmly welcome the run-on provisions in paragraph 26 of the Statement. That builds on Kenneth Clarke's idea of the original arrangement, which I believe lasted only eight days. In fact, I believe that the claiming period lasted only eight days; people were not always told within those eight days that they had to make a claim. I thought that the Minister had probably spotted that; I am very relieved that she has. If she can provide the details, I should be grateful.
966
Some questions still need answering. The first question that concerns me is whether housing allowances will be automatically uprated for inflation. If the answer is no, they will very rapidly lose their value and we might run into a considerable problem.
Secondly, I am concerned about the choice of area. The Minister mentioned 10 pathfinder areas. That is significantly different from the 11 regions that function as European parliamentary constituencies. I am interested in the reasons why there is a difference.
Thirdly, I am concerned by the fact that, in an area, rents are very different in different parts. Consider London, for example. Suppose that the allowance is sufficient to pay a rent in Plaistow and the person works in Golders Green. It certainly would not pay a rent in Golders Green. If he must live in Plaistow and travel to Golders Green, the fares will rapidly eat up a great deal of the benefit. Therefore, as the system beds down, I wonder whether there may be a case for considering rather smaller areas or rather greater allowances for variations within the areas. Off the cuff, I am not sure, having only just seen the proposals, what the answer is. But I am certain that some answer will need to be considered.
I also want to raise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, who has either departed or is about to depart to attend a Select Committee, the question of what is being done about housing benefit on gypsy sites. I understand that the Government have already promised to take action on that, and I hope that that promise is something on which action is being produced.
I believe that other matters need to be examined in relation to housing benefit. Some of them may be referred to in the White Paper, which I have not yet had time to read. It is possible to consider having one and not two forms of housing benefit and thus not having to fill in two separate forms—one for the Benefits Agency and one for the local authority. It is possible to use a fax machine and to send one form from one place to the other. But relations between those two authorities, which deal with housing benefit, have not always been happy. If the Minister could construct a way of producing greater collaboration between them, I believe that that would improve matters very much.
I must also—not for the first time—ask the Minister to pay attention to RATS. That does not refer to rodents; it refers to the remote access terminal system. It is the system by which local authorities are supposed to be able to communicate with the DSS in order to obtain information about housing benefit cases. I am advised by people who have been a great deal nearer the coalface than I have that the response of the Benefits Agency, when contacted through RATS, often leaves a great deal to be desired. If that could be improved, it would make the system work a great deal better.
With regard to the subject of change of circumstances, I had a great deal to say but I believe that, along with the principles of the Tax Credits Act, the Minister has already met most of my queries. Therefore, I do not need to detain the House with it.

967
However, I am afraid that I conclude on one note of regret, and that is that thought is still being given to the proposals in Mr Field's Bill concerning housing benefit sanctions. As the Minister knows, my party has fought that tooth and nail and will continue to do so. When questioned by my honourable friend Mr Davey about what would happen to the people who were deprived of their housing benefit—the same question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, last week—Mr Field replied that he simply did not care. We found that an unacceptable reply. Therefore, if such a measure is to come before this House, which I hope it is not, I hope that the Government will be able to answer that question before the Bill makes its appearance.
That is my one serious note of reservation on the Statement, which showed an ability to square the circle. That surprised me considerably and I believe the Minister is to be congratulated.
Lord Best: My Lords—
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have only five minutes in which to respond to many questions from both the noble Lord and the noble Earl. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I try to deal with the main ones and follow up some of the detailed ones in writing. I shall treat the questions as a shopping list rather than dissect them because your Lordships have had the benefit of the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked, first, whether the legislation was secondary or primary. It is secondary and will be dealt with by regulations. Secondly, he asked whether we would consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and take heed of its advice. We always have regard to the views of that committee.
Thirdly, he asked what counts as "local"—a point also raised, I believe, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In terms of the 10 pathfinder areas, in particular—there will be one in Scotland, one in Wales and others in inner London boroughs and rural areas—they may be coterminous with a local authority area but basically the rent officer will decide what local areas to set, based on the local housing market.
Essentially, the rent officer could decide that in, say, Norwich, the local reference rent for a three-bedroomed family house which housing benefit would meet would be, say, £65. That would then be publicly available in the Jobcentre Plus office. Anyone on income support or JSA who came into that office and who was entitled to a three-bedroomed house by virtue of their family size before the income calculation came into play would know that, when they went to look for a property, they could obtain housing benefit of £65. If they spent less than that, they would keep it; if they spent more, that would be their choice. If they needed to spend more because of exceptional circumstances—for example, they might have a disabled child whose needs called for an extra bedroom, whereas a child
968
of that age would not normally have such a requirement—they would be entitled to discretionary payments.
As of last year, a £50 million budget has been in place, of which the Government put in £20 million, and local authorities are still spending less than half that money—only 40 per cent. Therefore, there is headspace to respond to that type of circumstance as well as to protect vulnerable people. That is how the system will work. No one will be worse off; indeed, 60 per cent of people will gain, and the average gain will be between £10 and £15 a week.
I was asked about the cost of pathfinders. The cost is £20 million for the 10 pathfinders, which will cover some 5 to 10 per cent of tenants in the private rented sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about fraud. Our current belief is that fraud is running at between £800 million to £1 billion a year. We are driving it down. We hope and expect to do so by at least 25 per cent by the year 2005–06. When we came to power in 1997, local authorities made 700 prosecutions. Last year, there were 1,700 prosecutions. In addition, the noble Lord will recall that in 1997 we introduced a new penalty in the fraud Act. In total, there have been 2,600 cautions and penalties. Therefore, whereas 700 prosecutions were made in 1997, the figure is now 4,000. However, we still have some way to go, and I would not dream of saying otherwise.
In terms of timing, if the pathfinders scheme proves satisfactory, we shall roll out the national scheme in approximately 2005–06. It cannot be introduced into the social rented sector—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me—until the restructuring of social rents has taken place. We expect that to take until the end of the decade. As the noble Lord knows, local authority rents are based on pooled historic costs of construction as opposed to national averages reflecting current market values.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows that, at present, any individual seeking housing benefit must look at a property and then apply to the rent officer for a determination. In future, because that information will be known in advance, we shall be able to simplify and speed up the process. It is hoped that error and fraud will be reduced. No one will be worse off and half the people will be better off. As a result, I hope that the welcome offered today by the noble Earl will be fully endorsed by other Members of your Lordships' House.
As to the matter of the run-on, the situation is even better than the noble Earl described. Currently, if a person starts work, the run-on of his full housing benefit will continue, if he receives JSA, for four weeks. However, in future, he will continue to keep his existing housing benefit until the local authority has made the new determination. If the local authority takes 10 weeks, the tenant will enjoy it for six weeks and will not be expected to refund it. Therefore, there is a powerful incentive to local authorities to speed up their processes.

969
I was asked whether the benefit would be automatically uprated for inflation. It will be uprated by rent officers, reflecting movements in the local rental market. As the noble Earl will know, different areas increase their rental levels considerably over a year as compared to other areas, according to housing pressures. Therefore, an automatic national increase would simply not be reasonable or fair.
I have talked about pathfinders. Perhaps I may write to the noble Earl about gypsy sites. With regard to the Frank Field issues of antisocial behaviour orders, I was careful to say that the Government are seeking to make effective antisocial behaviour orders—very often at the request of local authorities. The people who most hate and detest antisocial behaviour are tenants in otherwise respectable council estates who find their lives made miserable by young thugs, graffiti, burnt-out cars, vandalism and drug purchasers, addicts and the like. It is in their name that we seek to act.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad to hear that reform is in prospect for housing benefit. Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of total benefit fraud in recent years has been in housing benefit? Is she aware that tightening the eligibility requirements and the monitoring system would be of real advantage, in particular to eligible disabled people? Is she entirely confident that the proposed changes will reduce fraud?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. As the noble Lord will know, and as has been discussed in this House, the problem at present is that housing benefit is a high value benefit. It can be worth £450 per month in London. It is also a complex benefit to administer. There is also a steep withdrawal rate when a person moves back into work. If we put those three things together, we have a recipe for fraud. Local authorities continually seek to balance accuracy, given that it is a high value benefit, against speed of delivery, which allows tenants to make a quick decision and to go back into work or, if necessary, to come back out of work.
By moving in the direction we have today, I genuinely believe, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we are squaring the circle. It will allow for much greater simplicity. Everyone will know where they stand. At present 60 per cent of private sector tenants' rent is paid to the landlord. This fraud is often a landlord fraud. In future it will be paid primarily to tenants unless there are good grounds not to do so. That, too, should reduce fraud. By virtue of its ease, simplicity, transparency, the supporting administration and the direct payment to tenants, I am confident that we should be able to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to say in the first part of the Statement that deregulation would happen by secondary legislation. Will that happen under
970
deregulation legislation? I do not want to waste the time of the House. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that will happen.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is not about the deregulation of rent; it is about producing an "upfront" housing benefit payment. Therefore, it will be passed in the ordinary way by secondary legislation. It has no connection with the deregulation of rents. We are talking ultimately about restructuring social housing rents, which is a different issue. At present about 90 per cent of private sector rents are deregulated. As far as I know there are no proposals to change that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. Does that mean secondary legislation to existing legislation, which allows for secondary legislation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes, that is my understanding.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive my ignorance in this matter. This may affect a concern raised with me by mothers in temporary accommodation in Paddington about long waits in offices with shabby, unwelcoming interiors and little provision for children. Will the new measures allow an opportunity to consider where the distribution of and inquiries about housing benefit take place? Am I right in understanding that there will be fewer visits as a result of these measures and therefore less trouble for such parents?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as regards the second point raised by the noble Earl, one proposal is that people will be able to make their housing benefit application by telephone. More generally, most people on benefit will normally be coming in and out of the new Jobcentre Plus offices. As the noble Earl will know, these new offices integrate the old employment service and benefit offices. If he has the opportunity to visit the new offices, I believe he will be as impressed as I was. They look like airport lounges with stripped pine floors and comfortable seating. When I last visited, there was free orange juice for the children. They are extremely comfortable and welcoming.
We hope that people will receive at that point an holistic service. They will be able to discuss their benefit entitlement; try to work out whether they could or should go into work; whether they should change their accommodation; and whether they can come out of a half-way house into full accommodation and like matters. All of that information will be available at Jobcentre Plus. Particular issues about individual claims will be a matter for local authorities. But at Jobcentre Plus all the information I have mentioned will be available to them.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what criteria the Government will use to

971
judge the success or otherwise of the 10 pathfinder areas? How will young people on single-room rent benefit fare in these areas?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, anyone who is on single-room rent benefit will not be worse off. A substantial number of such people will be better off. At present, approximately 15,000 tenants receive single-room rent benefit; that is, around 2 per cent of all private tenants. Approximately three-quarters face a shortfall because they are in more expensive accommodation than the rent benefit provides. That is not just because of the way that housing benefit is set by the local authorities but by the way it is administered by local rent officers. Often they appear to have different interpretations of eligibility for single-room rent benefit. The proposals should help that situation considerably. It is also the case that many will gain, as will all other private rented tenants.
Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to repeat her first question?
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, what criteria will the Government use to judge whether the 10 pathfinder areas are successful?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, normally this question is one asked by the noble Lord, Earl Russell. The 10 pathfinders will be independently assessed and evaluated by an independent research body. The tenders for the research assessment, whether that is to be done by a university body or whoever, are going out now. They will be properly assessed and reviewed and that information will be made available to us.
We are seeking to discover, first, whether this provision speeds up the claims for housing benefit; secondly, whether it reduces the claims for fraud; thirdly, whether it makes it easier for people to move into work and, finally, whether landlords and tenants as well as local authorities feel that as a result they are offering a better service to tenants.
Lord Best: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement and apologise for trying to ask a question too soon in the proceedings. The Rowntree Foundation has published a pile of reports about housing benefits. The Statement appears to answer nearly all of our long list of problems concerning what has been recently an abysmal benefit.
My question concerns the social housing sector and housing associations. I appreciate that the new measures will apply only to private landlords and that the new standard local housing allowance with its shopping incentive is appropriate only in relation to the private sector. Nevertheless, a number of features of the housing benefit system which are entirely wrong and a number of the complexities and bureaucratic delays built into it apply equally to the social housing sector and to housing associations.
I declare my interest as director of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust as well as of the foundation which produces the research reports. Our tenants remain disturbed by the way in which they have to wait interminably to receive their housing benefit. The
972
40-page document which, as has been explained, pensioners must complete to continue to receive the benefit they received in the previous year falls upon the tenants of social landlords and housing associations just as much as in the private sector. Will the pilot study and the wonderfully important measures that will proceed—I do not refer to standard local housing allowance—such as speed and simplicity apply also to housing associations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, is expert in housing matters. One warmly welcomes him to discussion on the Statement. He is right: we can reform housing benefit but unless the performance of local authorities—I refer not just to administering housing benefit for the private sector but for social rented housing apart from their own local authority housing—improves, the associations more generally and tenants in particular will continue to be at an extreme disadvantage.
The noble Lord will know, as well as I do the efforts being made to strengthen the administration, including simplification, of housing benefit in local authorities. For example, at present all housing benefit claims run for a maximum of only 60 weeks, and sometimes only 26 weeks. In future, as with income support and JSA, they will run continuously until there is a change of circumstance notified, although obviously there will be checks on that. People will not need to make repeat claims, which should reduce the workload for local authorities. When people move into work they will not have to complete a brand new form with all personal details, just the change of circumstance. Again, that will reduce the workload. There will be a rapid reclaim system if someone falls out of work within the first 12 weeks of starting work. Immediately he or she will receive the previous benefit, which will reduce the complexity and the amount of work involved.
In addition to that kind of strengthening of the administration, there is the performance standard fund of about £200 million, strengthening the IT packages of local authorities, and the performance improvement action teams. There are also the successful help teams which have made substantial improvements in about 20 local authorities. I was told of one example where a DWP help team, with the consent of the local authorities, worked on their backlogs and their processes as a result of which their outstanding claims dropped from 14,000 to 5,000 in the space of two-and-a-half months. Those are significant changes. They can bring national experience to bear on modest-sized authorities. On top of that, there are help funds for which local authorities bid. If at the end of all such incentives, encouragement, support systems and IT packages a local authority still fails to deliver, we can introduce directions, as we have with four local authorities, requiring them to abide by certain behaviours.
We are well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, that unless a high value benefit is speedily but accurately delivered and claimed and reclaimed, all our efforts of welfare to work will flounder and many

973
people will continue to experience insecurity and a risk of homelessness. Much rides on getting housing benefit administration right.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, this is a trivial observation, but we appear to have time on our side. At first blush I cannot see any reference to a publication date in the document Building choice and responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit. I would not be so cynical as to follow my noble friend Lord Higgins in suggesting that that was intended to disguise the Secretary of State's reference to the system that has been inherited. I acknowledge that there is some internal evidence, but I believe that in the future scholars would find such a document more helpful if it contained a publication date.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, sorry.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, like most government documents nowadays it does not contain an index. Although this one is not as long as some, the point has been made from these Benches before and it will continue to be made.
Another point, which noble Lords may consider superficial, is one of potential confusion. On page 13 the paper refers to proposals that the Government are already carrying out and states:
"Work is now under way to deal with the causes and consequences of low demand in nine of the worst-affected areas".
Such areas are known as "pathfinder areas" and include east Lancashire, which is the one that I know best. In those areas structures are being set up, new committees are being formed to which people are being appointed, people are applying for funding, and so on. Inevitably, the Government call them pathfinders, as do local people. If there are nine pathfinder areas in areas of low demand based on housing renewal and social renewal—that is what they are supposed to be about—and we are to have another 10 pathfinder areas dealing with something quite different, one wonders how many other issues there are for which the Government will create pathfinder areas.
As seems likely, if one or two of the areas are the same, or they overlap, there will be great confusion. Can the Government find other trendy, spin-like titles for their new projects rather than giving them all the same title thus causing confusion?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot see why the noble Lord believes that we should find nice spin-words for the description of such socially worthy causes. Spare the thought.
We are talking about pathfinders or pilots. When in opposition I regularly used to criticise the government Front Bench for not trying things out first and for not learning from experience. We are trying to build in a learning loop so that we can try things out and see whether they work and so that decisions are informed by the best research. In practice all kinds of things may happen and consequently we need to evaluate, revise and adjust matters.
974
Perhaps one of the differences between a pathfinder and a pilot is that a pathfinder carries with it a greater expectation of rolling out the scheme nationally. Quite rightly, so far as I am aware, the Government in all their interventions in social policy, which are not just about raising rates and so on, try to build in a learning loop. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to send me a Roget's Thesaurus of alternative words to "pathfinder" and "pilot" and I shall ensure that that is drawn to the attention of the correct person.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I have two points. First, the issue of hospital downrating, which we discussed on the State Pension Credit Bill, and how it will be covered by the new proposals—particularly how the new systems will work with those of the NHS—is not mentioned in the document. Secondly, on implementation, how will the proposals overlap with "supporting people" initiatives and transitional housing benefit which are underway at the moment? Can the Minister tell us anything about that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, unless I have missed the point, I do not see how it will have any interaction with hospital downrating. The policies on that have already been determined. Anyone in receipt of existing housing benefit will receive that housing benefit because it is adjusted already to the local reference rent. That will continue. Therefore, all the tapers and so on that we discussed earlier about hospital downrating will continue to operate on those rents.
Essentially, we are aligning housing benefit with standard reference rents and if one is paid less than that one keeps the difference. There is no big change in terms of people's financial circumstances. Having the matter up front allows one to handle the processes with speed, transparency and security. As for the "supporting people" initiatives, although we expect tenants to be paid directly, for the vulnerable special arrangements will continue to be made.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GEDDES) in the Chair.]
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Section 43: supplemental]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 25, line 42, leave out '"Paragraph 2" and insert "Paragraphs 2 and 6"
The noble Lord said: These are minor and technical amendments to Clause 44 and Schedule 9 which have no practical effect but merely preserve the current position under the 1999 Act.
When deciding whether a person is destitute and therefore eligible for support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State must take into account the value of a person's assets. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 currently enables the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for the valuation of assets. Once this Bill comes into effect, paragraph 6 will be redundant because Clause 43(6) of the Bill inserts a new Section 95(8) of the Act which contains the necessary provision. These amendments rectify the position by deleting the redundant 1999 Act provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support these amendments. It may be convenient to the Committee if I make it clear that we welcome the recommitment of the Bill today. Throughout the afternoon our amendments will be probing amendments. How could we not welcome the new government clauses as, in most part, they appear to reiterate what my right honourable friend Michael Howard was trying to achieve in the 1996 Act. That appears to be the case and we shall consider later amendments with interest. That will govern the way in which we approach the debates today.
Lord Dholakia: These are technical amendments and the noble Lord has our support. Obviously, much of the later discussion in the debate will be that of probing the Government's intention in the new amendments. Certainly, we shall give consideration at the appropriate time as to how to deal with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 25, line 43, leave out "destitution"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 53 agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
2 "LATE CLAIM FOR ASYLUM: REFUSAL OF SUPPORT

(1) The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if—

(a) the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum-seeker, &c.), and

976

(b) sections 16 and 23 of this Act (accommodation centre).

(3) An authority may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection

(4) if—

(a) the person has made a claim for asylum, and

(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom.

(4) The provisions are—

(a) section 29(1)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26) (accommodation pending review),

(b) section 188(3) or 204(4) of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (accommodation pending review or appeal), and

(c) section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being).

(5) This section shall not prevent—

(a) the exercise of a power by the Secretary of State to the extent necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of a person's Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)), or

(b) the provision of support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) or section 16 of this Act in accordance with section 122 of that Act (children).

(6) An authority which proposes to provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (4)—

(a) must inform the Secretary of State if the authority believes that the person has made a claim for asylum,

(b) must act in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to determine whether subsection (3) applies, and

(c) shall not be prohibited from providing or arranging for the provision of support if the authority has complied with paragraph (a) and (b) and concluded that subsection (3) does not apply.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) add, remove or amend an entry in the list in subsection (4);

(b) provide for subsection (3) not to have effect in specified cases or circumstances.

(8) An order under subsection (7)—

(a) may include transitional, consequential or incidental provision,

(b) must be made by statutory instrument, and

(c) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) For the purposes of this section "claim for asylum" has the same meaning as in section 17.

(10) A decision of the Secretary of State that this section prevents him from providing or arranging for the provision of support to a person is not a decision that the person does not qualify for support for the purpose of section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (appeals).

(11) This section does not prevent a person's compliance with a residence restriction imposed in reliance on section 64 (induction)."

The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be of help to the Committee if I speak briefly about the Government's overall consideration of the position regarding asylum and immigration in order to set the context for our discussions today.
First, it is obvious to us all that there is a problem. It is illustrated by the fact that Britain now has the highest number of asylum applications in Europe. The

977
proportion of asylum applications to Britain has risen from what was 5 per cent of the European Union total in 1993 to nearly 25 per cent.
Secondly, although it is not the most fundamental of issues, the asylum process and the asylum support process are extremely expensive. The National Asylum Support Service support to asylum seekers is currently running at over £1 billion a year. At the same time, the system poses pressures on local communities. There are currently 83,000 people being supported by NASS in local communities, often concentrated in some of the most deprived communities in Britain.
Thirdly, as the Committee knows, the trafficking system that brings people to the country is strongly criminally dominated. I shall not go into detail; the Committee knows that.
Those points are by way of background. Perhaps they would matter less if it were not for the last two points. We know that most of those who claim asylum are not found to qualify under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Even more importantly, we know that people in the world who are in the greatest need of asylum are not able to get to Britain or other places of refuge. So one has a system where numbers are rising; there is an enormous amount of turbulence in the system; and yet there is a worry among all Benches that those who most need asylum in the world are not getting it.
The Government have a clear view as to what is a better way forward. In essence, we should recognise the contribution that migration makes to our society and we should have an expanded system of managed migration. We have seen two recent announcements by the Home Secretary to this effect to open up more managed migration into Britain than previously has been the case. It may well be that we should go further in the future.
It is essential that we are successful in reducing illegal migration and the manipulation of the asylum system. We need to have more order and more control in the system to make it possible to make faster decisions for those who do apply and, above all, for those who need the protection that we should be giving them under the 1951 convention.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Government are clear that the more that we can bring the system, which is dominated by criminality and confused by the volume of economic migration under control, the more that we can win the argument for, both in the European Union and the world, significantly expanding resettlement schemes, working with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, so that we can give refuge to those in the world who most need asylum who are currently not able to get it.
That sets the context. The Committee knows that. Therefore, it sets the context while we focus today on the specifics of how we believe it is necessary to get a stronger grip on the current situation.
I start by focusing on that and the purpose of the amendments tabled with Amendment No. 3. The linking theme in many of the Bill's provisions is a move
978
towards a more streamlined and cohesive system with more closely managed contact between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the individual applicant. This is the strategic aim behind the introduction of accommodation centres, tighter screening and induction processes and enhanced reporting requirements. These legislative changes are supported by the additional resources that the IND has been given to deal more quickly and effectively with the volume of cases that it receives.
This means that we shall be able to decide cases progressively more quickly and to act effectively on the basis of those decisions. That should mean that genuine refugees who need our protection will be recognised more quickly and set on the path of successful integration in this country. There will be a greater likelihood that those with no basis for remaining here will return, as they should, to their own countries.
The changes to the support arrangements further strengthen this strategy. The current ability to access support on the basis of an unexplained late application for asylum, or on the basis of a non-existent or frankly incredible account of how the applicant came to be here, is an important factor in our lack of effective control over key parts of the process.
It is an entirely reasonable expectation that those who want the United Kingdom's protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. That will enable us to help the genuine cases by allowing access to our integration arrangements as soon as possible. At the same time—and I make no apology for this—it will increase the likelihood that those who do not need our protection will return home.
It is not therefore helpful to the achievement of our overall aim of an effective asylum process if there is no encouragement to applicants to come forward and to be frank with us.
What do we expect will be the impact of this? On past experience, it is likely that a great proportion of asylum applications will be made on entry at the ports. That seems to us right and proper. Currently, two-thirds of applications for asylum are not made on entry at the ports, they are made in-country. Applicants are likely to modify their behaviour and to come forward at an earlier stage. But all destitute asylum seekers will continue to be able to access support providing that they come forward at the earliest opportunity and are straight with us. The real aim is to produce an orderly and managed process in which those behaviours are encouraged and misuse is not rewarded.
The new clause, therefore, ends the presumption of support for those who apply for asylum in-country unless they give a truthful and credible account of their circumstances and how they arrived here and can therefore demonstrate that they are claiming asylum at the earliest opportunity.
Accordingly, we have tabled Amendment No. 3. It has the effect of preventing the Secretary of State, in practice the National Asylum Support Service, from providing support to an asylum seeker where the

979
Secretary of State is not satisfied that the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the UK.
We expect asylum seekers to apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity and we see no reason why, if they are in genuine fear of persecution in their country of origin, they should not do so. We also expect them to be straight with us about their circumstances and to be prepared to explain how they have been supporting themselves since arriving in the UK and why they now need to come to us for support. Again, why should they not do so? On that basis, it is our view that it is perfectly reasonable to make it a condition of access to support that people claiming asylum do both.
Anyone who can show that he has made his claim as soon as he was able and can show that he is destitute and has nowhere else to turn for support will be eligible for support from NASS. However, people who may have been living in this country for some time but have no real claim to remain cannot expect to rely on making a claim for asylum as a means of extending their stay at the taxpayers' expense. It is wholly reasonable to expect that if an individual is genuinely fleeing persecution they ask for protection as soon as they arrive in the United Kingdom. If they do not do so, that can only cast doubt on their credibility and intentions.
I turn to the detail of the new clause. The provisions under which the Secretary of State is precluded from giving support are Sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Clauses 15 and 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, when enacted.
This will mean that support will be withheld both under the existing arrangements and under those for the provision of support in accommodation centres if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an asylum claim has been made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the UK.
The burden of proof will be on the applicant for support to show that it was not reasonably practicable to have made his asylum claim sooner. However, the mere fact that an asylum seeker has been in the United Kingdom for a long period will not necessarily preclude him from support. Conditions in his home country may have only recently deteriorated such as to warrant the claim for asylum. In such a case, it would not have been "reasonably practicable" to have made the claim sooner.
I should also reassure the Committee that, by virtue of subsection (5), we have sought to ensure that if a person is refused support, he can nevertheless access support from the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has demonstrated that due to his personal circumstances there is a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Committee will also read in subsection (5)(b), families with dependant children aged under 18 years will not be affected by the measure. We do not want the actions of fathers or mothers visited on their children.
At this point, I should make absolutely clear that the burden of supporting asylum applicants caught by the provisions will not pass to local authorities. We are not reproducing the situation that arose in 1996. However, the National Assistance Act 1948 will remain available, as it is under the current arrangements, to those asylum seekers who have a need for care and attention that has not been caused solely by destitution or its effects. To illustrate, a person who has a chronic need for support will be able to access it under that Act to a level that makes it possible for him/her to be properly dealt with.
The amendment also prevents local authorities providing support under the Housing Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2000. Section 2 of the latter Act gives local authorities a wide power, inter alia, to promote and improve economic and social well-being in their area. Although we would not expect local authorities to exercise those powers to support asylum seekers, because that responsibility lies with the Home Office, it is sensible to ensure that people affected by the present measure should not be able to seek to get a local authority to support them under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 instead. We applied the same principle to Schedule 3 and removed local authorities' discretion to use their general well-being power to support those classes of person covered by the benefit shopping policy. Although that has been the subject of discussion between the Government and the Local Government Association, at heart it is to protect local authorities from legal challenge that would impose unreasonable burdens on them.
Section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 provides local authorities with a discretionary power to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant pending a review on a decision. Section 204(4) of the Act provides local authorities with such power while an appeal is outstanding. We intend to be consistent with a similar amendment tabled to Schedule 3 by ensuring that those affected by the provisions cannot receive housing assistance pending a review or while an appeal is ongoing. Such assistance should not be provided, given that individuals refused support under the new provisions are clearly not eligible for housing assistance.
In addition to the prohibition on local authorities' providing support, they are required under subsection (6) to inform the Secretary of State if they believe that a person who has applied to them for support has made a claim for asylum, and must act in accordance with statutory guidance in determining whether the prohibition on support applies. The aim is to help local authorities to identify people whose support falls to the Secretary of State, if anyone, to provide. As I have said, if such persons fall on hard times to the degree that there may be a breach of Article 3, it will fall to the Secretary of State to provide support, not the local authority.
Subsection (10) prevents a person from appealing to an asylum support adjudicator against the Secretary of State's decision that it would have been reasonably practicable to have made the asylum claim sooner. The existing rights of appeal to an asylum support

981
adjudicator remain. However, the new policy introduces a prior judgment by the Secretary of State as to whether the person applied at the earliest opportunity and has properly explained his circumstances. Those are not matters on which the asylum support adjudicator would be equipped to form an alternative view; they are prior questions for the Secretary of State alone, subject to challenge in the normal way through judicial review. After such a judgment to provide support has been made, if an applicant is aggrieved in the exercise of that judgment, he could then appeal against, for example, the determination that he was not in need to an asylum support adjudicator.
Amendment No. 5 amends paragraph 12(c) of Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That paragraph provides that regulations may make provision for the circumstances in which an application for National Asylum Support Service support may not be entertained. The amendment provides that regulations may, in particular, provide for an application not to be entertained where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate, or that the applicant is co-operating with enquiries made by the Secretary of State.
Under our current procedures, emergency accommodation provided under Section 98 of the Immigration Act 1999 may be provided to asylum seekers while NASS considers an application for support under Section 95 of that Act. However, would-be asylum seekers—mainly persons here unlawfully—have, for example, been accessing emergency accommodation in London and elsewhere even before they have lodged an asylum claim. We must have due regard to taxpayers' considerations and develop procedures that enable us to provide support in a more efficient and managed way.
The amendment will allow us to draft new regulations to enable us to challenge more effectively those who seek to abuse the support system. We will turn away those who do not furnish sufficient information to enable us to make a decision on their support application, who deliberately mislead us or who do not co-operate with procedures. They will not be allowed to access temporary support. If they return with the required information, of course we will entertain the application and temporary support, Section 95 support or accommodation centre support will then be provided as long as they otherwise qualify.
Many amendments have been tabled in response to the provisions. I shall not respond to them in detail now, because I should much prefer to hear what is said to advance them. I shall make only two brief points. First, we fear that several of the amendments undermine the intended effect of the new clause. We believe that support should not be provided to people who apply in-country for asylum unless they do so at the earliest opportunity and provide a credible account of the circumstances of their arrival and how they have been supporting themselves to date. It is right and proper to introduce an amendment to that effect.
Secondly, a number of the amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidelines about various aspects of policy. Although I understand the motivation behind that requirement, our concern—to which I am sure we shall return later—is that publishing highly detailed guidance may well undermine the policy, as it may be exploited by those seeking to abuse the system.
I regret the fact that I have taken some time in moving the amendment, but I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee to set out the broad context of the Government's thinking and the specific context of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.3, Amendment No. 3A:
Line 2, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply to—

(a) families with children; or

(b) those with special needs."

The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee, many amendments have been grouped together. I shall now speak to 10 amendments in my name in one group. The Committee will be relieved to hear that some of my questions need not now be asked because of the Minister's helpful explanation. That is especially the case with Amendment No. 3A, under which I had hoped to elicit what would happen to families with children and those with special needs. Predominantly, the Minister has answered my questions; I have only one remaining question about support for such persons. Can he tell the Committee how the Government intend to define the term "families with children"?
I turn to Amendment No. 3B, which would require the Secretary of State to publish guidelines—something to which the Minister referred—to,
"assist him to make a decision as to whether or not a person has made an application for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable after that person's arrival in the United Kingdom".
I certainly agree with the Minister's overarching hope on guidelines—that they should not undermine the system that they are intended to illuminate. I shall listen with care to his answers to my questions on guidelines. Having just heard two comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about her hopes in opposition, I recall (when sitting on Benches opposite listening to her) her always referring to the need for guidelines. So I am perhaps following in good footsteps and shall press as hard on this Government as she did on ours.
My purpose is to ask the Minister how the Secretary of State will decide what is meant by "reasonably", in the phrase "reasonably practicable"? What if the asylum seeker is ill on arrival and has to go to hospital? What if he arrives on the back of a lorry? How would he know that he ought to make a claim as soon as he arrives, as soon as he is pitched out onto the M2? What if the asylum seeker is not allowed time to make a claim for legal advice first? Will he have the opportunity to get legal advice? What if he is given the wrong legal

983
advice? How will that influence the Secretary of State's decision? What if the asylum seeker makes a claim as soon as is reasonably practicable and the Home Office incorrectly records the claim?
I turn to Amendment No. 3E. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that a local authority,
"may not provide or arrange for the provision of support"
to an asylum seeker, if,
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable".
It is a similar point. The Minister tried to make it clear that the Government wanted to take away local authorities' discretion in this area. Yet, the use of the word "may" in subsection (3) makes it look as though the Government are allowing the local authority discretion as to whether it shall make benefit payments. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. Do the Government intend to allow discretion under subsection (3)?
The next amendment is Amendment No. 3F. Subsection (6) states:
"An authority which proposes to provide…support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (4)—
(a) must inform the Secretary of State if the authority believes that the person has made a claim for asylum".
How does a local authority come to that decision? What should make it believe that a person has made a claim for asylum? Does the local authority need a piece of paper on which the Home Secretary states that a claim has been made? How does it make that judgment? At the moment, it looks as if it is left open to the local authority to come to a subjective judgment. My amendment says simply that, in making such a decision, the local authority must have "reason to believe" that the person involved has made an application for asylum. That puts things on a more objective ground.
Amendments Nos. 3G and 3H refer to the guidance that, one hopes, is to be published. How binding will the guidance be? When will we see it? Will it be published and, therefore, available to lawyers and advisers? Will it be public property? Will it be published before the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is not too far in the future—just a couple of weeks? It is public knowledge that the Government intend to enact the Bill as soon as possible. The BBC website and the newspapers have told us that the Home Secretary told M Sarkozy that the Bill would be in place by mid-November.
With Amendment No. 5, the Minister aims to insert another new clause. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 5B and 5C, relate to that new clause, which covers the use of false or incomplete information. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the applicant has provided complete or accurate information or that he is co-operating with the inquiries carried out to establish eligibility for asylum, he can refuse to consider the application. My amendments probe to see how stringent that requirement will be.
I want to probe the Government on the matter because I was present when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, probed the Government on their use of the
984
word "or" in an education Bill. I talked to the noble Lord yesterday to make sure that my recollection was correct. In the new clause, are the Government using the word "or" in a conjunctive or disjunctive sense? Must all the requirements on the asylum seeker be obeyed? Is it a case of "and…and…and…"? In another case—I am trying not to use the word "or"—must the asylum seeker do one of the actions in order to satisfy the Secretary of State?
One must ask the obvious question: how will the Secretary of State know whether the information is complete? If one does not know something, one does not know what one does not know. That is the usual argument.
We are cantering towards a welcome close. The purpose of Amendment No. 5D is to probe to see whether the applicant will be assured of receiving independent and—preferably—legal advice at this early and important stage of the application. If so, how will that legal advice be guaranteed?
Amendment No. 5E would require the Secretary of State to,
"publish guidelines to which he will have regard when making a decision under this section".
I shall be intrigued to hear how the Minister will answer the series of questions on guidelines. They will be important in explaining to asylum seekers and those who advise them how the new clause will operate.
I underline the fact that we support the making of both of the Minister's amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for intervening now; I should have intervened after the Minister's speech on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I wanted to explain that it was hoped that a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights would be available for this re-commitment. That is not possible; the Committee is in India or Canada or somewhere. I am a member of that Committee, and I am told that it cannot meet until Tuesday and that, therefore, there cannot be a report. However, I have been shown a draft report from Professor David Feldman. I have disclosed it to no one, but I am entitled to say that I agree with it. It is highly critical of the amendments on various grounds. I ask that some of the questions that arise be supplied to the Committee, when it meets, so that the matter can be dealt with on Report.
Essentially, the questions are simple. First, can the Government give a categorical assurance that assistance would be available to all those who would, otherwise, be left destitute? Secondly, must there not be some causal connection between an act or omission of an improper nature and the fact of being left homeless and destitute? Thirdly, ought not the burden of proof, to which the Minister referred, to rest with the Secretary of State in establishing whether the conditions for withholding support are compatible with human rights and that the conditions have been met, if a person is to be left without adequate housing, food or clothing? Fourthly, given that there is to be no

985
appeal to an adjudicator available to those adjudged ineligible for support, there is no power to provide support pending the outcome of an application for judicial review. Ought not we to consider whether that is an infringement of someone's rights?
The last question is whether adequate safeguards have been provided against the violation of the human rights of children, under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of anyone else, under the European Convention on Human Rights, or of adults, under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Are there safeguards against the violation of convention rights, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998? It would be a service to the Committee if in due course—and before Tuesday, when the Joint Committee meets—answers could be given to those questions.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for these amendments on recommitment. He has set out broadly the context within which they have been framed and I take this opportunity to put forward the views of this side of the Committee. There are issues of concern in regard to the amendments and we shall explain our position during the debate. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Russell will be contributing on particular points.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the point he raised. I was given to understand that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is abroad, may have expressed an opinion but that nothing will be published until next week. This is unfortunate because the results of the Joint Committee's deliberations would have been most helpful.
However, a few minutes ago I received a note informing me that,
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has given preliminary consideration to the amendments and new clauses proposed by the Government to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in the Lords.
"The Committee considers that these proposals all raise critical human rights issues, and it expects to publish a report next week to enable the House of Lords to take the Committee's views into account when debating the Government's proposals".
It would be extremely helpful to our deliberations if the Minister will explain whether or not he has access to the information from the Joint Committee. If not, at least will he explain whether the issue of human rights was taken into account when considering these amendments?
Another issue of concern reflects information that I have been given in another note. The Home Secretary's adviser on nationality, Sir Bernard Crick, when talking about the support mechanism for asylum seekers, is reported to have said in Scotland that NASS staff were,
"second-rate civil servants who were both angry at, and jealous of, the asylum seekers they were supposed to help".
Speaking at a debate on asylum seekers in Edinburgh, Sir Bernard said:
"NASS was hastily created and staffed by people who wanted better jobs in the civil service and didn't get them.
986
"They are not good at community work which is what they are in effect expected to do. They are low-paid, angry at their clients and jealous of their clients while trying to administer complex procedures".
I raise the issue because it is a matter of serious concern if these comments reflect the views of the Government's adviser on the issue of assistance—or, for that matter, withdrawal of assistance—for asylum seekers.
Further, Just existence, a report on the lives of asylum seekers who have lost entitlements to benefits in the United Kingdom, has recently been published. In the report, the comments of the chief executive of the Refugee Council on this issue are relevant to the amendments. He states:
"In this report you will read about some of the people who have suffered as a result. These are people who are in despair, who talk about their lives as deaths. People who are living on bread and water, who walk for miles to get a hot meal or who are sleeping on floorboards under blankets in empty flats, and who are being pushed from pillar to post. Many of them are too poor even to afford the bus fare to the solicitor dealing with their asylum claims.
"These are not young, healthy adults, but people who are already severely traumatised. Several have been tortured in the home countries, two have had to leave their children without the opportunity even to say goodbye.
"British asylum policy is not harsh by accident. It is the intention that by treating people badly here, others will be deterred from fleeing to the UK".
The report cites the cases of 15 individual asylum seekers and explains what has happened to them. I hope that the report does not reflect the basis of the way in which we treat people who are genuinely being persecuted in their home land and are looking to our civilised country for help and assistance. I should say that the report relates to the effects and implications of the 1996 Act.
I shall ask my noble friend Lord Russell to deal in detail with our objections to some of the issues identified in the amendments. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether the withdrawal of assistance to refugees is, perhaps, not necessarily the right thing to do.
Earl Russell: Before I deal in detail with the amendments, perhaps I may respond briefly to some of the Minister's initial comments. Before he accuses me of making a Second Reading speech, I should say that I did not have the privilege of making a Second Reading speech on the Bill because I thought that manners did not permit me to absent myself from my own farewell party. I need to explain why we believe that in some cases the Government are barking up the wrong tree and why we have put down our amendments.
I entirely took the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to Mr Michael Howard. No one can look at these amendments without remembering the 1996 Bill. The resemblance is extremely close. However, I think that this Bill is the worse one—partly because any bad policy continually followed gets worse as it goes on, and partly because if you want to make people think you are a Conservative you do not

987
have to try so hard if you actually are one. So I would rather have had Mr Michael Howard's Bill before us than this one.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: The noble Earl referred to the 1996 Act. Does he recall that the provisions of that Act were to withdraw support from all in-country applicants—not, as provided in this Bill, only from those applicants who cannot give a good reason as to why they did not apply immediately after their arrival in the country?
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: The good reasons point I intend to be answering for most of the remainder of my speech. Mr Howard did allow benefits for those who claimed it at the ports. In Mr Howard's Russian roulette, there was at least one empty chamber in the revolver. By the time we are through with this Bill, under the provisions of the amendment, I wonder whether there will be any empty chambers in the revolver at all—and that doubt is a serious one.
The Minister expressed many doubts about why we get so many applicants. I think that he is wrong to concentrate on the gross numbers. Per capita is a much more accurate form of measurement and is the one genuinely used. Why, for example, the Netherlands get far more applicants per capita than we do is a serious question.
The Minister is obviously being selective in his data when he refers to our having the greatest number. During the Bosnian crisis, that honour fell very clearly to Germany as, for geographical reasons, it obviously must. One of the problems of applying the first safe country rule is that it places an appalling burden on any country that has a major refugee-producing crisis on its borders. There is a case for some sharing out.
There are other reasons for the large numbers involved. I was once taking part in a meeting outside this House with Diane Abbott from another place. She said:
"The reason why there are so many of us over here is that you were first over there".
There is some substance in that point. A great many of the countries concerned have in the past been part of the British Empire. They share with us a common language, which obviously makes a difference. They also share with us a common stop for airline routes. Heathrow prides itself on being the junction point in the network of the world's major airlines. That is clearly likely to attract applicants.
The Home Office expresses intense surprise—rather to my surprise—at the increase in the number of refugees world-wide since 1989. There are reasons for that which have nothing to do with the policy of this country. It is, incidentally, a world-wide phenomenon by which this country is little affected.
One reason is the ending of the Cold War, which, as one sees in the Middle East, provided the world with a
988
sort of policing system—I stress the words "a sort of—which is not now available. Another, more important reason is the loss by the state of the monopoly of armed force—as we see clearly in places ranging from Angola to Northern Ireland. So there are a number of good reasons for the increase in the numbers of applicants which have nothing to do with the policy of any British government and cannot be changed or deterred by any change in British government policy.
That is the major reason why attempting to deter refugees from coming to this country by making their life here more unattractive is attempting to do the impossible. They can get more and more savage, and they will still not achieve their purpose; so they will think that they have to get more savage still. But they are attempting to do the impossible. Until they understand that, we shall not begin to get anywhere.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 3A standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, provides for assistance to families with children and to those with special needs. We welcome the amendment so far as it goes. But it is, as I think the noble Baroness will admit, a crumb from the rich man's table. I have never understood how children can be adequately provided for while their parents have nothing. The mere sight of his or her parents starving is itself a severe infliction on the child. I simply do not understand it. As regards the guidelines, we have no objection.
Amendments Nos. 3C and 3D, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, go some way to meet the points made in the important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which I warmly welcome. They are designed to ensure that no one should be left absolutely destitute. They allow some of the deprivations that are introduced, but not all. If I may put it this way, they allow the Minister to take away the main course but insist on his still allowing the soup. It is not much, but small mercies occasionally do matter.
Amendment No. 3F by both Opposition parties. It would change "believes" in subsection 6(a) of the proposed new clause to "has reason to believe". There are many things that the Secretary of State believes which he has absolutely no reason to believe. For example, he believes—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, repeated that belief in out debates last week—that people are attracted here by generous welfare benefits. By European standards, as Eurostat confirms, our welfare benefits are not generous. Secondly, the Home Office's own research, published only two weeks ago, indicates that welfare benefits are not among the important influences when refugees decide where to go. So if the Home Secretary believes that, he has no reason to believe it. Once one introduces the idea of reason, one introduces also the possibility of judicial review. That is an important safeguard and we are concerned about it.
Amendment No. 3J deals with a Henry VIII provision. It deals with alternative sources of support

989
which are blocked off. The proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to,
"add, remove or amend an entry in the list",
of authorities and sources that may not provide support. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove names from the list of those authorities that may not provide support, but not to add to it.
In including this paragraph, the Government probably had in mind the Collins judgment which followed the 1996 legislation and which ruled that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the National Assistance Act, which the Government had forgotten to include in the repeals schedule.
It reminds me of the sad story of Mr Jones, whose wife died, was taken to the undertakers and was put in a coffin. They carried the coffin down the hill, turned the corner into the churchyard and bumped into the church gate. A scrabbling noise was heard from the coffin. They found that Mrs Jones was alive. She lived another 20 years. When she died, she was taken to the undertakers, they put her in a coffin, the funeral procession began and the coffin was carried down the hill. As they turned the corner to enter the church gate, Mr Jones said, "Be careful not to bump against the corner"! The inclusion of this provision is a case of the Government "being careful not to bump against the corner". I would rather like to find Mrs Jones alive in the coffin.
I turn to the main amendment—which we on these Benches do not welcome. The question was raised of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with inhuman or degrading treatment. I know that counsel for the Human Rights Committee takes this seriously. I have corresponded with him on the matter. Perhaps the Minister can clarify a point that he made. He said that if people were reduced to "such a degree" of destitution that Article 3 was involved, the Government would take action. The concept of degrees of destitution interests me. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain which degrees of destitution he thinks fall within the provisions of Article 3 and which do not. I am puzzled.
I believe that the Government have got "rights" and "responsibilities" back to front. There is a right to life. Since, on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during the passage of the Human Rights Act, we finally abolished the death penalty, we treat that right as absolute. That right, in return, creates a responsibility on the Government to provide the conditions that sustain life. If any asylum seeker were allowed to die of starvation, I wonder whether that would involve Article 2 of the ECHR as well as Article 3.
I turn to the use of the words "as soon as reasonably practicable". The Minister may remember the case of ex parte B in 1996. It was the case that caused this House to legislate again on the circumstances in which benefits may be removed. "B", who came from Zaire,
990
had naturally not been able to keep up with reports in the English press. When she arrived in this country on Eurostar, she walked all the way to Lunar House, in Croydon, to claim benefit, not having discovered from the Zaire press that she had to claim at the port or not at all. I do not see by what means it is made clear to applicants in refugee producing countries which do not have a free press exactly where or how they make a claim. They may lack the information to do it at the earliest practicable moment
In addition, it is a commonplace that the victims of torture—as is well known to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture—often find it extremely difficult to tell their story. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has ever had the experience of dealing with a rape victim while that person is still in a state of shock. I have had that experience three times. I really do not know why people think that academics live in ivory towers. It is extremely difficult to persuade such people to tell their stories. The insistence that asylum seekers should do so immediately is not only impossible, but also inhuman. If the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, I believe him to be both ignorant and grossly destitute of imagination.
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos. 3C, 3D, and 5F; and, more generally, to the government amendment. This morning, my attention was drawn by Shelter to the possible consequences of the Minister's amendment. Shelter's concern is that the successes that have been wrought in the past three years by this Government as regards reducing the number of rough sleepers by two-thirds might be undermined if this amendment were implemented. Hence my interest in Amendments Nos. 3C, 3D, and 5F, which would help to ensure that no one is left destitute as a consequence of these provisions.
In early 1999, I met a young Somali man at a hostel for young, homeless 16 to 21 year-olds run by Centrepoint in Berwick Street, Soho. If I remember correctly, his village had been razed and his parents killed. He had subsequently lost contact with his brothers who were engaged in the fighting elsewhere. He escaped because he had been befriended by a westerner. He had passed through a port of entry on arrival in this country, but did not make his application at that point. I do not know why, because I did not ask him. He was befriended here by a Somali woman and lived with her for several months before that relationship and assistance came to an end. Prior to my seeing him, that young man had spent three weeks sleeping underneath an arch in Kings Cross, and was absolutely exhausted due to a long deficit of sleep. I saw him over several weeks.
My concern is that we may be putting more young people back into the situation in which that young Somali found himself. I appreciate and understand the Minister's concern that we should instil public confidence in the asylum application process, and that

991
we should process quickly such applications. However, in the pursuit of that end, the means employed should take account of the vulnerable.
Through Centrepoint, I am also aware of the difficulties that some asylum seekers face in terms of bureaucracy. The Minister listed many proposed safeguards, but, in practice, I am concerned that they may not be as effective as we would hope. Therefore, when he responds, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to address that concern. Is the noble Lord aware that these measures might inadvertently give rise to an increase in the number of rough sleepers and homeless people?
In his introduction, the Minister said that two-thirds of applications are presently made in-country and that his intention is that that number should fall dramatically. However, if I am correct, I believe that currently about 40,000 people would be affected by the amendment. We must consider their well-being, especially as at least half of them have gone through the asylum process and been accepted as refugees.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: We need to remind ourselves of the purpose of the Bill, and the thinking behind it. We all have a responsibility—and this applies also to the other place—to win wider public support for our duty properly to consider claims for asylum. Part of that means that all reasonable steps must be taken to minimise fraud and abuse of the system. I believe that the public expect that; indeed, it is almost part of a deal. I have some difficulty with the fears that noble Lords have expressed in this afternoon's debate.
The nub of my noble friend's amendment is that support can be refused where,
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom".
That must be wholly reasonable. When speaking to one of her amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked how someone entering the country in the back of a lorry would know where to go to make the claim for asylum, and so on. That is a perfectly reasonable question. I do not, for a moment, make light of this situation. However, if someone has climbed into the back of a lorry after having paid a trafficker money to be transported halfway across this planet because of a real fear of persecution—or, indeed, after having suffered torture, or real threats to his life—the first thing he would do is look for a person in uniform who would, be he a policeman or a member of the IND, soon put that asylum seeker on the right track.
Alternatively, if someone, for whatever reason, delays his application for a few days, he could subsequently walk into a police station to ask where he should go in order to make a claim for asylum. I do not doubt that that person would be given a cup of tea and asked to sit down while the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was contacted. In practice, I do not understand the origin of the fears that have
992
been expressed. Underlying those fears is the thought at the back of some noble Lords' minds that there is a whole raft of reasons why people delay making applications for asylum. I have genuine difficulty in that respect.
We are talking about someone fleeing his country in certain circumstances, making the hideously difficult decision to leave his homeland and, in many cases, also his family. Why should there be any delay in making such an application? I can understand such a delay in the case of illness, and there could be other reasons. However, my noble friend's amendment does not say,
"unless these applications are made at the port of entry, all benefits will be withdrawn",
as was the case under the 1996 Act. Indeed, it does not say that at all. It says that in circumstances where,
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable",
support will be refused. I cannot for the life of me see what is the matter with the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I shall try to help the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Let us suppose, for example, that a new arrival manages to get to this country by some means or another and is then lucky enough to receive hospitality from friends or relations. How is that person to know that he must claim immediately? In those circumstances, he will not have passed through induction or accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rightly pointed out that such people can fall into a kind of limbo while their cases are being considered. Therefore, at the very least, it seems to me that there is a duty on the Government to publicise this obligation to claim immediately. However, I do not know by what means they should do so. I believe that there is a big information gap that needs to be considered in these circumstances.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in welcoming the amendment. The Government have a duty—not only to the people of this country who have been here always or for a long time but to people who have sought asylum recently and have been accepted—to reduce fraud. On the whole, the provisions work.
I am glad that the Minister gave us figures because they reminded the Committee—and if they are reiterated, will remind the public—of the extent of the big problem that the Government are trying to alleviate. Everyone in the Committee should assist them in that.
I am not sure why subsection (5) has to state that the Government must only act to the extent that it does not break existing law. Is that not taken for granted? I see that the Minister has the law by his side. Is subsection (5) just a belt-and-braces provision, so that the Government can say, "Of course that is not true. It is in subsection (5)"? Is that really required? We must be watchful that we do not put unnecessary legislation on the statute book. I ask that question as a non-lawyer because it struck me as important.

993
As to the relationship between committees in another place and this House, I am a little worried about the way that we debate the input of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Earlier, members of the committee addressed us on the report, assuming that we had not read it—so there was a good deal of repetition. I was not sure that was necessary. The points were not made particularly concisely but in some detail. No doubt noble Lords felt that was important for the House but I wonder whether it was good practice.
My noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale raised a very legitimate point that others have made, about destitution. I too am worried about that. He mentioned papers that have gone to the Joint Committee but which it has not yet discussed. I thought that a report from a committee was quite different from papers that go to a committee and we should not really consider a report until it comes to us. I appreciate that members of the committee are abroad, so it cannot meet until after today. However, that matter is one that the House needs to consider. I am not criticising the noble Lord but there is a problem—as there is with the Joint Committee on delegated powers, on which I sit. Sometimes, the same issue arises. We need to clarify the relationship of committees to the House.
Amendment No. 3B addresses a genuine point relating to guidelines. The decision is hugely important from the asylum seeker's point of view. The phrase "as soon as reasonably practicable" is used a lot in legislation but does not really seem adequate. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
Lord Dubs: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. If my noble friend the Minister has covered this point, I am sure that he will put me right.
The phrase in the proposed new subsection 3(b)
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied"
suggests that there might be occasions when a mistake is made. I am not saying that the Home Office often makes mistakes but we all know it might do so occasionally. If it is thought possible that the Secretary of State has made a mistake about an individual's delay in making a claim for asylum, does that person have any redress or right of appeal—possibly to an asylum support adjudicator? Is there any mechanism by which a person who feels that the Secretary of State has made an erroneous and mistaken decision can have it put right? Would that require legal aid? If so, would it be available—or could an appeal be made with the assistance of the Immigration Advisory Service or the Refugee Legal Centre?
Lord Judd: My noble friend the Minister was very helpful in trying to set the context for the amendments. In doing so, he came precious near—I am sure that he agrees—to inviting us to have another Second Reading debate. I will forgo responding to that inherent invitation, except that when one sets a
994
context, one must always examine whether it is the full context or partial. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I make the point again that we have a flawed international situation. We live—as we are constantly reminded—in the context of a global market with the free movement of capital but there is no free movement of labour. Given that basic flaw, there will inevitably be a problem with irregular migration, or however one describes it, and the rest.
In our society, when a community's economic circumstances change and an individual leaves it to put matters right for his family elsewhere within the bounds of the United Kingdom, such a person is regarded as a social hero—the right kind of citizen. When the same happens internationally, the individual is thought a pariah.
Having been involved directly and indirectly in such matters over a lifetime, I have reached the conclusion that the mistake is seeing an absolute dividing line between asylum and the others. The issue is much more complex. Often, the person whom we dismiss and almost condemn as an economic migrant is facing hell at home. It may not be political hell in the asylum sense but hell nevertheless. We should not be content about slipping into language and adopting an attitude that does not relate to that situation.
The phrase "earliest possible opportunity" speaks of insensitive, bureaucratic drafting. The gap between those of us who sit at tables talking about issues theoretically and the reality for people in asylum situations is immense. What is the "earliest possible opportunity"? People will have been through the most appalling experiences. It may take a long time before they work out what they should be doing and how. Simply to dismiss them and their opportunities because they did not make an application administratively as soon as possible seems altogether too inflexible. That kind of rigidity may be an attempted substitute for wisdom and firmness. Wisdom, firmness and self-confidence do not require inflexible, rigid language in legislation. Legislation should set the context in which the right thing will be done.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister—whom I genuinely hold in very high regard in all sorts of ways—will not mind my taking him slightly to task. The drafting smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do". What if we as legislators were to say, "We will only give serious consideration to proposals that were put before us at the earliest practicable moment"?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: Will the Minister accept the figures that have been produced in support of Shelter's statement that in-country asylum applicants are just as likely to be successful in their initial claim as those who apply at the port of entry? It cites that in 2001, for example, 20,105 in-country applicants were granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain compared to 10,915 port applicants. A further 17,475 in-country

995
applicants were granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain on appeal compared with 4,445 port applicants. Do those figures not support the point?
Lord Judd: I am glad to give the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the opportunity to make that important observation. Governments encounter difficulties and changed circumstances during the passage of legislation that require them to introduce a recommitment process to reconsider points. Let us, therefore, consider what sometimes happens in the reality of life for some refugees as regards how they approach their rights and what they should or should not be doing. We should show more understanding of that.
I conclude with the observation that what matters is that every single person who is entitled to asylum gets it. What matters, therefore, is the case for asylum, not an administrative consideration of when an application was lodged or from where, whether it was a suitable place administratively for the Home Office, and so on. The issue is the merit of the case before us. If we lose sight of that, we have lost sight of the whole principle of commitment to asylum.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on "as soon as reasonably practicable". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will recall sitting in the Gallery when we were discussing these matters in the House of Commons in 1996. At that stage, for constituency reasons, I expressed concerns about the provisions that the then government were bringing in, particularly in the context of sleeping rough, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred a moment ago. The refugee whom the noble Earl describes, who has made the journey halfway across the planet, may not be quite as trusting of someone in uniform as the noble Earl believes him to be. Those who have come here because they are being harassed in their country of origin may have grounds for being unenthusiastic about people in uniform rather than the opposite. It may take them time to adjust to the circumstances here.
To give an indirect example, during the Recess I was talking to a family friend whose daughter is married to a farmer in Zimbabwe. At that time they were still farming. He said that he was not concerned about either his daughter or his son-in-law because they are adults and so can make up their minds about where and how they live and what they do. His concern was about his grandchildren, who are aged eight and four. He said that they came over during the Recess for a holiday with their grandparents. Within half an hour of their landing at Heathrow and his collecting them to take them home, the elder of the two boys asked in the car, "Granddaddy, are there war veterans in England?" Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings come such fears.
Earl Russell: I apologise for troubling the Committee further. We have been reminded that Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. Nobody on these Benches has yet said anything to it, and I think that we should.
996
I am not clear about the exact aim of Amendment No. 5, and I would be grateful for clarification. Are we talking about information about the applicant's means of supporting himself, or about information on the asylum claim? Does every single misstatement disqualify an applicant under Amendment No. 5, or is it only the refusal to co-operate with the authorities? That is an important distinction, because I have seen applications being turned down because of an error of one day in the memory of an applicant who is in jail without access to paper. It is notorious that on chronology memoirs of all sorts are a particularly unreliable source.
The House may remember my intervention during the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, last week. In quoting a case from the reign of Richard II, I made an error of one year in the date that I gave, for which I apologise. I would not have thought, and I would hope, that that does not totally disqualify my credibility. If I can claim that, I hope that an applicant for asylum can claim it even more. I hope that this provision will not be applied in the case of every trivial error. The doctrine of de minimis non curat lex—the law takes no account of trifles—needs to be applied. If we were to include only the refusal to co-operate with enquiries, that might be reasonable. I hope that the Minister will reduce the provision to that rather than put it forward in this form. At present it is liable to lead exhausted officials into temptation, which they are not always very good at resisting.
The Earl of Listowel: One factor in people's failure to apply for asylum at the port of entry is that they may not have a passport, perhaps because they are not on good terms with the authorities in their own country. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what happens if someone applies later because they were concerned about applying without a passport.
Lord Joffe: This clause is based on the premise that refugees know that they need to apply for asylum. It would astonish the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and, I think, many other Lords to learn that many refugees do not know that they need to apply for asylum. When people are in great danger, working and opposing a government in a country with very few laws, England seems like a beacon of light where they assume that they will be welcome. It does not occur to many refugees until a considerable time after they arrive here that they need to apply for asylum.
When I came to this country as a refugee 35 years ago, I thought that I would be welcome—as a lawyer, I ought to have known better. I did not know that in the United Kingdom, which was regarded as the one country that would be totally sympathetic to one, refugees needed to go through a process of applying for asylum. Many refugees still assume today that they do not need to do anything other than get to this country, which they have been brought up to believe is one where freedom prevails. Obviously, once refugees have been here for some time, almost all of them will

997
learn otherwise. The basic assumption that refugees know that they need to apply when they arrive is not correct.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I do not speak idly. I speak from experience as a lawyer in a local practice and in the West End of London. People do not readily understand the need to apply for asylum or their legitimate rights immediately. I wish that my noble friend would understand that. People are inarticulate, particularly if they have gone through a terrible time in their recent past.
I practised as a solicitor in the London Borough of Hackney for a number of years. I wished that all my clients had been articulate so that they could have expressed to me their rights and needs. But people are not always like that. It is easy for the authorities to expect too much and my noble friend is guilty of that.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Judd. We are both speaking from our knowledge of people; how they react; what are their immediate concerns; how they express themselves. I wish that they were more capable of articulating their cause, but they are not always.
Lord Filkin: I thank Members of the Committee for a good range of challenging questions. I shall try to deal with them as fully as I can without being unduly long-winded. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the definition of "families with children": the family couple or lone parent with a dependant child under 18. "Dependant" is defined in Regulations 2.4 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, or regulations to be made under Clause 19 accommodation centres.
The noble Baroness also asked what is reasonable. Clearly, much careful thought must go into the definition of the guidance and into what can be put in the public domain. She gave an example of someone who landed in Dover and immediately developed acute appendicitis. It would be clear that it would not be reasonable to expect such a person immediately to have claimed asylum when he or she was in the throws of such an illness.
As regards advice, we would expect that people would have opportunities to receive advice. That would be true at induction centres and we would not always be of the view that legal advice was necessarily the sole or prime form of advice. Advice on how to make an application for NASS support would be the issue—it would be on how to make a timely application rather than about the detailed asylum regulations.
As regards the back-of-the-lorry example, I am reluctant to be drawn into detail from the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State, or the NASS officials who would make a judgment in those circumstances, would have to decide whether, based on what the person told them, it appeared that he had reasonable grounds for delaying making a case for asylum and an application for support.
998
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, how the local authority would know. Local authorities have for some years been identifying asylum seekers for a variety of reasons and we believe that they will not have much difficulty in identifying and refusing to support those who have been refused NASS support for making a late claim. We will of course be issuing extra guidance to help local authorities address this and will be consulting with the LGA and local authorities about those regulations. We would try to ensure that the situation was clear and that people were given the best help to act reasonably under the terms of the Act. I will not go into more detail on that. Rather than detain the Committee excessively now, I might write to the noble Baroness setting out the position in a little more detail and sending copies to all Front Benches.
I was asked whether guidance will be published. Yes, we will publish guidance on this matter, although it will be qualified by the point we referred to previously. It has to be pitched at a level which indicates the main principle without—how shall I put it without being pejorative?—making it a charter to help those who want to avoid or to deceive the system. It is not likely to be before Royal Assent, but clearly it has to be in the public domain and available to those who have to exercise the judgments and those who have a reasonable interest in understanding how the system will operate—for example, the NGOs—before the measures kick in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether it was "or" or "and, and, and". It is an occasion on which I shall be careful in giving a short answer. We see no reason to restrict explicitly the possibility of declining to entertain an application for support in cases where the Secretary of State is not satisfied on two or more grounds rather than one. To put it more simply, there will be occasions on which insufficient information is given to allow an application to be considered but the application form has to be returned for provision of the missing information. That happens now and it could happen in the future. It is common sense.
Alternatively, an application form may have been completed fully but turn out to contain inaccurate information. That may be through error or intent. In either case, consideration of the application will have to await correction of the information, however complete the information will have been. I hope that that answers the question.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, challenged me to respond to a report of the JCHR before it had met and before it had published its report. On both grounds, he had the advantage over me but he gave us notice of the questions. It may be helpful if I give an initial view on them, making it clear that it is without prejudice, first, to further reflection and, secondly, having the opportunity to see what the JCHR actually states and being able to respond by the Report stage or earlier if time allows us, which it may well not.
He first asked for a categorical assurance that assistance will be available to all those who would otherwise be left destitute. The short answer is, no,

999
only if they reach the Article 3 ECHR threshold. I will later respond to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Article 3. It is up to the asylum seeker to ensure that he or she makes asylum claims as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Secondly, he asked whether there must be a causal connection between some improper act or omission by the person concerned on being left homeless or destitute. An asylum seeker must make his asylum claim as soon as reasonably practicable. Not to do so may suggest that he has come to the UK for reasons other than a genuine well-founded fear of persecution.
Earl Russell: Are the Government prepared to consider the possibility that a delayed claim may be the result of trauma through torture or similar treatment? It happens and not to allow the possibility is not to consider the evidence completely.
Lord Filkin: The short answer is yes, the Government are prepared to consider that a delayed application might be the result of torture or inhumane treatment. I hope that I am clear on that. The test would be whether there appeared to a reasonable person to be evidence to support that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will my noble friend amend his remarks to include a threat of torture?
Lord Filkin: I shall not be drawn into drafting draft regulations from the Box. I shall reflect on the matter, but it seems that there is potentially a significant difference between a person who has experienced torture and a person who has felt threatened by torture. A person who has been threatened with torture may well have fled to this country for that reason. I would not, on the face of it, be convinced that there was not a reason for that person to claim asylum. I do not think that it would be particularly fruitful to go into great detail. If there are further reflections on the matter, I shall be pleased to write to Members. I am not saying that there necessarily will be further reflections.
The third question was whether the burden of proof should rest with the Secretary of State in establishing the conditions for withholding the support necessary to ensure compatibility with the human rights of those left without adequate housing, food or clothing. The Secretary of State has a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with the convention rights including Article 3. So, if a person claims Article 3 destitution, the Secretary of State will have carefully to examine his claim. I shall return to that issue and perhaps to others. I have missed out the last two.
The fourth question dealt with the issue of appeal to an adjudicator for those deemed ineligible for support, and the power to provide support pending the outcome of an application for judicial review. It is true that there is no such power, but applicants do not necessarily need state support in order to pursue the judicial review claim effectively. They can obtain
1000
advice and assistance from the relevant government-funded bodies. If they meet the merit test for legal support, they can also obtain funding for the application from the Legal Services Commission.
The fifth point was that there are no adequate safeguards under the UNCRC or the ECHR in relation to the violation of the rights of children, or under the ICESC in relation to those of adults. Those rights, however, protect against violation of the conventions as defined by the 1998 Act. Children are protected in the Government's amendments. Families with children will obtain support from the Secretary of State in the same way as at present, even if their asylum claim was made late.
I tell the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that I have not had sight of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. However, we have carefully and fully considered ECHR issues. As for the alleged report about Sir Bernard Crick, I have not seen the report and I do not know whether it was accurate. I hope that it was not, and I would be surprised if it had been stated in quite that way. As they cannot respond, I do not think that civil servants should be berated in this Chamber even by means of reported speech. There is also a fairly well-founded tradition that, if affairs are not managed according to the standards which the House or others think appropriate, Ministers and not civil servants should bear the responsibility. I shall say no more about that now.
As for the reference to the Refugee Council, I shall look at the report, albeit it came out some time ago. It would be interesting to see it. I shall say no more about that now.
The question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was in a sense about the 1996 Act, with which there were one or two problems. The matter was dealt with in primary—not secondary—legislation in which there were clearly one or two holes. I should perhaps not respond about the growth in numbers. We could benefit from a debate, perhaps during the dinner break when we have forgotten this Bill, on some of those issues. We could discuss, for example, what constitutes a better system and how to move towards it. I would welcome that opportunity from wherever it comes. We can discuss that matter when we have dealt with the important detail of this legislation. I may write to the noble Earl on some of those points rather than engage in them now. I do not want to delay our consideration of other issues, but I recognise the validity of those questions.
We are not trying to deter refugees, but we recognise that we have to act to deter illegal economic migrants. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is absolutely right. Many of those who come to this country, clandestinely or directly, and who use the asylum mechanism as a way of making a better life for themselves come from very poor countries and are desperate and destitute. One can understand why they attempt to come here. However, the Government have to operate under the 1951 Refugee Convention principles. An alternative argument is that there should be free movement of

1001
labour. People can make that argument if they wish, but I do not agree with them. I do not think that that position is a sane way of dealing with world poverty.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to my noble friend. Not many of those putting forward the point that I tried to make would argue for the free movement of labour; we do not think that it is a practical proposition. We are, however, saying that the system is flawed. In a flawed system, we must be careful—in the language we use and the way in which we deploy our arguments—that we do not suggest that the unfortunate victims of this flawed system are pariahs. We should recognise that they are victims of a flawed system. Of course, we have to operate the flawed system as best we can, and that requires firmness. However, the language and the culture surrounding it are terribly important.
Lord Filkin: The language is important. Many of those trafficked into this country are victims of the system. At the same time, we are getting into 16th century theology, as they also have some free will and some measure of responsibility, albeit they may be trapped in particularly difficult circumstances. I shall not go further into that as it would delay our proceedings.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about "reason to believe". A belief must be reasonable if there is no expressed requirement on the face of the statute for the belief to be reasonable. Therefore, it is also judicially reviewable.
There was some debate about the differential between benefits in European Union states. These amendments are not arguing that our welfare support to asylum claimants is too great. That is why we have been arguing with our European Union colleagues about the importance of seeking to establish minimum reception conditions for asylum claimants across the European Union. In practice, the standards that are close to finalisation will produce a levelling up. They are not likely to require the United Kingdom to do much, if anything, to our standards. The amendments are not an argument or an attack on welfare support but address the issue of whether people should be entitled to the welfare support that the state provides.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right about the role of world events. I shall not go further into that now, for reasons that I have already given. Similarly, I shall not deal now with our welfare support levels compared with those of other European Union countries, although I should be happy to correspond on it with Members who are interested.
As to the more specific issue of Article 3 of the ECHR, it is accepted that, in certain circumstances, it is possible for the withdrawal of support from an asylum seeker or former asylum seeker to constitute treatment within Article 5 of the ECHR. Such withdrawal of support is clearly capable of being so treated. The mere fact that a person is destitute does not necessarily mean that he has reached the high threshold which the European Court has held is required before there can be a breach of Article 3. This
1002
high threshold has been held to be reached in cases where, for example, a person is to be returned to a country where he will face torture. The fact that someone is homeless does not necessarily mean that there has been a breach of Article 3.
I shall not go into more detail on that point, but I may write to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about it. However, we are talking not about the withdrawal of support, but about the decision not to grant support. I think that that has a significant bearing on how the law will apply in practice. I say that with my usual caution as a non-lawyer.
There have been some questions about how reasonable it is to expect people to know that they should apply for asylum when they come here. I shall, without prejudice, reflect on those questions. There have also been some good questions about how the Government should publicise such a responsibility. If a person did not know about the requirement, and could make a reasonably persuasive case that they did not know about it to the person exercising the judgment, he or she would clearly not be caught by the provision.
There is a further point; namely, to put it bluntly, it is in the interests of traffickers that the people they traffic into this country should get support as that increases the likelihood that those people will in some cases be able to send sustenance back to their home country and pay their debts. According to our evidence, many if not all traffickers are reasonably well-informed.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about a possible rise in the number of rough sleepers. The short answer is that the people we are discussing have been supported up to now and have been living somewhere up to now. However, I take his point about the importance of good information. The noble Earl also referred to the vulnerability of young asylum seekers. All we seek to achieve is that people claiming asylum and support should do so at the earliest possible opportunity. If they are delayed in doing so, it will be open to them to provide full and complete information explaining why. If that explanation is credible, we shall accept it.
I should also make clear the distinction between claiming asylum and claiming support. The clause we are discussing is concerned with claiming support. If a person claims asylum late, his or her case will still be considered in exactly the same way on exactly the same principles. As I say, the clause bears only on the question of support.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to an information gap. I believe that I have touched on that matter but I shall reflect on it further to see whether I can add to those comments. I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, gave to the amendment and to the need to try to bring more order into the system and to reduce fraud. I say in passing that there have been 167 prosecutions this year alone in regard to people who have submitted multiple applications for asylum and support. In other

1003
words, they have submitted multiple applications in either their own name or different names to access support.
6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Will not that offence be eliminated once the system of cards is universally applied?
Lord Filkin: We would hope so. I merely commented that there is fraud in the system, as I am sure no one in this House would deny. However, it is difficult to quantify how much for obvious reasons.
The proposed new subsection (5) in the amendment prohibits the Secretary of State from providing support. Without subsection (5), subsection (1) might be interpreted as meaning that support should not be provided even if a person has reached the Article 3 threshold. Subsection (5) makes clear that there is no intention to breach Article 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is that necessary? Why is it necessary? It simply states that the Secretary of State and those providing support must keep to the law.
Lord Filkin: I heard the point. I have given an initial answer. I do not think that I can do much better than that at the Dispatch Box today. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy her on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether there is a right of appeal if a person makes a mistake. There is not a right of appeal but there are certain safeguards. First, the person is at liberty at any time to ask to put further information before NASS. A person can say, "I have thought further and I want to tell you more about what happened, where I came from and where I have been". That door will be open. Secondly, if a person makes a second application, a second pair of eyes should consider it. That seems right and reasonable. Thirdly, the matter is open to judicial review and ultimately, in certain cases, challengeable under ECHR.
Lord Dholakia: Will the Minister confirm that the staff of NASS and not those of the IND will interview applicants?
Lord Filkin: That is correct. I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, some of which concern a debate that we may have subsequently.
Earl Russell: If NASS does what we are discussing, would it not be judge and party in its own cause?
Lord Filkin: NASS would act for the Secretary of State and would be under a responsibility to act reasonably. NASS would act under guidance and would be aware of the importance of taking care in arriving at a judgment. I referred to a second pair of
1004
eyes as a means of trying to increase the robustness and the protection afforded by the measure. I hope that that provision is useful to the Committee.
I shall not refer to the points made about wider support for the system although I would be happy to discuss that matter outside the Chamber. I believe that I have answered most of the questions that can reasonably be answered at this point in time. However, if I discover when I read Hansard that that is not the case, I shall respond at that point.
Earl Russell: I refer to a material matter on Amendment No. 5. Does the misleading information relate to the claim for support or the claim for entry?
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for referring to that important question. The measure requires a person to provide full and accurate information not only about his state of destitution but also about the timeliness of his asylum application; it is not concerned with the merits of the asylum claim itself. I believe that that addresses the nub of the noble Earl's question.
In summary, we believe that the measure we are discussing is necessary and that it will lead in time to a more orderly system. The measure will result in those who have a good case for refugee protection having their case heard earlier and will allow us to move towards a more stable system. I hope that that will increase public confidence as regards introducing more resettlement schemes. The measure constitutes a better means of addressing world refugee problems which are not adequately addressed under the current system.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that I may raise one point. His response to the points that were made was again exemplary. The courtesy and detail with which he treats the Committee is outstanding. I draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that he said that support was in the interests of traffickers. Migration and asylum are subject to a big criminal business which constitutes a cruel, cynical affair. I do not believe that anyone in this House believes that there should not be draconian treatment for those responsible for that. But is my noble friend really suggesting that one deals with these vicious, wicked people by punishing the innocent victims of their activity?
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble Lord answers that question, I hope that he will forgive me if I put one further question to him. I did not wish to interrupt his flow earlier. He kindly responded to my question about a risk of increasing the number of people sleeping rough. If I understood him correctly, he said that the people we are discussing had been living

1005
somewhere up to the point of their application. I take that point. The boy that I mentioned was living somewhere. However, he was in stressed accommodation. Many of the people we are discussing live in very poor, overcrowded accommodation with all kinds of risk factors in terms of pushing them on to the street and into rough sleeping. Given the great efforts that this Government have made to tackle rough sleeping, which are universally acknowledged, I hope that the Minister will be good enough to write to me to offer me a little more reassurance. I hope that he can state that he does not think that the measure will lead to an increase in the number of people sleeping rough.
Lord Filkin: I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, although I am not certain that I can offer massive comfort. However, I shall do my very best to try to set his mind at rest. I take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd about traffickers. I am advised that I may have referred to Sir Bernard Crick as a civil servant, which is probably an insult to him and to civil servants. If that is the case, I wish to correct that.
Lord Kingsland: Before the Minister concludes, I wish to ask him a question about the last matter that he raised. In response to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, read out a statement about the relationship between responsible Ministers in Parliament and civil servants. I believe that the noble Lord said that, because responsible Ministers in Parliament answer for civil servants, it is inappropriate for a Member of Parliament, whether in another place or your Lordships' House, to criticise a civil servant. As I understand it, that was the import of his remarks.
That is a statement about a great parliamentary tradition which, alas, has long vanished. Some believe that it vanished soon after the famous resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale over the Crichel Down affair. Surely the position now is that if a civil servant makes a mistake and the responsible Minister is not prepared to resign over it, it is perfectly appropriate for remarks to be addressed to that civil servant; otherwise, Parliament would wholly lose control of political events: it would be forbidden to reproach a civil servant although a Minister had done nothing about the civil servant's mistake.
I apologise for raising a matter that is not germane to the substance of the Bill; but the Minister read out a fairly stiff statement on this issue. I felt it important that the matter be aired a little more than it has been so far.
Lord Filkin: I shall enjoy and value reading what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. I recollect Crichel Down and what has not happened—sometimes—since. The nub of what I was saying—perhaps I did not
1006
express it as clearly as I should have done—was that it felt to me (I put it no more strongly than this) uncomfortable to criticise, for example, how NASS runs and the civil servants who run NASS. That was not what was said. What was said was that the civil servants in NASS were second-grade people. That seemed to be a very different kind of remark; that has not been my experience of the civil servants whom I have met. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was present when we addressed that issue. I was seeking to make that distinction in relation to the remark that I found particularly painful and offensive.
Lord Kingsland: I was not seeking to underline the veracity or otherwise of the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, quoted. I was responding to the reaction of the Minister to that quotation and asking him whether, on mature reflection, the degree of generalisation that he invoked was appropriate in our modern constitution. The Minister kindly said that he would look at what the noble Lord said. We may or may not return to this matter at a later stage.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister has been very keen to move his Amendment No. 3. However, we have to follow rather arcane rules today because in recommitment our amendments are addressed to the noble Lord's amendment, which means that on this occasion I have to withdraw my amendment first—if that is what I am about to do; I assure the noble Lord that I am.
Our considerable and detailed debate proves that it was right for the Government to agree to the House's request that we should have a recommitment on these matters. I, and, I am sure, other noble Lords, will look carefully in Hansard at the Minister's full and careful answers. There have been a considerable number of speeches from different points of view from all parts of the Committee. The Minister and I have had the stereophonic sound of disagreement from behind us on these matters.
I repeat my opening remark that my amendments are probing amendments and that I support the government amendment in this regard. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who, with her usual careful attention to drafting, has perhaps signalled where there may be otiose words in the Bill. I look forward to seeing his response to her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 3A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3B to 3M not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 39.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Alli, L.

Harrison, L.

Ampthill, L.

Haskel, L.

Andrews, B.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jordan, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bragg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brightman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Parekh, L.

Crawley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Erroll, E.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gavron, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Gilbert, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Golding, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Weatherill, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Whitty, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Greenway, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Grenfell, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Winston, L.

woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Jacobs, L.

Avebury, L.

Joffe, L.

Barker, B.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Dholakia, L.

Methuen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Goodhart, L.

Northover, B.

Greaves, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

1008

Redesdale, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Taverne, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Tope, L.

Walmsley, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF SUPPORT BY LOCAL AUTHORITY
(1) Section 99 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (provision of support by local authority) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after "local authority" insert "or Northern Ireland authority", and

(b) at the end add "or 98".

(3) For subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
"(2) Support may be provided by an authority in accordance with arrangements made with the authority or with another person.
(3) Support may be provided by an authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 95 only in one or more of the ways mentioned in section 96(1) and (2)."
(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) for "A local authority" substitute "An authority", and

(b) at the end add "or 98".

(5) In subsection (5)—

(a) for "a local authority" substitute "an authority", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "bodies who are not local authorities" substitute "other bodies"."

The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 ensure that local authorities have the power to enter into contracts with the Home Office in respect of NASS emergency accommodation, induction centres and accommodation centres. We found it necessary to put these provisions into the Bill because, having believed that existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 would be more than sufficient for these purposes, on mature reflection we concluded that that may not be the case, and we decided to put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. I believe that it is right to do so.
It is worth saying that NASS has existing powers in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which enable it to enter into contracts with local authorities in respect of accommodation under Section 95 of the 1999 Act—generally referred to as "dispersal accommodation". However, to date, NASS has contracted with the voluntary sector for the provision of emergency accommodation under Section 98 of the 1999 Act. NASS is currently looking to expand the range of providers used for emergency accommodation. A

1009
number of local authorities have expressed an interest in assisting in providing such accommodation and in running induction centres on behalf of NASS. In order to do so, they need to be assured that they have the necessary powers. That is a very simple explanation as to why we require the amendments to be put into the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: This amendment gives one the opportunity to raise questions concerning the administration of NASS. As I understand it, that administration is very much centralised in its head office in Croydon. That has given rise to numerous complaints, many of which have been recorded by citizens advice bureaux. The national office of the citizens advice bureaux has published a pamphlet drawing attention to the volume of complaints which are concerned with the remoteness of the administration of NASS and the difficulty that individuals encounter in finding the right official to address when things begin to go wrong.
I also understand that no less than £68 million of lottery money has had to go to a whole range of voluntary organisations which deal with asylum seekers. Much of it has been directed to voluntary organisations which support people in the dispersal areas. That seems a strange lacuna; it indicates that something is seriously wrong with the way official support is provided by NASS. I hope that the Government will be able to consider this matter extremely carefully. It seems that several administrative improvements are most urgent.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising those questions. I am not sure that they are entirely relevant to the amendments before us, but I shall try to deal with some of the points raised.
We are aware of the recent NACAB report. All reports of such a nature fall to be acknowledged, thought through and understood. The department is closely considering some of the points which were properly included in the NACAB report. We have had discussions before on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the points again. We are happy to write to him on some of the issues that he has helpfully raised tonight.
In tabling the amendments we are seeking to work with a range of partner organisations and agencies. One might properly argue that that is a form of devolution, a sort of decentralisation. The point made by the noble Lord is valuable. We are grateful to him for raising such points. We are happy to try to clarify some of the points of detail in writing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION FOR SUPPORT: FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
At the end of paragraph 12(c) of Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (asylum-seeker support: procedure: disregarding of application) there shall be inserted "(which may, in particular, provide for an application not to be entertained where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate or that the applicant is co-operating with enquiries under paragraph (d))".
[Amendments Nos. 5A to 5F, as amendments to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 34.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grenfell, L.

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bach, L.

Harrison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Haskel, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hayman, B.

Billingham, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Borrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bragg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Jordan, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Chandos, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monson, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parekh, L.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Erroll, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gavron, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Golding, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

1011

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Weatherill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitty, L.

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Winston, L.

woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Methuen, L.

Barker, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Northover, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roper, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Falkland, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Sandwich, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jacobs, L.

Tope, L.

Joffe, L.

Walmsley, B.

6.41 p.m.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
"NORTHERN IRELAND AUTHORITIES
(1) In section 110(9) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support: payment to local authority: Northern Ireland authority) after paragraph (b) there shall be added—
"; or
(c) a Health and Social Services trust established under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/194 (N.I. 1)."
(2) In section 94(1) of that Act (support: interpretation) after the definition of "local authority" there shall be inserted—
""Northern Ireland authority" has the meaning given by section 110(9)""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Adjudicators]:
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 44, line 39, at end insert ", and
( ) may appoint one or more adjudicators as Deputy Regional Adjudicator."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 7 creates a new office of Deputy Regional Adjudicator. Amendment No. 8 sets out the duties and functions of a deputy regional adjudicator. It may help the House if I briefly provide some background to the amendment. The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) has been working steadily to expand its capacity for asylum appeals since October last year. The organisation will begin receiving 6,000 cases each month from
1012
November 2002. This is an increase from 4,000 cases received per month in October last year. In support of this expansion, the IAA is opening a number of new hearing centres across the country.
We are taking this measure as a result of the considerable productivity demands being placed upon adjudicators and the need for greater judicial management in the new network of hearing centres. Currently judicial management is provided through regional adjudicators, with the chief adjudicator and his deputy having an overview of the system. These offices are all provided for in statute. The judicial management requirement for a deputy regional adjudicator will be considerable, with day-to-day involvement in case management, mentoring and performance monitoring. The new arrangements would have salary implications which will be borne from funds agreed for IAA expansion. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It has been explained to me by the Minister's department that the adjudicators will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in Scotland. Will Scotland be considered a region under these amendments? I do not believe that that will go down well.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not have a specific answer to that. My gut reaction is that it will not. Perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness to let her know whether I am correct. I fully understand that there may be certain sensitivities if the matter is not dealt with appropriately.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 45, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) A Deputy Regional Adjudicator—

(a) may act for the Regional Adjudicator whose deputy he is if the Regional Adjudicator is unable to act or unavailable, and

(b) shall perform such other functions as may be delegated or assigned to him by the Regional Adjudicator whose deputy he is or assigned to him by the Chief Adjudicator."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No.9:
Page 50, line 11, leave out from "76(1)" to end of line 13 and insert "where the appellant has made an asylum claim or a human rights claim (or both)."
The noble and learned Lord said: On a previous occasion we debated the arguments for introducing non-suspensive appeals where an asylum or a human

1013
rights claim is certified by the Secretary of State as being "clearly unfounded". The substantive amendments put down to Clause 88 and to Clause 107 build on this provision by introducing a list of countries where the claim is presumed to be clearly unfounded. Let me begin by explaining why we have decided to introduce such a list.
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of considering every asylum claim individually to see whether a person would face persecution in his own country. That tradition will continue: it is not affected either by the existing terms of Clause 88 or by the introduction of a list of safe countries. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that in assessing an asylum claim a crucial consideration is the conditions in the country in which a person is claiming they fear persecution. Individual factors must be considered, because there will always be some cases that depart from the norm. But clearly individuals, such as those present in this House, who are fortunate enough to live in a stable democracy, with an effective criminal justice system and a respect for human rights, will be far less likely to have a genuine fear of persecution than counterparts in a war-ravaged country run by a despot.
We do not rule out the possibility that a person from a generally safe country can be a refugee. But we do rule out the possibility that many of them will be refugees. This statement is surely true when considering the 10 countries which are first in the queue to join an enlarged European Union: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. They have all had to pass a series of rigorous tests in order to satisfy the European Union that they are ready to join. Those countries are all democracies, with functioning criminal justice systems, a respect for human rights and a commitment to deal with elements of their society who seek to pick on minority groups.
Those are the kind of countries in which a person will be very unlikely to face persecution. That expectation is borne out in a number of ways: the fact that in the first half of 2002 there were only one or two decisions to grant asylum out of over 1,000 decisions taken; the fact that of those who appealed those decisions over 90 per cent had their appeals dismissed; and the fact that the independent Immigration Appeal Tribunal has said in several judgments on those countries how unlikely it will be for a person to show a well-founded fear of persecution.
It is therefore no surprise that earlier this week at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg a declaration was adopted to the effect that member states should start from the presumption that any asylum application from a national of one of the 10 EU accession state countries listed in the Government's amendment is manifestly unfounded.
1014
The United Kingdom is therefore fully in step with our EU partners in taking the measures that we are debating this evening. This is a common problem for member states and it calls for a common response.
All the indicators are that those 10 countries are safe. Yet, despite that, the United Kingdom still receives a significant number of asylum applications from nationals of those countries. There were over 1,500 applications in the first half of 2002, with the rate rising between the first and second quarters; for example, figures from the Czech Republic rose from 80 to 595 between those two quarters, and the high figures were maintained over the summer months. And these figures just cover principal applicants: the numbers are considerably higher once dependants are added.
It would be wrong just to sit back and accept this situation. Dealing with all these clearly unfounded claims is not cost neutral. Far from it: there are considerable resource implications from processing these applications, and providing support, often for months, while we await the appeal hearing. At over £200 per family per week the costs soon mount up. Furthermore, if we do not act now the problems will just get worse as our EU partners take a firm stance reflecting the Justice and Home Affairs Council, to which I referred earlier, and as a result the UK would become an even more attractive destination.
It should not be forgotten that in dealing with all these cases we are diverting resources which could more usefully be employed processing more genuine claims. So other asylum applicants also lose out if we leave matters as they are.
The Government therefore consider that something must be done to ensure that these applications are dealt with rapidly. We have concluded that the sensible way to do this is to make clear on the face of the Bill that all asylum claims or human rights claims from people entitled to reside in one of these 10 countries will be certified as being clearly unfounded unless the Secretary of State in an individual case is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded.
This measure does not, as I mentioned earlier, take away the right for a person to have his case considered on its merits. He will still be given a substantive interview. He will have the safeguards enjoyed by others who have made asylum or human rights claims which might be subject to a non-suspensive appeals certificate; for example, early access to legal advice and a second pair of eyes checking the decision of the first officer. But the measure will also make clear—as I think all fair observers would agree—that few applicants from these countries will have a valid claim.
In short, this is a common-sense provision which will improve the credibility of the asylum process in a manner consistent with our international obligations.
Some Members of the Committee may feel relatively comfortable about the 10 listed countries but uneasy about the scope for extending the list. This is an important point because the merits of having a list of

1015
safe countries largely stands or falls on the countries included on that list. There are two strong constraints on the power to add to the list of countries.
First, the order-making power to add countries to the list is subject to the affirmative procedure. Whereas the safe country list measures inserted into the 1993 Act by the 1996 Act provided for the affirmative procedure only in respect of the first order, under these amendments any order which seeks to add to the list of countries will be subject to such a procedure. So no countries will be added without Parliament having debated and agreed to the inclusion of those countries.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied of two things before making an order. The first is that the state, or part of a state, being added is one where there is in general no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that country. That test mirrors the 1993 Act provision.
Lord Avebury: Why does the noble and learned Lord think that this is an adequate test when the Home Secretary in a letter to Labour MPs, which was discussed at his meeting with them yesterday, said that there was absolutely no risk at all?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are talking here about adding countries not presently on the list. He is not saying that there would be no risk at all in any country ever.
Lord Avebury: This is exactly what he is saying. He said that,
'"where there can be absolutely no doubt about their safety".
Those are the words used by the Secretary of State in his letter to Labour MPs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have noted what the noble Lord says. He says that that is the test to be applied. I am saying that this is what is reflected in the Bill.
Secondly, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there would not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition to inserting these two constraints in the Bill, the Home Secretary has said that we would consult with the independent advisory group that is being established about the assessment of risk in any country which the Government is thinking of adding to the list. Should circumstances change for the worse in any of the countries added by order they can, where appropriate, be removed from the list by order. So I think that concerns about the possible future use of this provision are satisfactorily addressed by the amendment.
The amendments to Clause 107 provide powers similar to those in Clause 88 but apply to appeals under the 1999 Act rather than to the new appeal arrangements created by Part 5 of the Bill. By
1016
amending the 1999 Act, Clause 107 will enable us to take action against clearly unfounded claims as soon as Royal Assent is achieved without waiting for Part 5 of the Bill to be brought into force. With the number of claims from accession states running at around 250 per month it is important that the new measures are activated at the earliest possible opportunity. That explains our amendments to Clause 88 and Clause 107 in relation to the list.
I now turn to the various opposition amendments tabled in response to the government amendments to Clauses 88 and 107. These amendments are concerned with a number of issues: the persons of a listed country to whom the provisions apply, the order-making powers to add to the initial list of 10 countries, and the ability to include parts of a state as well as a whole state on the list. It is additionally suggested that the non-suspensive process should not include refusals on human rights grounds. There is also an amendment to Clause 107 which would have the effect that during the transitional period from Royal Assent, when Clause 88 will come into force, to when the rest of Part 5 comes into force there would only be non-suspensive appeals against asylum refusals and not against a decision to refuse on human rights grounds.
I shall deal with each of the amendments individually. Amendments Nos. 12A, 12G and 12H would have the effect of somewhat expanding the category of people within a listed country to whom the new provisions apply. Under the government amendments they apply to those who are "entitled to reside" in a listed country. The main group of people we have in mind are nationals of the country in question. But there are also some people who live in a country who have not acquired citizenship of it. One example is Estonia where, although residents legally living there may apply for and acquire Estonian citizenship, not all do so. We believe that such people should be included since Estonia is their home country.
The proposed amendments go further by including those who are "temporarily" entitled to reside in a country. That could embrace people who are, for example, simply visitors or students there. We would not want the provisions to extend to these kind of cases. This would turn the provisions into something akin to third country removals since temporary visitors to a listed country would have a separate country of nationality against which an asylum or human rights claim would normally be assessed.
We think it is better to stick with the unqualified term and not to use the other adverb proposed in the amendments; that is, a person entitled to reside "permanently" in a listed country. Use of that term could cause difficulties. For example, in the United Kingdom there are people who do not have British citizenship but have indefinite leave to remain here. But they can be removed in extreme cases where

1017
deportation action is taken. This illustrates that the issue of permanency is not always that easy to pin down.
Amendment No. 12B seeks to omit the power to add to the list of 10 countries. I explained in some detail the safeguards that exist for how those powers can be used. But I have no doubt that the powers are needed. As time passes, it is to be hoped that an increasing number of states will strengthen their human rights records, such that their designation under this clause may become appropriate. It would be wrong not to be able to respond to real world situations by taking a power to add to the list of countries considered to be generally safe. That would simply lead to undue time being taken up by regularly passing primary legislation to update the list. I have no doubt that an order-making power, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, is the answer.
Amendments Nos. 12D to 12F and 12J would leave the order-making powers in existence but restrict the circumstances in which they could be used. Amendments Nos. 12D and 12J would enable an order to be made only where the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was no serious risk of persons being persecuted and no contravention of the United Kingdom's European Convention on Human Rights obligations in removing a person. At first blush, that seems a sensible amendment with which it is hard to argue.
The difficulty, however, is that it would mean that in effect the Secretary of State could designate a country only if it were safe for every one of its residents. I regret that such a situation, desirable as it may be, does not currently arise in the real world. There is always the possibility that one or two people in a given area will face persecution and that the removal of a person may occasionally breach the UK's obligations under the ECHR—possibly for reasons wholly unconnected with the country of intended removal. For example, there may be an Article 8 breach involving family life.
It is because there is always the possibility in an individual case of a person making out an arguable asylum or human rights claim that we have retained individual consideration of such claims and not included a provision for automatic refusal of cases from the list of safe countries. The corollary of that is that the condition for a state to be designated should be one relating to general rather than absolute safety.
Amendment No. 12E is along similar lines. It would enable a state to be designated only where there was "no risk" of persecution rather than where there was "no serious risk" of such persecution. We consider that we need to qualify the term "risk". The courts have noted the difference between a mere speculative risk that a person may face mistreatment if returned to their country and a "real" or "serious" risk that such mistreatment will occur. In the former case, a person will not have made out a well-founded fear of persecution; whereas in the latter case they will have
1018
done so, provided that the feared mistreatment amounts to persecution. So the word "serious" does not set as high a threshold as it may first appear. Rather, it distinguishes between speculative and concrete risk. A serious risk need not be a probability but it must be a reasonable possibility.
Amendment 12F is, I think, intended to remove the scope to designate part of a state. It would unnecessarily limit the provision to restrict its scope in that way. There will be cases where a defined area of territory will be generally safe, such that most claims from individuals living in that area are clearly unfounded. A recent example is Kosovo. Because Kosovo is not a state, it would be impossible to designate that discrete territorial area without a power to add part of a state to the safe country list. I cannot see the advantage of taking away the ability to designate in such cases, and I therefore cannot support such a restriction.
The final amendment on Clause 88 that I want to mention is Amendment No. 12K. Its effect would be to enable any of the 10 countries listed on the face of the Bill to be removed by order, should the Secretary of State consider that appropriate. It would be unhelpful to have such a power. Those countries are on the fast track to joining the European Union, so it is reasonable to suppose that they will continue to be safe countries until that time. It would not be helpful to leave open the door for legal challenges to the Secretary of State's refusal to delete one of those countries from the list. Such would be the risk with this amendment.
In the extremely unlikely event that matters turned for the worse in one such country, that would not lead to any removals in breach of our obligations, because in appropriate cases the Secretary of State would be satisfied that a claim was not clearly unfounded and would accordingly not certify the claim.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the amendments proposed to Clause 107. They largely mirror those proposed to Clause 88, so I shall not detain the Committee by repeating arguments made about that clause. However, one set of amendments is different. Amendments Nos. 18A and 18B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, would make a non-suspensive appeal possible only during the transitional period while Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 remains in force, in cases where there is a decision to refuse an asylum application that is clearly unfounded but not a human rights claim.
The effect of that would be that whenever a person put forward a human rights claim, he would be entitled to an in-country right of appeal, even if both that claim and the asylum claim were clearly unfounded. Such an outcome would defeat the purpose of the provision because, in the majority of cases, Article 3 human rights claims and asylum claims overlap considerably. That would make the non-suspensive appeal provision wholly ineffective. I do not know whether that is

1019
the intention of the noble Lords who tabled the amendment, but, having regard to the purpose of the government amendments, that is not something that we can accept.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but it is helpful to put in context our amendments and the amendments tabled to them. I urge the Committee to accept the government amendments for the reasons that I have given and to reject the proposed amendments to them. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.9, Amendment No. 9A:
Line 2, leave out "or a human rights claim (or both)"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I want to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9A, 12B, 12C, 12E and 12G, 18A and 18B, 22A, 22B, 22C, 22E, 22F, 22H and 22J, all of which are grouped with Amendment No. 9 and stand in the names of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury. They have also added their names to Amendments Nos. 12B and 12J, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but I shall leave it to them to speak to those.
In due course, I shall explain the amendments—indeed, the Minister has already to some extent done so. But our main position on the amendments is that we disagree with the concept of the white list in principle and therefore oppose the government amendments in the group. No country is 100 per cent safe—that applies even to the United Kingdom. We can certainly think of circumstances in Northern Ireland in which people may well be persecuted for their religious or political beliefs—not, of course, by the Government but by non-governmental groups such as the paramilitaries.
It is true that the existing members of the European Union are broadly speaking safe countries. Naturally, the corollary of that is that we receive few applications from citizens of those countries—who, if they want to be economic migrants, have a right to come to this country to take employment. But the safety that applies to existing member states is considerably less true of the countries proposed for inclusion in the new white list in the government amendment.
They are the candidate states or accession states. There is considerable reason to believe that human rights standards are lower and that there is a substantially greater risk of persecution in those countries. That is understandable—and not necessarily a criticism of those countries. All of them have effectively emerged within the past 12 to 15 years from domination by the Soviet Union or other communist governments. Obviously, it takes time to raise human rights standards to those enjoyed by the more fortunate countries of western and northern
1020
Europe for upwards of 50 years. The result is that, in the accession states, serious problems remain. One notable example is the position of the Roma, particularly in the Czech Republic. My noble friend Lord Avebury will speak in more detail than I have about the risks to which various groups of people are subject in the accession states.
Cases should be taken on their merits and should not be subject to any legal or statutory presumptions. It is true that cases relating to countries with high standards of human rights will be inherently less credible, but there will be many cases from such countries which, when heard, will be seen to be unfounded. However, a claimant should be entitled to present his or her case in the United Kingdom without any pre-hearing presumption and should be entitled to do so at the appeal, as well as at the preliminary hearing.
With regard to the Government's proposals, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
"UNHCR does not accept that a country may be declared 100% safe. It is impossible to exclude, as a matter of law, the possibility that an individual could have a well-founded fear of persecution in any particular country, however great its commitment to human rights and the rule of law. It bears emphasising that the process of determining whether a country is 'safe' for a particular asylum seeker is itself the core objective of asylum procedures. This suggests that safe country lists are at odds with the fundamental premise of refugee protection that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution. It is a basic requirement of international refugee protection that asylum seekers are given access to fair and efficient asylum procedures without discrimination on the basis of the country of origin. A 'safe country' list must never be used therefore to bar asylum seekers from entering the asylum procedure altogether".
I shall also refer to the views of the Select Committee on the European Union, which considered the issues in its report Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures, the 11th report in the 2000–01 Session. I was a member of the Select Committee and of Sub-Committee E, which prepared the report. Paragraph 122 of the report says:
"In the real world, with a large number of applications and perhaps relatively junior officials carrying out interviews and taking decisions, some guidelines have to apply in order to facilitate speedy decision-making. But while it would be absurd for public administrations, including determining authorities in asylum cases, not to be able to have a rule of thumb, the danger is that guidelines may be applied automatically and de facto replace the individual consideration of cases. Lists carry this risk. Nor do they remove the risk and delays of litigation. Certainly in the UK context, lists can be challenged, and recent experience shows that the designation of a particular country as 'safe' may be reached on an erroneous view of the facts or of the law, or both, and thus be 'plainly wrong'".
A later paragraph of the report refers specifically to the accelerated procedure that was authorised by the draft directive. It is not the same issue, but it seems to me that what is said with regard to lists in the case of accelerated procedures is equally applicable to the use of lists to prevent in-country appeals. Paragraph 133 says:
"if, as seems likely, Member States decide that the accelerated procedure will remain, we do not believe that it should apply to

1021
safe country of origin cases or, indeed, that there is any substantial advantage to be had in retaining that context in the Directive. The accelerated procedure for applicants from safe countries of origin means that their applications may not be scrutinised in the same detail as other applicants. This means that there is a greater danger of a breach of the principle of non-refoulement, i.e. that asylum seekers will be sent back to a country in which they may be in danger of serious harm. It is particularly important that the position of the individual is properly considered. This may not be overly burdensome. Anyone coming from a country with a widely acknowledged record of respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights would, in practice, have a substantial evidential burden to overcome".
In taking the view that we have, we have the backing of the UNHCR and of a highly regarded committee of your Lordships' House. The principle should be observed and should apply to the proposed amendments to the Bill.
If the new government amendments in the group are to apply, they should be modified. Amendment No. 9A ensures that claims under the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be certified, even if the asylum claims can. Claims under the ECHR would include claims under Article 3 that there is a threat to life or claims under Article 5 that there is a threat to liberty. In such cases, if there is any justification in such claims, there is a real risk to the safety of the claimant. In such cases, no presumption should be applied.
Amendment No. 12B prevents new countries from being added by statutory instrument. One might imagine that, if the list were extended, candidate states a little lower down the list—notably, Romania and Bulgaria—might be added. Although Bulgaria does not present particularly serious problems, Romania unquestionably does. There can be no doubt that Romania is not a safe third country for a large proportion of its population. It is true, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used, but we do not believe that that, in itself, provides adequate opportunity for debate, particularly in the other place, where affirmative resolutions are dealt with summarily and without anything that the Committee would regard as adequate debate.
Amendments Nos. 12C and 12G would mean that, if the procedure set out at subsection (2)(b) were used to add new countries, it could not be used unless the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was no serious risk of persecution in any part of that state. Persecution has a nasty habit of spreading through a state. If there are parts of a state where there is a serious risk of persecution, that state should not be added to the white list, even if the situation is better in other parts of it.
Finally, Amendment No. 12E seeks to provide that a country cannot be added to the white list unless there is no risk of persecution. If there is some risk of persecution the claimant should be entitled to say,
1022
"Yes, there is some risk, and that risk is a serious risk for me". Therefore, this alteration to the Government's amendments is also justified.
The later amendments in the group which stand in our names mirror the amendments that I have already spoken to in relation to Clause 107 and I do not propose to say anything further about them. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12A. I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 12D, 12F, 12H, 12J, 12K, 22D, 22G, 22K and 22L.
As my right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin has said, the Government's amendment to Clause 88 mirrors very closely a position advocated for some time by the Conservative Party and previously opposed by the Government, both when in opposition and when in government. Indeed, some two-and-a-half years ago, my right honourable friend, the then Leader of the Opposition in another place, said:
"It is extraordinary that we receive applications for asylum from countries which have now been formally accepted as candidates for EU membership. How can we say, on the one hand, that we accept that a country has the rule of law and good government that would qualify it to join the EU and, on the other, that we believe its citizens to be suffering systematic persecution?".
The amendments to the Government's amendment, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend, seek to probe points related to the detailed wording of the proposal before the Committee.
I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 12A, 12F and 12H, which relate to the term "entitled to reside", used by the Government in their amendment. The Committee will be aware that the Home Office's view of what constitutes a residency right was considered last month by the then senior judge of the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Scott Baker—now Lord Justice Scott Baker and a judge of the Court of Appeal—in his judgment in the case of The Queen (on the application of Ahmadi) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to be found at Administrative Reports [2002] EWHC 1897.
I shall not rehearse the detailed circumstances of the case, which attracted considerable publicity when the Ahmadi family were removed to Germany by the Home Office. The issue relevant to the debate is the Home Office's view of what constitutes an entitlement to reside. That is the test laid down in the Government's amendment for the certification of a claim from one of the states as "clearly unfounded".
The Home Office's decision letter to the family, dated 13th August and quoted by Mr Justice Scott Baker at paragraph 16 of his judgment, stated:
"the family are no longer asylum seekers in Germany, having been granted residence there on humanitarian grounds. Therefore the family will not be settled in a reception centre as these facilities are

1023
for people whose asylum claims are being processed, and not for people in this family's position who have been granted residence in Germany.
Accordingly upon their return to Germany, the family will have settled rights of residence. This means that they will be housed within the Community and, as they are lawfully entitled to reside there, they will have full access to the various social and welfare provisions of the German state".
However, Mr David Pannick QC, counsel for the family, pointed out that these statements were erroneous on four grounds. One of these grounds was that,
"The claimants"—
that is, the Ahmadi family—
"have not been granted residence. The grant of temporary protection in accordance with Section 53(6) of the Aliens Act entitles them only to tolerated status… The earliest they could be granted longer term residence status…is April 2003, but thereafter it is a matter for the discretion of the Bavarian authorities how they treat the period of this family's absence in the United Kingdom".
Mr Justice Scott Baker concluded at paragraph 54 of the judgment, by saying:
"Of more significance, however, is that there were significant discrepancies between what was said in the letter of 13 August and told to Mr Justice Roderick Evans"—
that is, in the appeal proceedings prior to the family's removal to Germany—
"and the position as it turned out in reality. I cannot say that these errors of fact were immaterial to the Secretary of State's decision".
The point I am seeking to make is that it is clear from this judgment that the Home Office's view of what entitles a person to reside in Germany is very confused and, according to the judgment I have just quoted, not on all fours with the position in reality.
What does the phrase in the Government's amendment, "entitled to reside", actually mean in practice? Does it cover only permanent residence, or does it also cover temporary residence and other forms of protected status? I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to clarify the issue.
Secondly, I turn to Amendments Nos. 22 and 22D, which relate to the test under which the Secretary of State will be able to add further countries to the list in the amendment. The Government's wording proposes that the Secretary of State will be able to do this if he is satisfied that there is,
"in general…no serious risk of persecution",
in that state, and that removal of persons to that state will not,
"in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention".
The phrase "in general" is quite vague. What level of test will be applied by the Government when deciding whether or not to place a country on the list? Will there be an independent country risk assessment before the Government decide to include a country on the list? I ask these questions in particular because no less a luminary than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, attacked the then Government in 1996 for seeking to use the same expression, at a time when he was Opposition spokesman for home affairs.
1024
I have directed my attention to Hansard, and what do I find there? I find the following analysis of the expression "in general" by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:
"It is extremely dangerous for us to accept that the judgment as to whether there should be a fast-track procedure for an asylum application is that there is 'in general' in any particular country a risk of persecution. Persecution does not happen in countries in general. It happens to people in particular. It happens particularly to minority groups in countries in which there is no risk of persecution in general to the majority but where there is a very serious risk to the minority.
Before I start to give examples, let me ask the Minister"—
the then Conservative Minister—
"these questions. What does 'in general' mean? How would it be interpreted? Does 'in general' mean that 75 per cent, 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people in a particular country need fear no risk of persecution? Is it a matter of the severity of the persecution? Would it mean that the risk could involve detention but not torture? Is it a matter of whether there is persecution not of groups but of individuals? All those questions, to which there are and can be no adequate answers, reveal the inadequacy and danger of the phrase 'in general'".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; cols. 1061–62.]
Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, some six years ago.
Finally, Amendment No. 12 relates to the removal of countries from the list. As I read it, the Government's drafting of subsection (2D) of the amendment would mean that any country added to the list in future by an order passed under the affirmative resolution procedure could be removed by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
However, the countries, specified on the face of the amendment will not be removable except by primary legislation. Is that the position that the Government intend? I do not expect any of those countries, which, after all, are candidates for EU membership, suddenly to become dangerous. I simply make the point to the Government that, in the case of events occurring, which may be totally unforeseen at this time, they may wish to remove one or more of these countries from the list—and that the wording of subsection (2D) would deny them the flexibility to do so.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am entirely in agreement with everything that my noble friend Lord Goodhart has said about the views of the UNHCR and shall therefore not repeat them. I am also entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the words "in general". If I am imprisoned, I am not imprisoned "in general". I am imprisoned in particular; and I mind it in particular.
The question of whether a country is safe in the abstract is totally irrelevant. The question raised by the former Leader of the Opposition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—namely, whether there is systematic persecution—is irrelevant to whether the person concerned happens to be being persecuted.
Perhaps I may give two examples from countries which are widely and reasonably regarded as safe. The first is our own country—and I hope that Ministers will realise by the time that I have finished my remarks that I intend no criticism whatever of this or any

1025
previous British government. The case I want to mention arose in County Tyrone, in the town of Dungannon. A group of masked men visited the village priest and asked him to convey to a certain pair of young men that their presence was no longer welcome and if they knew what was good for their health they would leave the country.
As I understand it, the two were perfectly willing to avail themselves of the protection of their own government but, given the circumstances in Dungannon, did not believe that they would be able to do so. In the words of Kirsty Wark of "Newsnight", it is a story in which there are no heroes. But it is not only heroes who are entitled to liberty. If those people had turned up in another country claiming to have a well-founded fear of persecution, their case would not have been manifestly unfounded. It would have been entitled to a hearing.
The other individual case that I want to cite arose in the United States. Mr Matthew Shepard, a homosexual man from Laramie, Wyoming, was discovered bound and spread-eagled against a fence, where he had been beaten to death. Had Mr Shepard succeeded in escaping, and had he turned up, let us say, in this country claiming asylum because he had a well-founded fear of persecution, I should have said that the fear was manifestly well founded. However safe a country the United States may be, he had a genuine claim to asylum. Such cases may arise anywhere.
At Question Time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, drew attention to the racist chants in the match that took place last week between England and Slovakia. I thought that Mr Emile Heskey showed great dignity in his complaints that what he called "monkey chants" were being used even by the stretcher-bearers.
I have never understood why the Home Office is so indifferent to complaints about the treatment of the Roma. Its attitude is very different from that of the Foreign Office. I remember, during the case of the Roma who arrived at Dover in 1998, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby putting a Question to the Foreign Office rather than to the Home Office. The Answer that she received was very different indeed from the Answers that she had received from the Home Office. In matters of foreign affairs there is a rebuttable presumption that the Foreign Office knows rather more than the Home Office.
An hour ago, I received a report entitled Unwanted Journey, published in 1999 by the Refugee Council. I opened it at random and found this statement:
"The ERRC [European Roma Rights Centre] have recorded a depressing litany of reported police harassment and violence against Roma in Slovakia. Such harassment has included the use of electric cattle-prods, knives and machine-guns by police during raids and interrogations. In Jarovnice osoba, police were even reported to have tied up a one year-old Romany girl, hung her up by the hair and beaten her on the feet. The Mayor of Jarovnice had been seen identifying Romany houses with police prior to the raid".
The report contains a great deal more to that effect, about which my noble friend Lord Avebury will say more.
1026
One of the report's findings, set out in the executive summary, is as follows:
"…the UK Government's policy in regard to Romany asylum seekers was racist and discriminatory in outcome if not intent"—
that distinction is an important one—
"and is therefore in breach of a number of international commitments such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and specific recommendations of the Council of Europe's Commission Against Racism and Intolerance".
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, may recall my tabling a Question for Written Answer regarding what sum the Government had set aside for legal action resulting from the Bill. His answer was none. He may live to regret that reply.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, will he agree that the young man whose case he described who, unhappily, was beaten to death in Wyoming, could have easily found sanctuary in San Francisco or almost anywhere on the west coast, or on the east coast of the United States? There would have been no need for him to seek refuge in this country.
Earl Russell: It is possible to be followed, and it is possible to move fairly rapidly from Wyoming to San Francisco. Had I been in his position, I might not have taken the risk. But in any case, he had every right to choose not to take it.
The Earl of Sandwich: It was a pleasure to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, coming out of the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Those of us who remember the debates that took place in 1996 and later are surprised to see the shift in the Government's position. I hope that those words will come back to haunt them. This Government wisely decided to do away with the white list, saying that it was unsatisfactory. I refer to the White Paper published in 1998. Now, it has quietly reappeared in the disguise of these new government amendments.
I grant that there may well be no perceived risk of persecution in the new EU member states, and that will eventually become one of the principles of their membership. But the risk is still debatable. The noble and learned Lord still needs to give fuller justification for reintroducing the list. Given his remarks, this is a case of our old friend "fast track" telling us what to do. It is a device of those who are anxious to be seen to get things done quickly. But surely that is not sufficient argument when we are reminded by the UNHCR that such lists are, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, at odds with the fundamental principle of asylum protection.

1027
The noble and learned Lord accepts that there is always the possibility of a breach of the UN convention in individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted from the latest UNHCR statement, which was strongly backed up by the Select Committee of this House. What concerns the UNHCR most is that the very presumption that applications from safe countries are invalid, without proper safeguards, could lead to erroneous decisions. Clearly this category of applicants will not be given the same opportunities as other asylum seekers to appeal against the decision, as they can hardly appeal from their country of residence.
I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord answer the question that has not yet been put to him; namely, how do we know that other countries will not be added? I accept the safeguards that have been given, both in legislation and through the independent advisory group. However, there are questions that remain to be answered. I should prefer that the amendment was left out altogether.
Finally, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can comment on the concern raised by the ILPA on individual status determination; namely, that, contrary to what he said, the amendment undermines the fundamental principle that asylum seekers should have their status determined on an individual basis.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The Government claim that this is not a white list like the previous one of the Tories; indeed, that is what they say in the note that was distributed to Labour members—a copy of which somehow came into my hands yesterday evening. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for confirming that the Home Secretary genuinely meant what he said in the note; namely, that the amendment focuses on countries that are just about to join the EU and where there can be absolutely no doubt about their safety. That goes a great deal further than what the noble and learned Lord said in his opening remarks, when he conceded that even in a country that is to be placed on this list by means of the amendment there could be individual cases where an application for asylum might be justified.
The power is given to the Secretary of State in this clause to allow individual applicants to get through to the next stage of the process. Therefore, when we reach the Report stage of these particular proceedings, I shall table an amendment to the new clause embodying the words that the Secretary of State used in the note, which I am sure will meet with his approval.
Before I turn to the question of the Roma, I thought that the noble and learned Lord was being a little disingenuous in telling noble Lords that we are in step with Europe as regards the declaration on asylum seekers, especially when one considers that the proposal emanated from the Home Secretary. The latter was made clear in a letter of 10th October from Jonathan Sweet, the UK Permanent Representative in the European Union, in which he mentions the Home Secretary's intervention at an informal meeting of
1028
JHA Ministers in Copenhagen last month. That was how this declaration came to be made by the Council of Europe.
At lunchtime today I chaired a meeting with the intention of forming a parliamentary group on the Roma—an initiative that has been taken in another place by Paul Stinchcombe, MP. At the meeting we heard that the DfID has been helping NGOs in candidate countries to promote equality and to combat racial discrimination. I very much welcome that assistance. I believe that the remarks made by my noble friend about the Foreign Office also apply to the DfID. They are conscious of the discrimination and intolerance that Roma suffer in the candidate countries, and they are doing their best to help address the problem. However, is it not incongruous that we have two government departments—the Foreign Office and the DfID—which are helping to alleviate the effects of racism and intolerance, while a third government department, the Home Office, pretends that the problem does not exist?
I should start by saying that although the policy is declared to be one of treating all asylum applicants alike—indeed, the noble and learned Lord reiterated that when moving the amendment—it has to be in the minds of officials who consider asylum applicants who come from these eastern states that they are from a country that is extremely unlikely to generate any genuine asylum applicants, despite the fact that many people have gained asylum in the past. I refer noble Lords to the 28th report of the Select Committee on The European Union (Sub-Committee E), entitled Defining Refugee Status and Those in Need of International Protection, in which the head of the Refugee Council said:
"According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees there were 7,232 Roma asylum seekers from accession states who were granted refugee status in the EU in the period 1990–99, not a small number, and in the UK itself ten Czech cases were granted refugee status and 20 Polish cases in 2000 alone".
We are not talking about a minute number of people, who could be dealt with in the procedure outlined by the noble and learned Lord; we are talking about a substantial number whom the Secretary of State must somehow identify as being at least eligible to go forward to the appeals stage. As the claim has already been refused by one of the Secretary of State's servants, he must be of the opinion that it is "unfounded", and there will hardly ever be any cases where an appeal is allowed.
If, as appears to be the case judging by the noble and learned Lord's speech, Ministers are prepared to acknowledge that there are some genuine cases—however small the percentage may be—can the noble and learned Lord explain how they will be identified? How will the Secretary of State make the decision not to certify? Without an appeal, at which all the evidence can be presented, the Secretary of State will have only the same information as the official who turned down the applicant. It is difficult to see how he could arrive at any other opinion without an oral hearing.

1029
As we have heard, the Roma are an oppressed minority throughout the whole of eastern Europe. As the Minister is well aware, right up until the present day some of them are obtaining exceptional leave to remain or refugee status in this country. But the amendment will make it almost impossible for any Roma to succeed. The European Roma Rights Centre, which has already been mentioned, says that if Amendments Nos. 10, 11, and 12 are adopted an administrative framework could be laid for possible breaches of the UK's international law obligations. My noble friend put it much higher than that, and he is probably right. The centre was very restrained in its comments.
Last spring, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe produced a report in which it said:
"Today the Roma are still subjected to discrimination, marginalisation and segregation. Discrimination is widespread in every field of public and personal life, including access to public places, education, employment, health services and housing".
Let us take, for example, an individual country. I have in mind the European Union's progress reports on states that are moving towards accession. As noble Lords are aware, such reports are produced at about this time every year. The 2002 Regular Report on Slovakia's Progress Towards Accession, says that, "the situation of the Roma minority has remained difficult".
In particular,
"the discriminatory attitudes of local communities towards the Roma make proper implementation of the projects [under discussion] very difficult, underpinning and perpetuating the segregation of the Roma minority in certain parts of the country".
The report continues to say that the Roma,
"run a particular risk of racially motivated violence".
They cannot look to the police for protection because they are,
"at particular risk [of] degrading treatment by the police".
The European Roma Rights Committee reports a recent case of a Romani woman who was hospitalised in Poprad with brain injuries after she and two Romani men were attacked by skinheads. In July last year, the police in the village of Revuca handcuffed Mr Karol Sendrei to a radiator and beat him to death in front of his sons.
The latest report of the European Commission in relation to the Czech Republic states:
"Romas still suffer from widespread discrimination in education, employment and housing. There have been further cases of racially motivated violence against Romas. The fate of the much appreciated Roma advisers seem uncertain, as their administrative basis, the District Offices, will be abolished by the end of 2002. Roma unemployment remains very high. Widespread discriminatory hiring practices are still being reported".
It is not surprising that Roma asylum applicants from those countries have in many cases been successful.
A report published by the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities two years ago stated:
"Even against the backcloth of a decade blighted by extreme forms of racist intolerance, the phenomenon of prejudice against Roma is singular".
1030
A paper published by the Jewish Institute of Policy Research stated:
"Grass roots prejudice, deriving from centuries of official outlawing, runs deep and often results in public hostility and discrimination, lynchings, house burnings and murder".
That is not a description of a country that should be on a safe list. The remarks made in those reports could be extended many times over—for example, with a speech by Mr. James Goldston, who heads a highly reputable think tank, sponsored by Mr.Soros, operating from Hungary. I will not bore the Committee with similar quotations at this time of night. I could give also many other examples of individual cases of persecution.
The Lord Chief Justice, in a lecture a couple of days ago, issued a timely warning about government policies colliding with the Human Rights Act 1998, which reduced the risk of the Government scoring an own goal—but it can do so only after the event. If Ministers insist on the proposals, under the pressures that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, described the courts have to act only as a long stop. If that happens, we shall have failed in our duty.
Lord Hylton: Government Amendment No. 12 uses the words,
"is entitled to reside",
and the noble and learned Lord the Minister explained that that means nationals or residents. I am concerned that wording shall not apply to people who have just been in transit through a listed country. I am strongly opposed to the words "or temporarily", which appear in no fewer than three Conservative amendments to Amendment No. 12.
There is a considerable danger that port, immigration and nationality department officials may be strongly tempted to apply clearly unfounded labels to people who have simply been in transit through a named country but who originally came from yet a third country. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the Committee that if he gets his way with Amendment No. 12 and it eventually passes into law, the clearest possible instructions will be given to all officials that transit passengers are not to be included in the Act's provisions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I dealt with many of the points in advance, and at this time of the evening I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating myself. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, opposes the principle of adding the list of accession states as countries where the individual applicant would have his or her case considered at the outset. If the claim were rejected, there would in effect be a presumption that the claim was clearly unfounded unless the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was not. The noble Lord said that EU countries—not accession countries—were generally safe and probably better than list countries.

1031
We accept that individual cases might lead to a human rights or asylum claim being granted—frequently because of the individual's circumstances—but that would be unusual. The norm would be in relation to these countries that asylum would not be granted—a human rights claim would not succeed. The way that the amendment is drafted allows for that by ensuring individual consideration of each case. Then there is the presumption to which I referred, but the Secretary of State will have the right to say, "This is one of those exceptional cases where there should not be a designation of the case as clearly unfounded".
Amendment No. 12 deals with the propositions advanced by the noble Lord and other Liberal Democrat Members—all of whom opposed the concept of a list of safe countries. They said that even if a country is, in general, safe, there can still be cases that will succeed. We accept that proposition, but that is how the amendment's provisions are drafted. They actually deal with the precise points made by Liberal Democrat Members.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that many cases from the countries in question will clearly be unfounded. We accept too that the vast majority of cases will be unfounded and the proposed provisions are common sense recognition of that fact.
Earl Russell: Will applicants from the named countries receive equal consideration with those from other countries?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They will receive individual consideration, just in the way that every other applicant will do. The effect of the list is that if the claim is rejected—and it might not be and succeed—it will be certified as clearly unfounded, unless the Secretary of State considers that it is not clearly unfounded. Then there is the opportunity to go through the appeal procedure out of country.
As to Amendment No. 9A, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests that where there is an ECHR claim, it cannot be certified. That would completely get around the intention. The noble Lord would be the first to accept that many asylum claims will also give rise to ECHR claims.
I am gratified to see the noble Lord nodding. The amendment would get around it by a side wind.
On Amendment No. 12B, the noble Lord says that it would be too risky to allow additions to the list. I went through the safeguards, affirmative procedure, independent advice and that which must satisfy the Secretary of State. We contend that that provides an adequate safeguard. The noble Lord argued, in reference to Amendment No. 12C, that the Secretary of State should not be entitled to certify that there is no serious risk in respect of a part of any state. I referred to that earlier, giving the example of Kosovo. There will be cases where one can identify that a part of a state is safe. In considering that, the Secretary of State must bear in mind the risk, which the noble Lord mentioned, of danger spreading from less safe areas to the part that he has certified. He should have that in his armoury.
1032
The noble Lord cited the views of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which wrote to all noble Lords on the matter. Paragraph 11 of the document stated:
"UNHCR accepts that a safe country of origin list may be a useful tool for identifying applications that may be placed in the accelerated procedure. There are, however, some risks in the use of such procedures, not least the risk that an overly strict presumption that applications from safe countries are not valid could result in erroneous decisions to deny refugee claims. In order to avoid such risks the use of safe country lists, should be accompanied by appropriate procedural guarantees".
I interpret that as saying that one can have safe country of origin lists but that there should be appropriate safeguards. We have a safe country of origin list—not one of third-party safe countries—with appropriate safeguards. The safeguards are that each case is considered on its merits, a second pair of eyes looks at it, and it is presumed to be clearly unfounded unless the Secretary of State considers that it is not. With the greatest respect, the UNHCR approach reflects ours.
He then referred to the European Union Select Committee Sub-Committee E. I have not read the details of that, so I may be taking the point out of context, but he referred to it as saying that some guidelines must apply. He accepts the principle that we must approach the matter to some extent with the benefit of guidelines. Safe country lists of origin such as those that we are dealing with, which involve individual consideration, do that.
8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The committee made clear its belief that safe country lists were not a satisfactory approach.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If that is what it said, I stand corrected. I have not read the report so I cannot contest that. We take the view that it is a useful tool that reflects common sense. There was discussion about "some risk", and I dealt with that earlier. It reflects our debate on the principle that one can never give a 100 per cent guarantee in respect of every single country. One is talking about cases where there is a serious risk; that is to say, where there is a reasonable possibility rather than only a speculative one. I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, supported the amendment. I dealt with "entitled to reside" at some length. His probing amendment was vigorously opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who argued that the last thing one wants under this provision is to catch people who either happen to be in transit or are simply temporary visitors to the states on the list. We agree strongly that those in transit are not generally entitled to reside in a transit country, and we do not intend to apply the provision in that way. I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks because I do not know what Parliament would do. We would have to determine our response in the light of what

1033
Parliament did. I make it absolutely clear that the Government do not support remotely the idea of temporary residence.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, treated us to an exhilarating summary of the Ahmadi case, which is not very helpful in determining the right approach. We submit that the right approach is to look for someone who is ordinarily resident in these countries. That would normally mean a national, but some people will be ordinarily resident full time without being nationals, for the reasons that I described. We are not aiming to apply the provision to temporary residents. Equally, to use the word "permanent" gives rise to numerous legal problems and does not assist the resolution of a common-sense test. We are not necessarily far apart in our objectives. The real issue is how to draft it most effectively in order to achieve it.
The noble Lord then referred to the question of adding to the list, and to the words "in general". We were all pleased to be treated to the words of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who I am glad to see in his place. I am sorry that he did not hear his words quoted. The words "in general" reflect the approach that we have just been discussing. It will never be possible to give a 100 per cent guarantee in respect of every case. That is why the words "in general" are used. Although I am sure that it was not intended, it reflects the approach by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who stated that EU countries, not the accession states, are "generally safe countries". That common-sense approach reflects the one that we have been taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also rightly said that any country that was added could be removed, but any country on the list that is added by this amendment to the primary legislation cannot be removed. The reason for the distinction is that these countries are very far down the road towards joining the European Union. It would be wrong to provide for their possible removal, thereby giving rise to the possibility of a legal challenge against the Secretary of State on grounds that he has not exercised his powers. We do what noble Lords said; we put the countries listed on the face of the Bill in a different category to those that would be added subsequently by order.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as one would expect him to do. Also, as one would not expect him to do, he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the words, "in general". He then made the same point that we discussed earlier. He used examples to indicate that even "safe countries" may not be safe. I have accepted that individual cases may succeed even from the countries on the list. However, that would not be the norm and, just as the UNHCR document recognises, our approach is a sensible way to deal with asylum claims. I do not think that I need to deal with the individual examples that the noble Earl gave.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that I must still justify why we are taking a list approach. It is a sensible way of dealing with applications from countries where the vast majority of claims do not succeed. It would be
1034
wrong for us not to recognise that in how we deal with them. That does not mean that the system is unable to identify well-founded claims and allow those applications to succeed. The noble Earl referred to later added countries, which I have dealt with.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the position of Roma. The case of Hrbac, which is about a Roma application for asylum, was heard on 23rd April 2002 by a legally qualified immigration appeal tribunal. After a full independent consideration of the matter, chaired by the president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the case was determined on 7th June, 2002. It was stated that:
"The position in the Czech Republic is such that it will in our view be impossible for a Roma or anyone who has suffered as a result of a discrimination against Roma to establish a well founded fear of persecution".
The name of that case is Hrbac. That is the way the system deals with it.
Lord Avebury: Is the noble and learned Lord saying that an individual adjudicator, however distinguished, knows more about the phenomenon than, say the European Roma Rights Centre, or the High Commissioner for National Minorities in the OSCE, or the rapporteur on racial intolerance at the United Nations High Commission and many other authorities which could be quoted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am saying that the debate is about the extent to which the system that includes the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should be open on the basis of an in-country or an out-of-country appeal. The system to which the argument relates for allowing in-country appeals has given that comment. It is an independent judicial figure. I make no claim about who knows more about it than any other group. I simply draw attention to how the system has dealt with the claims so far.
Unless there are any other points with which, after reading Hansard I think I should deal, I urge Members of the Committee to support the government amendment and reject the amendment to Amendment No. 9.
Lord Goodhart: The noble and learned Lord cited a passage from the comments of the UNHCR. Immediately following that passage, there is another paragraph which states:
"Clearly, a safe country of origin list and a presumption of non-validity places a heavier burden of proof on an asylum applicant. Asylum applicants must therefore be given a real opportunity to rebut the presumption, recognising that a rebuttal will only be truly effective where an appeal is heard in the UK".
Does the Minister therefore agree that the UNHCR is saying that even if a safe list is justifiable for allocating cases to the accelerated procedure, it is not an appropriate motor to use for the purpose of deciding to return an applicant while an appeal is pending?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Looking at Clause 12, I can see that to some extent that knocks a problem in

1035
the point I was making relating to the UNHCR document. However, it does not detract from the basic point I was making about the principle.
Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9A.
Amendment No. 9A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 50, line 14, leave out "who is in the United Kingdom"
Page 50, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert "the claim or claims mentioned in subsection (1) is or are clearly unfounded."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 50, line 17, at end insert—
3 "(2A)
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that an asylum claimant or human rights claimant is entitled to reside in a State listed in subsection (2B) he shall certify the claim under subsection (2) unless satisfied that it is not clearly unfounded.
(2B) Those States are—

(a) the Republic of Cyprus,

(b) the Czech Republic,

(c) the Republic of Estonia,

(d) the Republic of Hungary,

(e) the Republic of Latvia,

(f) the Republic of Lithuania,

(g) the Republic of Malta,

(h) the Republic of Poland,

(i) the Slovak Republic, and

(j) the Republic of Slovenia.

17 (2C)
The Secretary of State may by order add a State, or part of a State, to the list in subsection (2B) if satisfied that—
1920 (a)
there is in general in that State or part no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that State or part, and
2122 (b)
removal to that State or part of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention.
25 (2D)
The Secretary of State may by order remove from the list in subsection (2B) a State or part added under subsection (2C)."
[Amendments Nos. 12A to 12K, as amendments to Amendment No. 12, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 50, line 18, leave out "who is in the United Kingdom"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I propose that the Committee stage begin not before 9.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Order 2002
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a key United Kingdom interest that the people of the western Balkans should be able to put violence and instability behind them and join the democratic European mainstream.
The past few years have seen great changes in the region. Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have taken important steps to reject the politics of nationalism and embrace the vision of a European future. Tudjman is dead. Milosevic stands trial for war crimes in The Hague. The crisis last year in Macedonia has been overcome. Recent elections have been broadly peaceful and judged to meet international standards.
The European Union is a key player in the long-term normalisation of the region and its new strategic role in the Balkans has been crucial to these breakthroughs. The agreement we debate today is an example of the contracts the EU is making with the countries of the region, which are central to the EU strategy.
The European Union's stabilisation and association process in the Balkans acknowledges that the countries of the region have a real chance to join the Union. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of this strategy. It will bring the countries of south-eastern Europe closer to the EU, offering the perspective of EU membership. It does not do this unconditionally. Accession negotiations can start only once the criteria of the Copenhagen European Council and the Treaty of Amsterdam have been met and the regional co-operation satisfactorily established. But the EU offers help to clear those obstacles along the path to Europe. It therefore offers a powerful incentive for change and an important way of building peace and stability in the region.
The EU aid programme for the region is specifically designed to support this process, notably through an emphasis on institution building. It has been allocated nearly 5 billion euros between 2000 and 2006. The crucial contractual elements in this process are the

1037
stabilisation and association agreements (SAAs) that the countries conclude with the EU. The first to have been signed, with Macedonia, is before your Lordships today. But all the states of the region will be able to agree SAAs if they meet the criteria.
Macedonia is emerging from a difficult period. The EU, together with other international actors, has played a key role in bringing about a peaceful settlement of last year's conflict. It is to be hoped that the successful elections on 15th September have marked a clear decision by all parties to move forward.
The stabilisation and association agreement is Macedonia's road to European integration. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples of how. The agreement recognises Macedonia as a "potential candidate" for the EU. It sets out the stages for Macedonia to progress towards eventual EU membership via a closer partnership with the European Union.
The SAA promotes regional co-operation and will open up regional economic opportunities. In addition, the SAA includes a free trade area to be established after 10 years. The agreement also requires Macedonia to adopt European standards on a range of single market issues that should help build up the administrative capacity within the country. The free trade area builds upon the trade preferences that Macedonia and the other countries of the region already enjoy. These provide the most generous access of any Community trade regime with more than 95 per cent duty free access.
Following last year's ethnic violence in Macedonia, the provisions that provide support for democratic, economic and institutional reforms will be a key element in ensuring that Macedonia remains on the course of peace it has chosen and is ultimately able to join the European Union. Macedonia's recent ethnic and political turmoil have underlined the need for continuing reform in the field of law and order. The provisions for co-operation injustice and home affairs in the SAA will therefore receive particular prominence.
Implementation of the SAA by Macedonia will be a central and continuing requirement of the European Union. The formation of the new government in Skopje provides the opportunity to take the steps necessary for this. Implementation of the SAA will reinforce public administration reform and good governance. Our own DfID and the European Commission are working to provide support for this.
I had hoped to be able today to present the EU/ Croatia stabilisation and association agreement to your Lordships. However, for the promise of "potential candidate" of the EU to be meaningful, it is essential to maintain the political criteria. This includes full co-operation with the EU and the international community. As many of your Lordships will be aware, the Croatian Government have failed to hand over General Janko Bobetko to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia—the ICTY. General Bobetko has been indicted for war
1038
crimes, and co-operation with the ICTY is an SAA requirement for Croatia. The EU has warned Croatia that it must co-operate with the ICTY if it wants to pursue its European vocation. Given that Croatia is not respecting its obligations, the Government have decided that it would not be appropriate to put the SAA before the House today.
Nevertheless, the UK remains a staunch supporter of Croatia's EU aspirations. We hope that Croatia will move swiftly to comply with the indictment against General Bobetko and thereby fulfil its international obligations. Once this is resolved, we will continue the process of ratifying Croatia's SAA.
The Government believe that the European Union's role as a source of stability is vital for the future peace of the western Balkans. The SAAs are important building blocks for this. The Macedonian stabilisation and association agreement will serve as a strong political message of EU support to the wider region and should act as a catalyst for other states. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [37th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for so clearly explaining this order and the reason why we are not discussing Croatia today. On behalf of these Benches, I should also like to wish her well after her recent operation.
We welcome any measures that would bring greater stability to south-east Europe after the many years of conflict these countries have endured. It is time to help rebuild their external relations with surrounding neighbours as well as with the EU. It is time also to rebuild their confidence and prosperity. I should add that one sphere in which Macedonia clearly does not need our support or advice is football.
This agreement is an opportunity for the EU to prove its commitment to Macedonia as a "potential candidate". Macedonia needs a clear prospect of accession to the EU. Can the Minister tell the House what expectations Macedonia has for joining the EU and a possible timeframe? Implementing a framework that encourages regular political dialogue and a commitment to promote regional co-operation increases the chance of success. We welcome the assistance to support democratic, economic and institutional reforms, the co- operation injustice and home affairs, and the establishment of a free trade area.
Macedonia has been given a transitional period of only six years before a free trade area is established. We feel that, on balance, this is a realistic period and will help focus the attention of policy makers in Macedonia on maintaining good governance and stability. This is also an opportunity for Macedonia to prove its commitment to the peace process. Achieving the goals of the SAAs will not be easy. As the Minister pointed out, Macedonia is emerging from a difficult period. She also mentioned the violence there last year.

1039
The European Commission has warned of potential dangers to the success of the SAA. In its first report on the stabilisation and association process for south-east Europe, it said that,
"critical weaknesses in the rule of law and democratic institutions, endemic corruption, the threat of resurgence of extreme forms of nationalism, as well as poverty and social exclusion, all pose a serious threat".
Bearing in mind that SAAs are a means of harmonising the legislation of the "potential EU candidates" such as Macedonia with European law, how do the Government expect to avoid such pitfalls?
Finally, what assurances has the EU sought to ensure the peace and stability required by the SAAs?
Lord Roper: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the adoption of this extremely important order. As has been said, it is the first of the stability and association agreements with one of the west Balkan countries to come before this House. I shall return in a moment to the issue of the Croatian SAA. As one who was concerned with issues of the west Balkans before becoming a Member of this place, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate. The joys and uncertainties of being a Chief Whip are manifold, and being able to speak in this debate is certainly one of the joys.
Macedonia is a very beautiful country, as anyone who has travelled in the vicinity of Lake Ohrid will know. The foundation of much of Slav culture can be found around Lake Ohrid. It was in a monastery near there that St Cyril and his colleagues first developed the Cyrillic alphabet which spread not only around the west Balkans but into Russia. Macedonia is a country of great culture and history.
As we know, however, Macedonia has also had considerable problems. The strains between the Slavo-Macedonian and Albanian communities which arose in the post-communist period were a major concern to us only 18 months ago. The strains are partly internal to the country. The Albanian community felt that it was under-represented in some national institutions and that its opportunities for education were not equal to those of the majority, or indeed in accordance with the initial drafts of the constitution of the Macedonian Republic.
There have been great efforts. The efforts of the EU High Representative and those working with him and of NATO were an extraordinarily interesting example of co-operation between two western institutions in bringing stability to a country which could have been destabilised and created yet another problem in the west Balkans, following earlier conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. We should commend those efforts.
As has been said from the Opposition Benches, by asking Macedonia to live up to the obligations of the stability and association agreement, we are expecting a great deal. Leaving aside Croatia, to which I shall return, I believe that the process is a good example not only to Macedonia but to other countries of the west Balkans which should be in the queue. To my mind the
1040
only way in which we shall be able to bring stability to the area which lies between two separate parts of the European Union—I refer to the countries to the north of Italy and of Austria and, in the future, of Hungary, and those to the south of Greece—is if we can demonstrate to them the opportunities afforded by membership of the European Union. Then we shall see them become members of it in due course.
I refer to a slightly trivial but not, unfortunately, totally unimportant issue. Most of us have this evening talked about Macedonia. Indeed, yesterday evening when I heard a good deal of discussion of that country, I do not remember anyone mentioning the name, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or, indeed, the acronym FYROM. When the country team plays in football matches, the FYROM acronym rarely appears. Yet, to this day, the country is known at the United Nations by the acronym, FYROM. However, I notice that that is translated differently in EU documents according to the language in which the relevant document is written. That matter is an unfortunate consequence of the quarrels which occurred in the early 1990s between Greece and the incipient republic of Macedonia. A difficult compromise was reached to use the acronym FYROM. That acronym is a relic of quarrels between Greece and the republic which go back to disputes over Alexander the Great and the symbols which he used. I believe that many of us can remember the heat, as opposed to the light, which was generated by Greeks and Macedonians on this subject in the early 1990s. It is rather sad that the European Union has not been able to use its influence with its Greek colleagues and elsewhere to resolve this rather tedious and trivial piece of history to enable the country to be referred to as Macedonia, as is the football team.
It was drawn to my attention that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the explanatory memorandum refer to the figures nil and nil. Perhaps that is a better result than that which occurred last night. I note that the agreement will result in a low cost to the public purse. As the Minister said in moving the order, we are making important contributions through DfID and in other ways. The agreement does not increase the figure of 5 billion euros—I believe that is the figure the Minister mentioned—which the European Union is contributing. If we want to build this nation into a healthy potential collaborator within the Union, it is extremely important that we assist it in the programmes which are undertaken.
Before I conclude I wish to pick up a point made by the Minister in introducing the order; namely, that we do not have the Croatian order before us today. That is a disappointment to all of us. Developments in Croatia since the death of Tudjman have been in general rather encouraging in a number of ways although there have been economic setbacks and disappointments.
I am rather tempted—although I shall not do so—to follow the line taken by the right reverend Prelate at Question Time who asked whether we could not exert some leverage on Slovakia as regards the language that is directed at British players during football matches in which Britain and Slovakia take part. I refer to

1041
exerting influence in the negotiations and discussions which will take place in Copenhagen. We can exert leverage upon countries that wish to accede to the European Union. In the case of Croatia, that is a good thing.
It is rather difficult to make too many predictions about accessions to the European Union. Therefore, I resist the temptation to make a prediction as to whether Macedonia will win a European football championship outright before it accedes to the European Union. For various reasons, I hope that it accedes first.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the Motion seeks the approval of the draft order laid before the House on 17th July. Clearly, it will be approved and I am content that that should be so. However, I should like to take advantage of this debate to make three sets of comments which are largely derived from the explanatory memorandum. This is an opportunity for us to consider not merely the situation in Macedonia and its prospects of eventual membership of the European Union but also the situation of the west Balkans generally.
First, what are the ultimate objectives? I take no view on the eventual constitutional relationship between Serbia and Montenegro or, indeed, on the eventual status of Kosovo. However, as regards Bosnia, Croatia, and, ultimately, Albania, we have in prospect the whole of the Balkans being transformed into an integral part of whatever association we have in respect of Europe. It is not just a question of our instructing them how they should adjust their procedures but also of their telling us that a congress of Europe, a European partnership, will have to be a great deal more flexible than it has tended to be in the past if such a future is to be happily accommodated. I hope that that will be the case but I believe that such a situation will put particular pressure on the factors of decentralisation and of variety.
If one is still talking largely in economic terms and thinking of the original Rome treaty as being the standard by which membership will be accommodated, one must be increasingly suspicious of whether that particular economic blueprint—happy as I was with it in respect of the United Kingdom—will be suitable in a world where capitalism is under different considerations and different pressures and, above all, incorporating parts of Europe where there is a strong corporatist tradition. I have no reason to believe that that will just disappear because of what have been the fashionable economics of western Europe.
I turn to my second point. There is a tendency in most European matters to have a rhetoric which is reassuring but not too precise and a reality which is rather different. The memorandum states that provisions of agreements may be
"directly effective in the United Kingdom, if they are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional".
A great deal of the argument with regard to the future development of Macedonia and, indeed, that of the adjacent Balkan countries will concern the
1042
reconciliation of their economies with those of the existing European Union member states. On the basis of the existing European Union—not the European Union expanded by the 10 applicant members—we are learning from the behaviour of the German economy in the context of the euro and from the behaviour of French public spending ambitions in the context of the stabilisation requirements that even as regards economies that are in some ways relatively in harmony, great difficulties arise. In my judgment, those difficulties will be compounded rather than diminished over time.
Therefore, we should consider particularly the economic circumstances of applicant countries, particularly Macedonia. I say that in no hostile sense. However, there is a growing awareness of a Europe whose members' economic practices are often somewhat different from those of the original six members of the European Community and, indeed, those of the current expanded Community.
I rest that tentative proposition on the words of Commissioner Prodi. His discussion of the problems that would arise from the expansion of the European Union to include the 10 applicant members was reported in a Commission press release of 9th October. He said:
"I should also mention another two extremely serious problems: corruption, which, apart from a few exceptions, infects many of these countries, and the shameful trafficking in human beings".
I shall discuss corruption for a moment. I pass no moral judgment on this matter but I believe that that is a reasonable description on the part of Signor Prodi of that situation. I do not believe that that would be any less reasonable in relation to the west Balkan countries that are now seeking the prospect of eventual membership. That is not simply a question of financial corruption or the unreliability of accounts, which would make even western accounts appear tolerably blameless; I refer also to a commercial world that is free from regulation and which contracts out of regulation. Regulation is an increasing aspect of the economic processes in the existing European Union. To assess that—so that we can measure the nature of the problem and the speed with which we should try to reconcile it—those rather imprecise words and concepts referred to by Signor Prodi have to be quantified. If the language is clear, precise and unconditional, I say to the House that a great deal of the world of economics—a great deal of the world of economics in the 10 applicant countries as well as in Macedonia and its immediate neighbours—will inevitably be highly conditional. We must recognise that and make our own assessments.
Finally, I turn to the issue that has inhibited our consideration of Croatia this evening; namely, the war crime trials. These are immensely difficult situations and I am sorry that this debate proceeds in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who, probably more than any other Member of this House, is, by his experience, well able to speak authoritatively of the situation in former Yugoslavia. I do not know what his recorded opinions are; I wish that he were here so that

1043
he could give us some guidance in this regard. It is my impression that he feels that we are approaching the time when the constant preoccupation and search for war crimes is proving counterproductive. There must be some reality to that view, if that is in fact his view.
Does the House really suppose that the recent elections in Yugoslavia—they ended with the fiasco of having now had three elections but not enough people have voted to validate them—are not unconnected with the resentment in that country about the treatment of Milosevic and the powerful residual support for him? Can we not think more in terms of what Mandela and the South Africans did to try to overcome the termination of what was then a period of acute discord and hostility? We can learn much from that.
This debate has ranged as far back as Alexander the Great so perhaps I can tuck in a reference to our own experience during the Restoration in 1660. One of the first Acts was the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion. As the cynics then said, "Indemnity for the king's foes and oblivion for the king's friends". I stress that at some stage one has to draw the line. I believe that, whatever may be the therapeutic virtue of war crimes—I should be far happier if they were settled within national boundaries and national jurisdictions—at some point we have to draw the line as part of the effort to create a better confidence and a sense of renewal and reconciliation in that part of Europe.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I begin by echoing what has been said: I welcome my noble friend back to the House and I hope that she will soon be running and skipping again.
I have two reasons for wanting to discuss the order. First, I visited Macedonia at the invitation of the Foreign Office a year ago to meet trade unions and Ministers in the Macedonian Government, largely to discuss the question of structural change and employment in the context of its national framework agreement. Secondly, as has been said, the order ties in with the whole question of aid to the west Balkans generally. I am a member of Sub-Committee A, which in April produced the report, Responding to the Balkan Challenge: the role of EU aid. Because it is not being debated separately, perhaps I may also make a couple of remarks on that.
I stress the enormous difficulty and delicacy of combining and reconciling the external requirements of the stabilisation and association agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, mentioned corruption. That is one of many examples of the delicacy involved: it is essential to have a firm grip on the detail. The papers to which these countries are signing up are far from generalised statements; they are very detailed indeed. Perhaps I differ from the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, in that regard. I refer to the national strategy papers and so on. It is difficult so far to reconcile the greater detailed papers with the lack of much ownership down the line of the reform programme on the ground.
1044
It is astonishing, for example, that people are expected to change their employment structures without having the first idea of where alternative employment might be found. I am afraid that, much as I share the view that the market economy is essentially where we are going, I certainly do not share the view that it is a miracle cure and that one can get rid of half of the people in the old state enterprises, as they did, without knowing what they are going to do and not be surprised that, years later, the gross national product per head is still below what it was when the exercise was starting out.
I welcome the fact that, in their response to the report of the European Union Committee, the Government accepted the recommendation, strongly endorsing the view that local ownership of those processes is crucial to their successful implementation. The country strategy papers are colloquially known as the EU "road map"; there is a "road map" for Macedonia, for Bosnia, and so on. The road map is a very effective metaphor. We all know that we are not forced to follow a road map—we can throw it on the back seat of the car—but that when we want to look at it, it is there. It has become an accepted metaphor and it somehow involves the idea that it is a particular person's road map, although it is written in Brussels or, I hope, Skopje or Tetovo and so on.
It follows from what I have said that we still need to see a culture change to avoid the impression that international civil servants simply parachute in their blueprint for country x and express surprise when not much happens at the other end. I put that dilemma to the Deputy Prime Minister of Macedonia, pointing out that trade unions and other stakeholders in civil society said that they had not been consulted on the strategy paper. He accepted on behalf of the Macedonian Government that they had not given the required attention to that point, but neither had the European Union. Indeed, the EU ambassador in Skopje said, "I agree with your analysis, but there is not a lot that I can do about it with my resources". I am afraid that a resource-intensive operation is required on the ground.
There are no easy answers to the situation. After all, we find the problems of reform not a little difficult in Britain—never mind in a country which has 15 or a maximum of 20 per cent of EU average GDP per head. The countries of the west Balkans clearly have a very long way to go in order to get anywhere near raising their sights to EU accession. But it is important that we put that road in front of them and ask them to believe in it.
I hope that the British Government can reinforce what has been said about the EU road map requiring more resources both through the EU and bilaterally. We recognise that 100 million euros a year are being put into Macedonia. The Minister mentioned 5 billion euros over five years.
I shall mention one other figure before I sit down. The 5 billion euros over five years from the EU should be considered side by side with the 5 billion euros that are spent on the military every year in the west

1045
Balkans. With regard to the financial questions, we must ask ourselves constantly whether it is better to be seen to succeed in producing those 5 billion euros a year on the military front by having a very effective aid programme. That is becoming increasingly successful. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the figures make a striking juxtaposition.
In conclusion, I believe that encouraging features are to be seen in Macedonia. My noble friend mentioned that with regard to the internal situation, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, hinted at it vis àvis the Albanian population and the significance of the southern neighbour, Greece, which I believe started to change its attitude towards Skopje. When I was there, I organised meetings between the sectoral unions in Greece and those in Macedonia—that is, the forestry, construction and transport sectors and so on, which had never met. Over the years, early meetings in Athens and Thessalonika went into rhetorical overdrive at the very mention of each other. Now—lo and behold!—they are meeting and co-operating.
We pointed out to them, although that hardly needed to be done, that one good reason for that was that the European Union is not in Brussels; it is 30 or 40 miles down the road over the border towards Thessalonika. That is the new geopolitical reality which can be put alongside the relationship with Bulgaria and, perhaps I may say, Turkey, Albania, Serbia and so on.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that, for all those reasons, and among all the other priorities which naturally face the Government, it is important that the British Government's profile is enhanced.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords who have been kind enough to wish me well. I do not know about "springing about like a lamb"; it would nice just not to hobble to the Dispatch Box. I am sure that that will soon be the case.
I shall do my best to answer the questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the timeframe for the potential candidacy of Macedonia to the EU. I am sure the noble Lord did not believe that I would be able to talk in terms of years or months and years. However, we in this country fully support Macedonia's EU aspirations, and we believe that the implementation of the SAA will be the best and quickest way to take them forward on that road. We very much wish to help them in doing so and to clear the obstacles—some of which I referred to in my opening remarks.
In doing that and in helping with the implementation—another point raised by the noble Lord—perhaps I can give a little more detail. The Department for International Development has provided support to the sector for European integration office within the Macedonian Government, including training and advice on
1046
Macedonia's obligations under Article 68 of the SAA. That article ensures that the laws of Macedonia are compatible with the laws of the EU.
Future support for the sector for European integration will also include specialist legal training, which is obviously an important point. We shall give briefings to parliamentarians in a one-day session after the new government have formed, and that should take place during the course of the next week or so. DfID is also assisting central government with a programme of public administration reform, particularly for the general secretariat, the public administration reform unit and the civil service agency.
The scope of the project has been broadened to take account of demands placed upon the central government, following the signing of the framework agreement in August 2001. Therefore, as well as going through the EU, the UK is giving bilateral assistance. We are giving assistance on conflict prevention and balance of payments support. We are giving technical assistance in support of the framework agreement, which resolved last year's conflict, and a further £2 million of DfID assistance is being made available in various programmes.
Overall, the EU aid programme for Macedonia is in the order of 193.2 million euros between 2000 and 2004. I hope that that gives the noble Lord a little more detail about the practicalities of what we are trying to achieve in helping Macedonia forward on this road.
I believe that the warmth of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, about Macedonia will be very much appreciated by Macedonia's many friends in this country and, indeed, in the country itself. I agree strongly with what he said about NATO. NATO's Task Force Fox has played a significant role in consolidating peace and security in Macedonia. Of course, Task Force Fox will continue to offer international monitors the protection that they need until its mandate runs out on 15th December this year.
Similarly, I agreed with the point—it was not a trivial one—that the noble Lord made about the name of Macedonia. The United Kingdom recognises Macedonia as the Republic of Macedonia in our bilateral relations. We, like the noble Lord, hope that Greece and Macedonia will work together to find a solution to the dispute that has given rise to the point that the noble Lord raised about a sensible name for Macedonia in the future.
The noble Lord also raised issues relating to Croatia. I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. Of course, the situation is disappointing. However, there was a difference of emphasis between my remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, and possibly those of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. In order for the signing of the SAAs to be a meaningful step, there must be some significance in singling out the potential candidates for the EU. General Bobetko is indicted for crimes committed, allegedly, as recently as 1994. That is not very long ago; those crimes occurred in recent memory and are still the cause of a great deal of anger, frustration and difficulty.

1047
The ICTY is there for a purpose. It is supported by the United Kingdom, and we debated the legislation in support of the tribunal. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to require of those who put themselves forward as potential candidates for the EU that they abide by those fundamental principles, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, asked what the objectives were in taking forward that position. The objectives are peace, stability and prosperity for the region. In this instance, the objectives relate to Macedonia but, as I outlined, we hope that they will also apply to the other countries of the western Balkans as we proceed. If those countries wish to draw nearer to the EU, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, that they must draw closer mutually, as he indicated. If that is what the countries of the western Balkans want, then the stabilisation and association agreements provide the quickest way to achieve that objective. The noble Lord also talked about the rhetoric. He said that it was sometimes more reassuring but not necessarily terribly precise. I suspect that there is some truth in that.
The noble Lord commented on the European economies, on which I will not dwell. However, we encourage the Macedonian authorities to concentrate their efforts on economic reform. We hope that the new government will initiate negotiations with the IMF and reach agreement on a new standby arrangement as soon as possible. The noble Lord also raised the question of corruption. I should like to reassure him that the European Union is in constant dialogue with the Macedonian authorities through the EU special representative based in our embassy in Skopje on the issues concerning corruption and the ways in which it can be combated. The SAA should help because it contains provisions for an annual stabilisation and association council at which those issues will be discussed.
I agree with a great many of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lea. We hope that the SAAs will be a key to bringing Macedonia up to some of the European standards, of which we are all well aware. We also agree that there is a great deal of work ahead in doing that. However, the point made by the noble Lord about the need for our friends in Macedonia to have real ownership of a route map which takes them forward was well made and is well taken.
It is important that the Macedonian authorities work towards improving civil society representation. Again, our embassy in Skopje has fed into the commission the need to pursue that through the EU aid programme. I have indicated some of the ways in which that programme will be taking forward those issues. It is important that we keep relating those back to the development of the institutions of civil societies. The points I made were very much in line with the thrust of the report referred to by my noble friend.
I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I do not know about a score of 0-0. I found watching the match yesterday evening very exciting. The score line of 2-2 does not necessarily
1048
indicate just how exciting it was. We can all hope that the Macedonian politicians now equit themselves as well as the Macedonian footballers did last night.
We believe that the role of the European Union as a source of stability is vital for the future peace of the western Balkans. The SAAs are important building blocks working towards that. The Macedonian stabilisation and association agreement will serve as a strong message of European support to the wider regions. We very much hope that this will act as an example and a catalyst to other countries in the region. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 9.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.4 to 9.15 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
"IMMIGRATION RULES
( ) Nothing in the immigration rules shall lay down any practice, which would be contrary to the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention and in particular nothing shall lay down any practice which would lead to the refusal or revocation of limited leave to remain where this would be contrary to the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention."
The noble Earl said: This is a probing amendment and would have been at whatever time of day it was moved. I have explained its purpose to the Minister. It concerns the remarks made by the Home Secretary in his article in The Times on 7th October about exceptional leave to remain. He said that it should be granted more sparingly.
The Home Secretary made no reference to those who already enjoy exceptional leave to remain, which is granted for limited periods and is renewable. Nevertheless, it has created a considerable degree of alarm among those who have exceptional leave to remain and hope to integrate themselves into this country. I believe that such alarm is unnecessary and I hope that the Minister can assure me further to that effect.
For the case that I want to argue I rely on the preparatory articles of the UN convention and the UN convention handbook. I am perfectly well aware that places from which refugees have come that have been unsafe may in the future become safe. I am aware that people may want to return and that some have returned, but in the words of the convention itself, in preparatory Article C(5),
"circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist",

1049
and therefore he can,
"continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality".
However, I am concerned about the proviso in the convention which states:
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this Article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality".
That also applies to Article C(6) with which at present we are not concerned.
That is expounded further in the UN handbook which states:
"The cessation clauses are negative in character and are exhaustively enumerated. They should therefore be interpreted restrictively, and no other reasons may be adduced by way of analogy to justify the withdrawal of refugee status. Needless to say, if a refugee, for whatever reasons, no longer wishes to be considered a refugee, there will be no call for continuing to grant him refugee status".
Please forgive these quotations but they are to the point.
"Article 1C does not deal with the cancellation of refugee status".
That deals with the point.
It is argued in the handbook that it should apply to those who have special protection of any sort and not just to those who are formally recognised as refugees.
"The exception, however, reflects a more general humanitarian principle, which could also be applied to refugees other than statutory refugees. It is frequently recognized that a person who—or whose family—has suffered under atrocious forms of persecution should not be expected to repatriate. Even though there may have been a change of regime in his country, this may not always produce a complete change in the attitude of the population, nor, in view of his past experiences, in the mind of the refugee".
The assurance for which I hoped is that no one will be required to repatriate in those circumstances. If he and his immediate family have been the victims—in the word of the convention—of atrocious persecution, if they wish to return that is a quite different matter. But it is well-recognised that having been the victim of atrocious persecution may produce a sense of trauma which makes return to the scene of the persecution a genuinely unbearable experience.
I have one friend who got out of Germany in 1939 at the age of two and a half. She tells me she can still to this day no longer pass through Aachen station without being physically sick.
It is that kind of situation I have in mind, where members of the family have been killed, where there has been, say, a home destroyed and burned and people forcibly driven out with members of the family missing, presumed killed. In these circumstances I do not believe that the Home Secretary will require anyone with exceptional leave to remain to leave this country and return to the scene of any such persecution.
I have given those assurances to people who have asked me for them. I should like the Minister to confirm that I was right to do so. I ask this in hope and in confidence. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I suggest that the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment because I believe it will save them a considerable number of future legal problems. I am reinforced in that point of view by paragraphs 15 to 18 of the paper from the UNHCR dated 15th October commenting on the Home Secretary's announcement of 7th October.
Lord Filkin: I shall go as far as I think it is prudent to go today, but I should like to look carefully at what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said when we consider Hansard. If I can go further I shall write to him.
In broad terms, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, technically there is no need for the amendment. The existing legislation prevents immigration rules being made in breach of the refugee convention. Similarly, the Human Rights Act prevents those rules being in breach of ECHR, since Section 6 would make the setting of rules which were incompatible with the convention rights an unlawful act.
The noble Earl reflected that this was a probing amendment, particularly concerned with situations where traumatised people had, for example, suffered torture in the past and might be removed from the United Kingdom should the general conditions in their country of origin improve.
On the first case where someone has refugee status and has been granted indefinite leave to remain, there are only limited circumstances where they can be removed under immigration powers. I do not think that they particularly relate to these sets of circumstances. Therefore, as the noble Earl implied, it is a question that focuses on a situation where someone has not been given refugee status under the 1951 convention, but has been given humanitarian protection and therefore exceptional leave to remain, which is, as the Committee knows, by definition for limited periods which can be removed.
It is possible that such leave might not be renewed when it has expired, as has been referred to in general terms. Whether or not it was renewed on the specific types of examples would, in the typical words, depend on the individual merits of the case. Where a person has suffered badly in a particular country, that would not of itself mean that he continues to be a refugee, but it would be a factor that would be taken into account when deciding whether it would be appropriate to grant further leave to remain. So much is obvious and what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would expect, but it would be a factor for consideration. However, perhaps he wants to press me further than that. I cannot give a categorical assurance that in all circumstances and all types of cases people would never be removed. On reflection, I cannot go that far—which does not mean that I will not be able to go further.

1051
What I can say is that if people were at the end of their period of leave, it would be open to them to make the case in their application for further leave and to bring to the department's attention the history of their trauma and any relevant medical evidence that pointed to it. Without being categoric, that would automatically protect them; I suspect that that would be given most serious consideration. One would have to be aware of the convention's provisions and the protections that it implies and have good reason not to be seen to be flying in its face.
I do not want to go further than that tonight—not because I am being churlish but because I should like to consider the matter in detail and write to the noble Earl more precisely about the position, if that would be helpful. With that, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will bear with me for now—no doubt reserving his right to return to the matter later.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that answer. I understand that, in the circumstances, it was all that the Minister could give me. "Never" is, of course, a short time in politics. I am aware that people may want to take into account many other considerations. But, assuming no other factor creating any argument against the continuation of leave to remain and model conduct in the intervening time, I hope that those concerned could approach a case with at least a reasonable degree of confidence. I shall await the Minister's letter—his offer is much appreciated—with the same confidence in mind. I thank him for his care and trouble and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Regulations, &c.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 57, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) An order under section 88(2C) or 107(9)—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument,

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(c) may include transitional provision.

( ) An order under section 88(2D) or 107(10)—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument,

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) may include transitional provision."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Interpretation]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 57, line 17, at end insert—
asylum claim" means a claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State that to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention,"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. The two government amendments define the terms 'asylum claim" and "human rights claim" for the purposes of Part 5. The definitions adopt the standard references to the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention and adherence to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on acting compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. They also require the asylum or human rights claim to be made to the Secretary of State at a place designated by him. That is the requirement that the opposition amendments seek to debase.
The purpose of that requirement is simply to ensure that claims are made in person, so that proper contact is established between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the applicant and that present difficulties with postal claims are avoided. There are several examples of such difficulties, such as where a claim is made by post with no details of how to contact the claimant, which may lead to the ridiculous situation of an unresolved claim lying around indefinitely, or where we have a return address but the applicant never responds to our requests to attend a screening interview, with the result that we end up refusing claims of people we have never even seen and who may not even exist. Again, that is unsatisfactory.
I assure the Committee that sufficient sites will be designated to make it easy for a person to lodge their claim in person. There is the further issue that lodging the claim in person establishes the increased contact that is one of the underlying objectives of the Bill.
There is no intention to make it difficult for a person who wishes to make an asylum or human rights claim—far from it. We plan to have, by March 2003, a substantial number of screening sites in operation for in-country applicants. I shall rattle through the list: Croydon and other parts of London, Dover and various places in the south and south-west—for example, Portsmouth, Southampton, Poole, Bristol and Plymouth. I am not sure whether it will be all of those or whether those are illustrations; I will need to check. There will also be sites at Cardiff, Stansted and in Norfolk by the summer/autumn 2003; Birmingham and Northampton by the summer/autumn 2003; various sites in the North East—for example Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, Humberside, the Tees and the Tyne—Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast.
I hope that, given that coverage, the Committee will accept that it is not unreasonable to expect someone to attend in person.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 16A:
Line 2, leave out "at a place designated by the Secretary of State"
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister. He has answered several points that I was going to raise. However, there are still one or two points about which, I hope, he will give some further information.
We accept that the amendments are fairly technical. However, we want to probe the Government on the effect of demanding that a claim for asylum be made,
"at a place designated by the Secretary of State".
The Minister listed the places that are to be designated. We will examine the list, but it would be helpful to know how people will get to those places. Will funds be provided to allow them to travel there? What will happen to a person who asserts a need for protection at a port, including airside, or when picked up, for example, at the side of a motorway, having emerged from a lorry? Will such people be treated as asylum seekers between the moment that they assert a need for international protection and the time that they reach the designated place?
A person ought to be treated as having made an asylum or human rights claim in the UK wherever or however he or she makes it. In particular, those who express a fear of persecution must be treated as asylum claimants and should not face a further procedural hurdle, set up purely for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. The UK's obligations exist irrespective of how or when a person makes his or her asylum claim. No legal rights, including appeal rights, should be jeopardised on account of how or where an asylum claim is made. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I will have a shot at some of the issues, but we will need a letter for others.
How will people get there? In general, it will be by public transport. I suspect that the noble Lord was probing to find out who would pay for such public transport. I will come back to him on that. Someone who registers for asylum at a port will be able to make an application at a port. I must leave it at that for now, but I shall come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. In the light of what he has said, I look forward to his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No.16, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 57, line 19, at end insert—
human rights claim" means a claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State that to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (public authority not to act contrary to Convention) as being incompatible with his Convention rights,"
[Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim: transitional provision]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 58, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
2 "(1) A person may not bring an appeal under section 65 or 69 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (human rights and asylum) while in the United Kingdom if—
5 (a) the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal relates to a human rights claim or an asylum claim which is clearly unfounded, and
(b) the person does not have another right of appeal while in the United Kingdom under Part IV of that Act."
[Amendments Nos. 18A and 18B, as amendments to Amendment No. 18, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No.18 agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21:
Page 58, line 8, leave out "who is" and insert "while"
Page 58, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
Page 58, line 19, leave out "who is" and insert "while"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 58, line 36, at end insert—
"(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person who makes a human rights claim or an asylum claim is entitled to reside in a State listed in subsection (8), he shall issue a certificate under subsection (1) unless satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded.
(8) Those States are—

(a) the Republic of Cyprus,

(b) the Czech Republic,

(c) the Republic of Estonia,

(d) the Republic of Hungary,

(e) the Republic of Latvia,

(f) the Republic of Lithuania,

(g) the Republic of Malta,

(h) the Republic of Poland,

(i) the Slovak Republic, and

(j) the Republic of Slovenia.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order add a State, or part of a State, to the list in subsection (8) if satisfied that—

(a) there is in general in that State or part no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that State or part, and

(b) removal to that State or part of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention.

(10) The Secretary of State may by order remove from the list in subsection (8) a State or part added under subsection (9)."
[Amendments Nos. 22A to 22L, as amendments to Amendment No. 22, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 22 agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"NORTHERN IRELAND APPEALS: LEGAL AID
(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8)) (proceedings for which legal aid may be given under Part II of that Order) the following shall be inserted after paragraph 6—
"6A. Proceedings before an adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission."
(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) is without prejudice to the power to make regulations under Article 10(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 amending or revoking the provision inserted by that subsection."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is simple and straightforward. It seeks to bring proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the immigration adjudicators, the Immigration Appellate Authority, within the scope of legal aid in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we can all agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Can the Minister confirm that appeals by people who have reached Northern Ireland will be heard there and that they will not be compelled to travel to Liverpool or somewhere else in England to have their appeals heard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As far as we are aware, to date there has never been an SIAC case where the appellant has been based in Northern Ireland. Were it to be the case we would want to be certain that legal aid was available. It is our intention that funding for such issues will be provided by the Home Office through the law centre for Northern Ireland. As I understand it, we do not have a centre in Northern Ireland and so it is likely that appeals will be held away from there. However, we shall ensure that all the necessary facilities are provided as close as possible to where the applicant is based. But such a case is unlikely to arise. We have not yet had a case in Northern Ireland which would fall to be covered by the provision.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 145 to 151 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Withholding and Withdrawal of Support]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 92, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) section 29(1)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26) (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need where review of a local authority decision has been requested),"
The noble Lord said: We spoke earlier about benefit shopping. This measure will further assist local authorities by making their obligations clear when dealing with applications for housing assistance from persons covered by the benefit shopping policy in Schedule 3. There has been a recent case in Bristol where a Dutch national of Somali origin secured an injunction from the High Court requiring Bristol City Council to accommodate her under the homeless legislation while the council carried out a review of its decision that she was ineligible for homelessness assistance.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to introduce measures to remove the discretionary power given to local housing authorities to accommodate those persons covered by the benefit shopping policy pending a review or appeal against a decision that they are ineligible for homelessness assistance.
The applicant asked Bristol City Council to review its decision. The council declined to exercise its power to accommodate her pending that review. She then applied for judicial review of the decision not to accommodate pending the review and was granted an injunction requiring the council to exercise its discretionary power to accommodate.
This is a recent development. However, when the benefit shopping measures in the Bill come into force, we are concerned that this provision might be used more frequently and the courts would require local housing authorities to provide accommodation. It is also the case that an amendment to the Housing Act 1996 inserted by the Homelessness Act 2002 provides a new right of appeal to the county court against a decision by the local housing authority not to exercise its power to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court on the substantive homelessness decision.
Local authority resources must be preserved for those in most need. These measures apply only to those classes of person covered by the benefit shopping policy and those persons who have support available elsewhere, are here unlawfully, or are failed asylum seekers who can leave but refuse to do so.
The LGA has agreed that the amendment will deal with this particular situation and is not opposed to it. We are taking this step to protect local authorities and will be meeting with the LGA to ensure smooth implementation as part of an on-going consultation programme.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are minor and technical. They ensure that provisions in Scottish law mirror those of England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are, again, essentially minor and technical. They will allow the benefit shopping measures to be used flexibly.
Without going into more detail, I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 29:
Page 93, line 1, leave out "section 29" and insert "sections 22. 29 and 30"
Page 93, line 1, leave out "(after-care)" and insert "(provisions analogous to those mentioned in paragraph (f))"
Page 93, line 1, at end insert—
"( ) section 188(3) or 204(4) of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (accommodation pending review or appeal),"
Page 96, line 20, at end insert "or only for specified purposes"
Page 96, line 21, leave out "or circumstances" and insert ", circumstances or purposes"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 to 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Transitional Provision]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 101, line 26, at end insert—
"House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices) for "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999." substitute "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.".
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)
In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices) for "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999." substitute "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002."."
Page 102, line 26, at end insert—
"Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)
In Schedule 11 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (judges &c. barred from legal practice) for "Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)" substitute "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53)
In paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (tribunals under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for "section 57 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999" substitute "section 75 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for "section 56 of that Act" substitute "section 94 of that Act".

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)
In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (offices which may be qualifying judicial offices) for "Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)" substitute "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".
In Schedule 5 to that Act (retirement provisions: the relevant offices) for "Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)" substitute "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002"."
The noble Baroness said: These amendments are technical and consequential. They update references in five other Acts of Parliament, which refer to adjudicators appointed under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to make clear that these references should now refer to adjudicators appointed under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 104, line 12, at end insert—
"Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)
The following shall be substituted for paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (lifestyle offences: England and Wales: people trafficking)—
"4 (1) An offence under section 25, 25A or 25B of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting unlawful immigration etc.).
(2) An offence under section 130 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (traffic in prostitution)."
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to that Act (lifestyle offences: Scotland: people trafficking) for "section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting illegal entry etc.)" there shall be substituted "section 25, 25A or 25B of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting unlawful immigration etc.)".
The following shall be substituted for paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to that Act (lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland: people trafficking)—
"4(1) An offence under section 25, 25A or 25B of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (assisting unlawful immigration etc.).
(2) An offence under section 130 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (traffic in prostitution).""
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment flowing from Clause 132. The majority of people who have entered the United Kingdom illegally have been assisted in their entry by organised criminals acting for gain. The amendment replaces the present reference in the Proceeds of Crime Act to an offence under Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 with references to the new sections inserted by Clause 132 of this Bill and to the new offence under Clause 134. I hope that that is clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 115, line 36, leave out "paragraph 2" and insert "paragraphs 2 and 6"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
The Commons amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Cleveland and North Yorkshire Division
  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Cleveland and North Yorkshire Division
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Zimbabwe: EU Sanctions Policy
  Zimbabwe: EU Sanctions Policy
  Commonwealth: Member States' Constitutions
  Commonwealth: Member States' Constitutions
  Mandatory Life Sentence Prisoners: ECHR Judgment
  Mandatory Life Sentence Prisoners: ECHR Judgment
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  EU Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation Funding
  EU Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation Funding
  3G Services
  3G Services
  The Ridgeway
  The Ridgeway
  Brixham Marina
  Brixham Marina
  European Year of Disabled People 2003
  European Year of Disabled People 2003
  Gambling Reform
  Gambling Reform
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer