Sitting of 29 October 2002

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

  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 tomorrow.

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

    Diabetes
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: If he will make a statement on progress towards a national service framework for diabetes. [75349]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We recently published two important national targets for the NHS to improve diabetes care over the next three years. We are currently finalising the wider delivery strategy that will underpin those targets and the national service framework standards, published last December. We shall publish the delivery strategy shortly.
    Mr. Sanders: Given the ever-increasing rise in the number of diabetics being diagnosed, are the Government satisfied that the sums of money being talked about will be sufficient? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the Government's targets are met?
    Jacqui Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman and the all-party group play an important part and have a close interest in this issue, and I welcome that. The two targets that I outlined, for improving the monitoring and treatment provided through primary care and for ensuring that diabetic retinopathy screening is more widely available, are in the planning and performance framework. That is the programme for the NHS for the next three years, and it will receive historic levels of
    664
    funding—real-terms annual increases of 7.5 per cent. Compared with even the wilder dreams of the Liberal Democrats, that is a considerable investment.
    As I made clear, both the standards produced last December, which set out the basis and the direction of travel for local health services, and the delivery strategy that we will publish shortly will put some flesh on the bones of that policy. The strategy will be delivered at local level because diabetologists, specialist nurses, GPs, dieticians, podiatrists, ophthalmologists and, increasingly, patients managing their own care need to be able, within those national standards, to make the important decisions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, thanks to this Government, there will be extra investment to help to support those decisions.
    Mr. David Stewart: As secretary of the all-party diabetes group, may I ask the Minister when she expects to receive advice from the UK screening committee on the possibility of having a screening programme for type-2 diabetics?
    Jacqui Smith: I recognise my hon. Friend's important contribution to the all-party group.
    As we outlined in the standards, there is an important role for the national screening committee in spelling out the most effective way of developing a screening programme for type-2 diabetics. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, given that diabetes disproportionately affects people in disadvantaged areas and people from black and minority ethnic communities, and given that it is often causally related to coronary heart disease, it is important that we find the most effective way of targeting that screening programme and of ensuring that we effectively develop the services for those affected. We look to the national screening committee to come forward with more advice, and we may then need to consider how to pilot the programme to ensure that we are targeting it in the right places.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the truly wicked and insidious nature of the disease, is the hon. Lady sure that the gross discorrelation between services throughout the country—there is little consistency or sameness of service—will be addressed quickly enough by the steps the Government have taken? I accept that the Government have a big investment programme, but is she sure that it will happen quickly enough? Will she discuss with officials what steps could be taken to bring about greater efficiency in the service, so that more people get the same high-quality service?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question: how can we ensure that the good practice found in some parts of the country is spread more uniformly? That is the reason for the development of the national service framework. The standards published in December were the first ever national standards for diabetes care. As we have developed the delivery strategy, we have been careful to do so in partnership with those who will have to make it work—people working in primary care, diabetes specialists and, importantly, patients themselves, because patients are increasingly able to manage their condition. I am

    665
    confident that the national service framework and the process of developing it will make an important difference to people with diabetes, but so, too, will the investment—investment that has already been made, as
    well as future investment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but I need briefer replies.

    Poverty and Deprivation
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What plans he has to give greater emphasis in the allocation of funds to poverty and deprivation as causal factors of poor health. [75350]
    Andy Burnham: If he will make a statement on progress with the development of a new funding formula for primary care trusts, with special reference to social deprivation. [75360]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The existing formula used to allocate national health service resources is under review. Later this year, when I announce resources for local health services, distribution will take place based on a new formula that takes better account of health needs, which I hope will contribute to reductions in health inequalities.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the historic formula inherited from Conservative Governments was perverse, in that it rewarded areas politically, not on the basis of health needs. Given that almost the whole of the north suffers from poor health, and that northern cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle come near the bottom of most health tables, will he guarantee that the review will be driven not by the needs of London and the south-east, as his
    Department told my office this morning, but by a recognition that health deprivation is a nationwide issue and that funding is needed in northern cities such as Manchester?
    Mr. Milburn: You always learn something new at Health questions, Mr. Speaker. We have taken some steps to address this country's severe inequalities in health outcomes. It is worth reminding the House that, for 50 years or more, the gap between rich and poor in terms of health outcomes has been widening, not narrowing. One of the ways to tackle that is to get the resources in the right place, according to need. My hon. Friend is aware that in this financial year we have allocated an extra £148 million—including an extra £4 million for his part of the country and Manchester—specifically to deal with those issues, but there is no doubt that there is more to do.
    In any review, whether of local government resources or NHS resources, we have to get the balance right between two competing pressures: different labour market pressures and different needs pressures in different parts of the country. Only if we get that right will we get resources in the right place.
    Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State will know that people in Leigh and the communities represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central
    666
    (Mr. Lloyd) are more likely to develop chronic illness than people elsewhere in the country, and on average they do so at a much younger age—in my area, at 53 as opposed to 60. That places great strain on the local NHS, but the extra costs of providing health care in former mining areas, where there is a high incidence of chronic illness, are simply not picked up by the current formula. May I urge him to use his welcome review of health funding to right that historical wrong and to introduce a new formula that, while recognising the other pressures he mentioned, gives full weight and priority to deprivation and chronic ill health?
    Mr. Milburn: We will try to do precisely that. Both my hon. Friends are due to come and see me soon to discuss the needs of Manchester and the surrounding areas and to make their case face to face. Later this year, for the first time, we will allocate resources directly to primary care trusts for the next few years. I confirm that when we do so, that allocation will be based on a new formula that addresses the issues my hon. Friends have raised.
    It is important that we do that. Our intention is to improve the health of the nation overall, but given that there is a such a health deficit in the poorest communities, it must also be right to aim to close this country's health gap, so that we improve the health of the poorest people fastest. I hope that that objective is shared on both sides of the House. We have begun to try to put that right: for example, we have targeted intervention and treatment rates for coronary heart disease in those parts of the country where its incidence is greatest—there has not always been a straightforward correlation between treatment rates and incidence rates. The problems ill take some time to put right, but we have an opportunity to do that now because we have the resources to ensure a more equitable distribution.
    Mr. David Cameron: As well as poverty and deprivation, will the Secretary of State consider scarcity and rurality in terms of funding, especially for social services? There are three excellent care homes in my constituency, all of whose future is in question. One of them, in Milton-under-Wychwood, meets all the Government's standards. Yet, because it is small, it is threatened with closure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that rural communities want small care homes close to where people live. The funding formula should reflect that.
    Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will be interested to know that those who have been examining how we distribute resources have been considering sparsity and rurality, for example. These are issues that he and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been raising. Obviously, we must get the balance right between how we distribute resources to areas of great health need, to areas with a rurality problem and to other areas with a labour market problem.
    I say in all candidness to the hon. Gentleman that we can redistribute resources only if we raise resources. The problem for the hon. Gentleman and for other Opposition Members is that they are now committed as a party to not matching the levels of resources that the Government are putting into the national health service.

    667
    [Interruption.] Well, they shake their heads but that is what their document, "Leadership with a purpose", had to say, when it said that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Hywel Williams.
    Hywel Williams: Perhaps the Secretary of State will be familiar with the document entitled "Lles yng Nghymru" or "Well Being in Wales", which was launched by the Minister with responsibilities for health and social services. The report contains the statement that
    "average life expectancy in some parts of Wales is 5 years less than in others".
    Is that not an indictment of the Government's policy and the policy of previous Governments? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is inequality of resource allocation not only within England, but between England and Wales and other countries?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
    John Cryer: In Rainham in the south of my constituency, which is a relatively deprived area, we recently had a successful campaign to save a GP surgery. Despite that, we still have a shortage of GPs. Frequently, GPs have a list of 3,000 to 3,500. My right hon. Friend will know that the current funding formula often militates against these areas because it makes it difficult to draw in resources to attract the additional GPs who are needed. Will the new funding formula recognise that, so that we can start to attract new GPs into the area?
    Secondly, does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that certain Members argued for extra resources for their own areas but voted against the general proposal in the Lobby?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not know to whom my hon. Friend was alluding, but I can guess. He is absolutely right on two counts. First, all too often we have the poorest services serving the poorest communities. That must be put right.
    As for primary care services, for example, we are making available extra payments to try to entice GPs into some of the poorest communities. That is the right thing to do. There is a long way to go, and I hope that in time the policy will produce results.
    In my hon. Friend's constituency and parts of inner-city London, we are making available extra resources through the private finance initiative and through public-private partnerships to improve the primary care estate. We will not get GPs, district nurses and other primary care staff into these communities unless they are working in decent premises. The state of some of the premises that I have seen in the east end of London is pretty deplorable. That is not surprising because for decades—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. He might take responsibility for the lack of investment over many decades, precisely in communities where the health needs are greatest.
    668
    Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is pointless for right hon. and hon. Members to argue in the Chamber, and even more so in their constituencies, for more money for their local health service when they voted against money for the national health service.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that the deprived are often unable to access complementary medicine? The problem is a direct result of his policy of not requiring primary care trusts to look closely at buying in acupuncturists, homeopaths or herbal therapists. Is he aware that, until he does that, there will always be inequality throughout the nation? It is only those who can pay for the 60,000 complementary practitioners who can get their services.
    Mr. Milburn: Question Time would not be Question Time without the hon. Gentleman. He is a ray of complementary therapy himself. As for primary care trusts and their freedom—[Interruption.] I know that he has some complementary medicine that he will pass to me later. That had better be a private transaction rather than a public one.
    Primary care trusts are free to commission appropriate services and should do so. We are moving to a situation in which more such decisions should be taken locally rather than nationally. We will try to provide more information to patients and primary care trusts so that they can make the right commissioning decisions, but in the end, the decision must be a matter for them rather than me.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: The Secretary of State will be aware that Wolverhampton and the black country, through poverty and deprivation, have the highest incidence of heart disease in the west midlands. He will also be aware that bricklayers, glaziers, roofers and carpenters are very soon to be on site giving their skills to building a state-of-the-art £60 million coronary care centre to which he has given his full support. What he is not aware of, however, is the wonderful black country welcome that he will receive when he comes to Wolverhampton in January. He will be as welcome as the flowers in May.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): But not as pretty.
    Mr. Milburn: It is as my hon. Friend says. One cannot have everything.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) for his support. There is absolutely no doubt that the cardiac centre is desperately needed in the part of the black country to which he refers. We have had to consider such issues not only in Wolverhampton, but in other areas such as Blackpool, where we recently met for the Labour party conference, and Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has been advocating precisely such measures. When we considered the big diseases that were killing too many people in this country, we saw that there was a gap between where they occurred most and where treatment services were available. That gap had grown up over

    669
    very many years. It is right to take corrective action so that we can locate services in the right places and save more lives.

    Non-clinical Personnel
    Mr. James Clappison: How many non-clinical NHS personnel were employed (a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) on the latest available date. [75351]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): Work force numbers are collected annually on 30 September. On 30 September 1996, 299,080 non-clinical staff worked in the national health service, and on 30 September 2001, there were 312,820 staff.
    Mr. Clappison: Can the Minister tell us which is now the greater number in the NHS—the number of
    administrators and estate staff or the number of beds?
    Mr. Lammy: Clearly, between 1980 and 1997 the number of beds fell by 60,000. It is now increasing. The latest figures, for September 2001, show an increase of 714. The hon. Gentleman talks about managers, but the figure is small, at 3 per cent. of the NHS work force.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is making a huge mistake in comparing clinical and non-clinical staff? As I well know, having worked as a nurse for 25 years, our NHS contains people who are not trained as doctors or nurses but who are doing a fantastic job working in partnership with clinical staff. They include Maria Haines, who is here today and has devoted her life to Crawley hospital as a cleaner and cook. She values that position and wants to remain part of a fantastic organisation and not be judged against clinical staff.
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We on the Labour Benches value the work of porters, cleaners and caterers, and have sought to deal with capacity problems in the NHS. All members of the work force—doctors, nurses and support staff—were under-capacity because of the lack of investment from the Conservatives.
    Dr. Liam Fox: It is worth reminding the Under-Secretary that the Labour party came to office in 1997 promising to cut NHS bureaucracy, yet it has increased to unprecedented levels. Will he explain the reason for the success in recruiting more administrators for the NHS and the failure of the Government's campaign to recruit overseas doctors? Only 26 doctors have been recruited through the Government's fellowship scheme; 19 through their global campaign. Not one is from the targeted group of heart and lung surgeons, and all came from Spain or Germany. Why have the Government been so successful in recruiting administrators and boosting bureaucracy, but so useless at attracting overseas doctors?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the policy of recruiting overseas doctors; it is a three-year programme. We are working towards recruiting
    670
    250 doctors, and we are on that journey because of the capacity problems that we inherited in 1997. In our 2001 manifesto, we made an obligation to increase the number of nurses by 20,000 and that of doctors by 10,000. At the time, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we were making promises that we could not fulfil. We have fulfilled our promise about nurses—we now have more than 20,000.

    Consultants
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the British Medical Association about the consultant contract; and if he will make a statement. [75352]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Department agreed the framework for the proposed consultants' contract with the central consultants and specialists committee of the British Medical Association on 12 June. I last met representatives from the BMA to discuss the proposed new contract on 11 September.
    Mr. Mullin: In the light of the apparent rejection by consultants of the contract negotiated on their behalf by the BMA, and endorsed by the BMA's annual conference, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that not one penny of the many millions set aside to implement the new contract will find its way into the pockets of those who refuse to co-operate in reducing waiting lists?
    Mr. Hutton: Obviously, it would not be productive or useful for me to speculate on the outcome of the ballot. We shall have the result on Thursday. We have always made it clear that one of our principal objectives is to provide better rewards for consultants who make the biggest contribution to the NHS. That will remain the case.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: My impression is that dissent among consultants about the proposed new contract relates to lack of trust and, in many places, poor relations between managers and clinical staff. What can the right hon. Gentleman do to improve those relations?
    Mr. Hutton: Again, I shall not speculate on the outcome of the ballot; we must wait and see. I believe that relationships between consultants and managers are pretty good throughout the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw to my attention specific examples of poor relationships, I shall be happy to examine them.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Has my right hon. Friend read The Times report today that speculates that consultants are about to reject the new contract, which offers them a 15 per cent. pay rise? My constituents will be horrified that people who were trained through the public purse want to turn down a 15 per cent. pay rise,

    671
    are unwilling to join a national effort to reduce waiting lists and would thus let down the public whom they are trained to serve.
    Mr. Hutton: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the proposed contract will be good for patients and the NHS. That is not only my view, but that of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The contract holds out the prospect of significant improvements for NHS consultants' terms and conditions of work, and I hope that we can take the matter forward positively.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The impending rejection of the Government's new contract by current and future consultants is not because of money. Does the Minister accept that they are rejecting giving more power to the Secretary of State and managers, who would put political targets before clinical need? Are not junior doctors, who are currently exploited, rejecting a definition of a normal working week that includes working late in the evening and on Saturday and Sunday mornings?
    If the Minister wants more consultant time, why does not he insist that the NHS creates more consultant posts and allows those on non-consultant career grades, the majority of whom are from ethnic minorities and stuck in such posts, to apply to be consultants? They have the skills to increase NHS activity.
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in just about everything he has said. We are increasing the consultant work force in the NHS. When we came to office, there were 21,000 in England; there are now 26,000. We are taking a number of measures to improve the terms and conditions of all doctors in the NHS, but his position on all those issues is complete incomprehension of the need for reform. The need for reform here will be just as important on Friday—the day after the ballot result is announced—as it is today. There is a strong need to reform the consultants' contract. That is not only my view, but that of the BMA.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, more than 50 years ago, consultants played a part in holding up the reforms of the Minister of Health, Nye Bevan? It seems that they are still at it. It seems rather odd that everybody else in the hospital has to sing to the same tune, yet consultants, who are making money on the side, seem to wield tremendous power. I say all that against this background: I have to go and see one in a month. I hope that the Minister manages to tell them that it is time they played the game.
    Mr. Hutton: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend makes. I hope that the consultant who is seeing my hon. Friend voted yes to the new contract; otherwise, he might be in a bit of trouble.
    I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friend, whom I hold in the highest regard, that the point that he addressed is fundamental, and there will still be an issue of accountability in the NHS, not only for managers, but for senior doctors. Those arguments about accountability to the taxpayer and to patients and the wider community in which we all live will be just as
    672
    pertinent the day after the BMA announces the ballot result on Thursday as they have been in the 50 years since the NHS was established.
    Dr. Liam Fox: But if the reports referred to are correct and the consultant contract is rejected, who will be primarily to blame?
    Mr. Hutton: As I have said repeatedly, I will not speculate on the outcome of the ballot, but I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman, whom I suspect hears the sound of a bandwagon rolling and now wants to get on board, has changed his view, which he expressed in June, that this is a good contract for the NHS.
    Dr. Fox: We are touchy today. Although I accept that there are positive aspects to the contract for doctors and for patients, if there is a rejection, it will be of the contract's culture, not its substance. Doctors fear far greater interference in their clinical work, which is hardly surprising, given the Government's target culture. Despite all the Secretary of State's rhetoric, he has tried to micromanage the NHS from Whitehall, which has resulted in ever more administration and red tape as well as a distortion of clinical priorities. The rejection of the contract and the chaos that that may bring will be a direct result of the Government's approach to running the NHS. Does the Minister accept that, ultimately, the buck therefore stops with him?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman, rather like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), is wrong on all those issues and all those counts. Interestingly, it appears that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to set themselves against any national target for the NHS. They have collective amnesia on the other side of the House, because only last summer the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and his right hon. Friends were committing themselves to national waiting time targets across the NHS. What does he want?

    North-West Public Health Observatory
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the work of the north-west public health observatory. [75353]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The north-west public health observatory is taking a lead role in the north-west region and nationally on important policy areas of communicable disease, health protection and drug misuse to provide intelligence to protect the public's health. Its success is reflected in a move from annual funding to a three-year funding programme.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What she says about funding is good news, but what steps will she take to ensure that the work of the public health observatory is properly disseminated and that it informs the decisions of primary care and acute trusts, so that decisions on the provision and accessibility of health services are directed at those areas most in need?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The north-west public health observatory has a link to the Department on communicable disease and drug misuse, so its information and evidence are fed through the system. There was an excellent example of that recently when the observatory was able to trace the people involved in a significant outbreak of syphilis in the Manchester area, and to carry out tests. As a result of the intelligence that it gained on the ground from that important project, it was able to inform our policies centrally on prevention and tracing.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not the Minister aware that the Government have been heavily criticised by their own adviser, Steve Jamieson, who has said that the Prime Minister and the Government delayed introducing the sexual health strategy because they were embarrassed about the high level of sexually transmitted disease? He said:
    "while they were sitting on the strategy there were people out there who could not access services and were contracting sexually transmitted infections."
    While the Government were dithering over this issue for three years, how many people did the observatory monitor who needlessly fell ill or were denied treatment? Does the Minister agree that the dismantling of the Public Health Laboratory Service on top of all this will make matters worse?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have introduced the first ever sexual health strategy, so we are taking the issue seriously. It is backed by additional funding of £47 million, and an extra £5 million this year for genito-urinary services. I have visited GU services in the past few weeks, and I know the pressure that they are under. They are having to treat many more people, which is why the Government have put their money where their mouth is and have established a strategy, with money to back up the action plan.

    CT Scanners
    Mr. Michael Jack: When he expects decisions to be reached on new computerised axial tomography scanner allocations. [75355]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Local consultations on the allocation of the next 50 CT scanners are well under way, and I expect decisions to be made before too long.
    Mr. Jack: In welcoming the Secretary of State's promise of a decision, may I remind him that a powerful case for Blackpool to have an additional CT scanner was made with all-party support in February? We were promised criteria for their allocation in the summer, but they did not appear. Now we are told that strategic health authorities were supposed to have made recommendations about the allocation of the scanners to his Department in September. May I press him to be more specific about when he expects that announcement to be made? Can he help Blackpool by telling us whether it is in with a chance?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Milburn: I see the Blackpool mafia on both sides of the House rising to their feet. The Blackpool Victoria infirmary does a good job and has made an impressive case. Given that there have been gaps in CT scanner capacity, it is right that we match demand with supply. That decision is best made locally, so the strategic health authority in the area is considering a number of possible sites for additional scanners. I cannot say exactly what the decision will be for Blackpool, but its case will be fully taken into account. I hope that I can make final decisions in the next couple of months. We can make these investments precisely because we have raised the resources. We back those resources, but the question for the right hon. Gentleman is whether his party does.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the Government have ensured that there are more CT scanners throughout the country and that capacity is expanding. Would not we get better value if we could ensure that they were in use for longer hours and that there was a better choice for people who need them? That is important. What can he do to ensure that we get better value?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must plug the huge, historic gaps in capacity. By the end of this year, we expect that the number of CT scanners will have increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1997, and that the number of magnetic resonance imaging scanners will have increased by almost 100 per cent. That means that 28 per cent. of MRI scanners and 48 per cent. of CT scanners now working in the NHS are new and have been provided since January 2000. Communities up and down the country are benefiting from them, although we need to do more to plug gaps in capacity.
    Obviously, the equipment will work only if there are staff to operate it. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an acute shortage of radiologists and radiographers. That is why we are increasing the number of radiographer training places, which was cut in the past. It will take time to achieve what we want to achieve, but I want to record my thanks to radiologists, radiographers and other scanning department staff, who do an outstanding job in what are often difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Does the Secretary of State believe that CT scanners and other diagnostic measures such as radiotherapy units are vital to the provision of NHS treatment? If so, why are so many being funded through the lottery and local charities?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that even the hon. Gentleman understands that most members of his community do not much care where the money comes from. What they care about is getting a CT scanner.

    NHS Trust Mergers (Durham)
    Mr. Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on the merger of North Durham Health Care NHS Trust and South Durham Health Care NHS Trust. [75356]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Minister of State, Department of Health, approved the establishment of the County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust from 1 October 2002. The merger will offer patients greater choice and faster access to specialist treatment at a wider range of hospitals.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems facing the trust is bed blocking at the new North Durham hospital? The solution clearly lies with a number of organisations—the primary care trusts, Durham county council, the district councils and the trust itself. Will he support an initiative from the county council to get all the stakeholders round the table to come up with such a solution?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend, and hope that he too will play a positive role in the process. I can tell him that Durham county council, the strategic health authority and the new acute trust are already trying to find a better way of tackling what I accept is a problem in his constituency.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister warn the people of Durham that mergers of this sort are usually followed by proposals for mergers or closures of accident and emergency and acute hospitals? The merging of all the trusts in Hertfordshire was followed by proposals to close between half and three quarters of Hertfordshire's accident and emergency hospitals. Will he promise a national study of the alleged results of past mergers of this kind before any more are allowed to proceed?
    Mr. Hutton: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is describing what happened under the last Conservative Administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, has said, for the first time for many years, bed numbers in the NHS are increasing. Under the Administration of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member, the number of beds fell by 60,000. A little more penitence from him might go a long way.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: At a recent meeting between Durham Members and the county council, the social services department told us that it had not received money promised by the Government for the releasing of beds, and that the money had been retained by the primary care trusts. At Prime Minister's Question Time a while ago, the Prime Minister said that the money would release beds. Will the Minister's Department investigate, and find out exactly what happened to the money and whether it was spent on releasing beds?
    Mr. Hutton: I will certainly look into that. Durham county council received £1.8 million by way of a new
    676
    special grant this year to help it to tackle problems relating to delayed discharge. We expect the money to be used to tackle that problem, and for no other purpose.

    Kennet and North Wiltshire Primary Care Trust
    Mr. James Gray: What the level is of indebtedness of the Kennet and North Wiltshire PCT. [75357]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust started the current financial year with a range of financial pressures, causing an underlying shortfall of £10.89 million. It received £3.3 million after applying to the NHS bank for support. The health authority will work with the trust to develop a three-year recovery plan to address the underlying shortfall.
    Mr. Gray: It is amazing how Labour Ministers manage to spin things to make even the worst possible news sound wonderful. There is an £11 million debt in respect of the PCT, and a further £22 million debt hangs over it as a result of the shambles at the Royal United hospital in Bath. I am meeting the Minister of State this afternoon to discuss a parallel crisis in mental health care funding in North Wiltshire, which has also resulted in a huge debt. What can the Minister possibly say to the people of Wiltshire, who face a deep and damaging crisis in every aspect of health provision in the county?
    Ms Blears: This is a serious situation, and clearly the primary care trust will not be left to face it on its own; it is a matter on which the whole health community should work together. For the first time ever, there will be a three-year allocation to enable planning over the longer term to meet the demands of the community. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I am perfectly happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss the situation. He will also be aware, however, that his health community has had a massive increase in expenditure in the past few years, and that the biggest ever investment in the NHS will take place over the next three years. If he has problems about funding, I must ask him seriously why his party is not prepared to match our commitment to increasing investment in the NHS.

    Care Homes
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the availability of care home places in the south-east. [75358]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Department of Health figures show that, as of March 2001, there were 91,895 care home places in the south-east. Figures produced by the independent analysts Laing and Buisson suggested that occupancy levels in the southern home counties in March 2002 were 90.8 per cent. in residential homes, and 91.8 per cent. in nursing homes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House in July, the provision of an extra £1 billion a year in real terms for social services

    677
    for older people by 2006 will ensure more support to help more people who need care in residential and nursing homes.
    Dr. Lewis: You would never guess from that answer, Mr. Speaker, that between April 1998 and April of this year, 916 care home places have gone in Hampshire alone—just under 10 per cent. of the total. Is that not due largely to the unrealistic demands put on care homes through the Government's legislation of 2000? Is not the fact that the Government are backtracking on that legislation an admission that they got it badly wrong?
    Jacqui Smith: I will keep it snappy. We listened to the concerns of care home owners and we acted on them. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about the support that this Government are putting into care homes: increases in fees, funded by extra investment that he and his party failed to support.
    Fiona Mactaggart: There is a problem with getting GP cover for increasingly sick people in care homes in Slough, and persuading GPs to offer such cover without charging care homes substantial sums. Will the Minister encourage primary care trusts in areas where that problem exists to meet care homes to resource proper GP cover for care home residents?
    Jacqui Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, people in care homes should have access to the general services of a GP in the same way as anybody else, but there may well be particular concerns in relation to care homes. My hon. Friend has assured me that we can consider this issue in relation to the contract, and her point about the role of PCTs in looking at the problems in particular localities is another important one, which we can consider.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister may have acted, but does she not realise that she has acted far too late—two years too late—after 60,000 places have been lost in care homes? Has she seen the latest figures for emergency readmissions, which show that the number of patients aged over 75 who are readmitted within 28 days has risen to 8 per cent.? Does that not show that elderly patients—if they do have somewhere to go are being discharged too early
    because so many other patients cannot leave hospital? They cannot leave because, as a result of this Government's action, no care home places are available. It takes something special to have not only a waiting list to get into hospital, but a waiting list to get out.
    Jacqui Smith: This Government's additional investment of £300 million over the past two years has helped to ensure a reduction of more than 1,200 in the number of older people who are stuck in hospital, and who, rightly, are better off out of it.
    The hon. Gentleman has nowhere to go, however. Opposition Members complained about environmental standards, and the Government listened to the concerns expressed by those who run care homes. We acted responsibly but, in the end, capacity for the care of older people depends on investment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out in July, the Government are willing to invest in choice and capacity
    678
    for older people. That means that more care will be available for them in residential care homes and in their own homes. The hon. Gentleman opposes that investment. He has nowhere to go, and nothing to say.

    Infection Control
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the adequacy of infection control procedures in the NHS. [75359]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Government take infection control in our hospitals very seriously. We have set standards to ensure that there is a managed environment that minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. Recent analysis of hospitals' performance in that respect shows that there has been an improvement over the past two years, but more needs to be done and actions are being taken nationally, regionally and locally.
    Dr. Cable: I hope that the Minister can explain an apparent contradiction in policy. When the Government are challenged about rising infection rates, especially the fiftyfold increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus over the past 10 years, they point to the clean hospitals programme. That is a key part of the response. Last week, however, a departmental spokesman denied that there was any scientific link between hygiene and MRSA. Which line is correct?
    Ms Blears: Research has shown that there is no direct correlation between cleanliness and MRSA. That is contrary to what many people would expect, but it is clear that there are links between good infection control and hygiene. A key part of the action that we are taking is to encourage simple, practical measures. They include disinfecting beds properly between patients, promoting more hand washing in hospitals and making sure that people use the alcohol gel where there are MRSA infections.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) knows that MRSA is not a uniquely British problem; it is common throughout Europe and the world. The systems in this country are among the best in the world when it comes to collecting the data and taking practical action to reduce the incidence of MRSA in our hospitals. We have instituted the clean hospitals scheme at a cost of £62 million, and a £200 million scheme to improve the decontamination of instruments and equipment. They are helping reduce the incidence of these very serious infections.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my hon. Friend the Minister welcome the state-of-the-art marrow transplant unit to be established at Nottingham's City hospital? The unit will have a very high level of protection against infection. Does she agree that only sustained investment in the NHS over a period of years will resolve the problem, not a sustained investment in rhetoric?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. Throughout the world, the incidence of infection will increase as more complex procedures are introduced and more

    679
    vulnerable patients treated. As we get more successful at treating more vulnerable people, we must be extremely careful when it comes to monitoring infection rates. I am delighted to welcome the establishment of the unit in my hon. Friend's constituency, which, as he noted, will be state of the art. However, this is a long-term problem. It requires long-term solutions and a commitment to long-term investment. We are determined to make sure that that investment happens.
    Michael Fabricant: I am delighted that the Minister has spoken about the need for hygiene and for hand washing, although she is doing no more than echo what Florence Nightingale said 160 years ago. However, she is wrong to say that the problem faces hospitals in countries around the world. Is she aware that the European anti-microbial survey found that people were more likely to catch MRSA and associated diseases in British hospitals than in those of any other European country?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a worldwide problem. The authorities in America are very worried about it, and recent estimates are that as many as 50,000 or 60,000 people there could die from MRSA infections. I am sure that he is aware that other European countries face problems similar to ours. However, we now have a mandatory system for recording the relevant data. That has not existed before. We want to get to the truth of the matter so that we can take appropriate action and do not have to work in the dark. For the first time, we have proper data and are taking action nationally, regionally, locally and at the level of health trusts. Some of the actions involved, such as promoting hand washing and better infection control and disinfection, are very simple, but we also want to spread good practice across the health service, in community settings as well as in hospitals. Unfortunately, MRSA is probably with us to stay, but good control can help to reduce the incidence of infection by between 15 and 30 per cent., and thereby make people's time in hospital a lot safer.

    Children's Trusts
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement on the establishment of children's trusts. [75361]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Children's trusts will provide an opportunity for delivering better services and outcomes for children and families. They will be based in local councils with power for the first time to commission health and social care. The first pilot sites will start from April 2003 and we will be seeking expressions of interest in the next few months.
    Mr. Dawson: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and for the news about possibly the most hopeful development in children's services in 30 years. May I have a pilot project in my constituency? Such a development would be particularly relevant in north Lancashire, where we struggle with the archaic structures of county councils and district councils. People who work hard to deliver good services need
    680
    extra support to enable them to provide joined-up services linking health, social care, education and the voluntary and community sectors. I can make no better recommendation for my constituents.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is a very good campaigner for his constituency and also for the principle behind children's trusts. I know that he believes, as I do, that children who have been abused or neglected or who are disabled need a joined-up service. They do not need bureaucratic boundaries getting in the way of the provision of that service. I hear what he says about his constituency. He makes an important point about the need to ensure that we develop the pilots in a range of areas, including those with two-tier authorities like his. Although I cannot make him any promises today, I will certainly listen carefully to any proposals that come forward from his constituency and area.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: In establishing trusts and, I hope, managed networks for the provision of children's services, can the Minister tell the House when she will publish the Government's substantive response to the Kennedy report about the configuration of acute hospital services for children?
    Jacqui Smith: We have published the response to the Kennedy report. We said that it raised considerable issues about acute hospital care and that that would be the first part of the children's national service framework. We are hoping to publish that first part of the national service framework later this year.

    Autism
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What progress has been made in implementing the national service framework for children in relation to autism. [75362]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The disabled children's external working group is developing draft standards and interventions that will help improve services and support for disabled children. One of the national service framework exemplars that we publish will be on services for children with autism.
    Dr. Ladyman: The national service framework, using autism as an exemplar, has the potential to provide a sea change in the way in which autistic people and their carers are looked after, but the key will be to ensure that it is a genuine cross-departmental exercise and that the exemplar is followed in the field. How will my hon. Friend ensure that it is being implemented out there, where it matters?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend takes an active interest in autism as chair of the all-party group on autism. Francine Bates, chair of the external working group, is meeting him on 5 November to take these ideas forward and we will consider them in due course. Joint guidance

    681
    has been issued for consultation by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to help families, children and carers affected by autism.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that children on the autistic spectrum often need speech therapy and occupational therapy? A constituent whose child needs occupational therapy recently told me that the list in west Norfolk is running
    682
    at 36 months and that the child has therefore been removed from the list. There is a big problem in some areas: it is not simply a question of resources but of long-term planning and of the Government emphasising recruitment. Will the Minister take this on board?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The number of language therapists has increased from 4,870 in 1997 to 5,680 in 2001. He is right to say that we must continue to work hard in that area.

Iraq
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement of the Iraqi Foreign Minister at the weekend about weapons inspectors."
This is against the background of much concern in the United States, not least from the American conference of Roman Catholic bishops who urged the President and members of Congress to step back from the brink of war and to work with other nations and the United Nations actively to pursue effective alternatives to war to address Iraq's threats.
There are a number of questions that the House of Commons must address urgently.
First, will Britain be, in a legal sense, in a state of war with Iraq if we join the US attack?
Secondly, why did President Bush have to get a vote in Congress authorising the use of force, when the British Government have not indicated their intention of doing so?
Thirdly, if British forces are engaged, will that be done under the royal prerogative, which requires no parliamentary authority?
Fourthly, what will be the position of British citizens now living and working in Iraq? Will they be advised to leave the country before the attack or to stay and, if so, what protection can the Government give them?
Fifthly, will British troops, if they are captured, be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention?
Sixthly, will British troops be under the orders of American officers and will they be required to serve in an army of occupation?
Seventhly, will the British Government be consulted on the date when hostilities begin and will they be a signatory of any agreement to bring the war to an end?
Eighthly, what compensation will the British Government give British citizens who suffer financial loss as a result of war?
Ninthly, will Iraqi citizens living in Britain be treated as enemy aliens and imprisoned, and under what statutory authority?
684
Tenthly, what rights will Iraqi soldiers captured by British forces have, and will they qualify for the protection of the Geneva convention?
Eleventhly, what will be the position, under military law, of members of the British armed forces who refuse to fight because they believe that a war waged against Iraq that has not been authorised by the United Nations could lead to their being charged at a war crimes tribunal under the International Criminal Court, which the British Government support?
Twelfthly, how would the position of British troops charged with war crimes differ from that of American troops, given that the United States has declared itself exempt from any international criminal court?
Thirteenthly, how would the British Government respond to a charge of war crimes of the kind brought under the Nuremberg court?
Fourteenthly, have the Law Officers been consulted on these issues and will their report be published and laid before Parliament?
In no way am I anti-American. I share a great great-grandmother with one of the American Presidents. I have many American friends, as do many people in the House. We are not anti-American, but we think that these questions should be urgently addressed.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said and I have to give him my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us are deeply concerned about the latest threats from Colin Powell and believe that they are evidence of the further intention and determination of the United States to start that sort of war. We think that it is time for the fancy footwork from those on our Front Bench to stop and for us to have a firm statement about exactly what our policy is on Iraq. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of Back-Bench rights, to urge the Government at least to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Ministers will have heard what the hon. Lady has said.

Air Weapons
3.34 pm
Jonathan Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 to restrict the acquisition and possession of air weapons; and for connected purposes.
All Members receive complaints about antisocial behaviour, which comes in a variety of guises. The consequences for victims will depend on the severity of the crime and how the individual overcomes the trauma, be that physical or emotional. Almost every year, Parliament approves a crime Bill, in the genuine belief that the provisions will protect the innocent, help the victims and deter and punish the perpetrators.
Our constituents have a right to expect us continually to pursue the fight against crime, but they know that there is no magic wand and that some laws are more successful than others. Yet in our pursuit they expect us to consider not only new laws but existing laws, and whether they need revising in order to be relevant to our modern day. It is on that basis that I, together with colleagues from both sides of the House, believe that the time has come to take an important first step to tackle the airgun menace, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members who signed my early-day motion on that.
My Bill seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1968, by raising the age for unsupervised possession and use of air weapons from 14 to 17 years. That would bring the legislation relating to air weapons into line with other gun control legislation. My Bill will not have an effect on youngsters under 17 using air weapons in registered clubs.
The power of the modern air weapon means that it is used to kill, to maim and to cause serious injury to our constituents. The power of the modern air weapon means that it can kill, maim and cause serious injury to animals—domestic and wild.
It is reasonable to ask whether raising the age to 17 for unsupervised use and possession will put a complete end to the misery caused by air weapon use. The answer is no, not a complete end, but it might help, perhaps considerably. That is enough in my book to meet the test that all proposed legislation must meet: "Will it work?"
Every week, a local newspaper somewhere in the United Kingdom will carry a story about a person or animal being attacked, or being the victim of an air weapon. The effects range from a minor abrasion to death. Last year, I launched previous, related legislation, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and since then I have been inundated by letters from victims and from local newspapers—to which I am very grateful—that are running their own campaigns. The Police Federation has written to me to express its support for the proposals, and doctors also want further restrictions on air weapons. Animal welfare organisations. such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—to which I am grateful for helping me to prepare the Bill and providing me with research material—all want change. Why? Because of the costs incurred in time and money and, most important, in human and animal suffering.
Air weapons offences are on the increase. In 1997 there were 7,506 offences; in 2001 there were 10,227. In the same period, the trends for slight and serious injury
686
were on the increase. Those relate to the person. The RSPCA reports that tens of thousands of domestic and wild animals are attacked by air weapons every year; it advises me that its most recent survey among vets shows a further increase in such attacks.
Why the age restriction? Home Office figures show that, overwhelmingly, the average age of conviction for air weapons offences in England and Wales is in the middle teen years. All too frequently, the hundreds of newspaper cuttings that I have been sent describe the perpetrators as teenagers. The many campaigns run by local newspapers deserve our praise, because they have been a considerable force in bringing to our attention the nature of these weapons and the effect that they are having on the communities that we represent.
Air weapons are seen by many as toys. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that children as young as 14 are able to possess them. While in Blackpool this year, I saw a sign in a gun shop that apparently boasted that no licence was required for the deadly-looking weapon on display.
Parliament needs to send a clear message to our constituents that we take this matter seriously, and the Bill would make a start. I should like to provide the House with some examples of the crimes committed with air weapons in our communities. Some are random victims of air weapon attacks, such as 15-year-old Tommy Morris from Abbey Wood in south-east London. He was out with a friend on his bike in the local park and felt a thud in his back, which resulted in breathing difficulty, and he was rushed to hospital. The pellet had punctured his lung, destroyed his gall bladder and ricocheted through his liver, ending up just a millimetre away from the main artery. Tommy was unable to have a liver transplant—the risk was too great—so now he lives with a pellet in his liver that could move at any time.
Eleven-year-old Kirsty Hill from Portsmouth was shot in the face while playing with a friend and nearly lost an eye. In Bradford, two boys, aged 15 and 16, were seen hanging out of a bedroom window, firing indiscriminately at children while they played, which resulted in a 12-year-old's eye being shot out.
A 15-year-old from Gateshead, Nicola Disten, lost one of her eyes when it was shot out by two teenage boys. Her local newspaper, the Evening Chronicle, collected some 18,000 signatures from people calling for stricter gun laws. Her injury is one of many incidents in the north-east that have been highlighted by the Evening Chronicle's campaign. In Lancaster, a 16-year-old was shot in the jaw and surgery was required to remove the pellet. In August this year, Teresa Brooks, a 36-year-old married woman from Hull, was shot dead by an air pistol.
In every part of the country, there are scores of incidents where people are victims of airgun attacks, but as well as human suffering, thousand and thousands of animals are victims of air weapon attacks every year, and they are frequently used as target practice. The Cats Protection League estimates that some 10,000 cats are killed, maimed or injured every year. The RSPCA reports that swans are used as target practice. In Bolton, a postman came under attack himself when trying to protect three swans from an air weapon attack, and he and the swans ended up with severe injuries.

687
The number of attacks always rises during school holidays, giving further weight to the argument to raise the age limit for possession by youngsters from 14 to 17, but as well as human and animal suffering there is concern about the cost to our public services. Research by doctors at St James's university hospital in Leeds found that one in 10 victims of air weapon attack had to be hospitalised.
More than half the call-outs of some police armed response units are in response to incidents involving air weapons; as I have said, I am pleased to have received the Police Federation's support.
The law has not kept pace with the increasingly powerful weapons that are causing misery and mayhem in our constituencies. It is simply not good enough for us to wring our hands and tell our constituents that nothing can be done. As I have said, my Bill is not a panacea, but it is an important first step to tackle the air weapon menace that is plaguing our communities, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Jonathan Shaw, Vernon Coaker, Mr. Chris Mullin, Ms Bridget Prentice, Ms Julia Drown, John Austin, Paul Holmes, Jeff Ennis, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Roger Gale, Derek Conway and Mr. David Amess.

AIR WEAPONS
Jonathan Shaw accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 to restrict the acquisition and possession of air weapons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 198].

Speaker's Statement
3.44 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I call a Minister to move motion No. 2, it may be helpful to indicate to the House how the debate will proceed on the modernisation and procedure motions that are before us today. Assuming that the business of the House motion is agreed to, I propose to allow a general debate covering motions Nos. 3 to 13 together. At 10 pm, we will then go through the motions in order. On each motion, we will vote first on the amendments that I have selected, and then on the motion itself, amended or not as the case may be.
I remind the House that the scope of debate on the business of the House motion is limited to the procedural arrangements for the main debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to Modernisation of the House of Commons. Parliamentary Questions, and Amendments to Standing Orders not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Modernisation of the House of Commons
3.45 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and endorses its proposals, in particular for more effective law making by more routine publication of bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, for consultation with Opposition parties on the broad shape of the legislative year and more flexibility in programming, for an annual House of Commons calendar which would allow honourable Members to plan work in their constituencies more effectively and provide sittings in September balanced by an earlier recess in July, for more effective use of the Chamber including more regular use of time limits on speeches, and a Parliament that is more accessible to the public that it serves.
This is a Parliament with a long history stretching back over eight centuries. That history can he a strength of this place. Our very antiquity is one of the reasons for the legitimacy of this place in the nation's constitution. It can also be a trap, however, if we become too attached to our procedures because that is the way in which we have always done things, or if we resist change that is necessary to be representative of a rapidly changing society outside.
The day of our debate sees publication of a poll that underlines the challenge facing the House if it is to retain public respect. Most of the public believe that we are not effective at our job. A majority believe that we are
"old fashioned and out of date",
and that majority has got bigger over the past year. The best case for modernisation is that this House will lose its authority if it is seen by the nation to be out of date.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I have just begun. I will, of course, give way to hon. Members as I proceed with my speech, and I am conscious that many Members will wish to intervene. It might be helpful if I am allowed to proceed a little further, and the hon. Gentleman can intervene at the appropriate moment in the speech, in which I will cover several different issues.
First, however, I want to say that the sole purpose of the measures before the House tonight is to produce a more effective Parliament. Since the publication of my memorandum on modernisation a year ago, I have rejected the notion that there is some kind of conflict between Government and the House of Commons on the need for an effective Parliament. Good scrutiny makes for good government
Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that on at least one point I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me. I live in hope.
At the heart of the package, therefore, are a number of proposals to improve scrutiny. I want to start with the measures to make Question Time more relevant and more topical. I congratulate the members of the Procedure Committee, and particularly its Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas
690
Winterton), on a thorough investigation and a radical set of proposals, nearly all of which have been accepted by the Government—[Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs at that point. May I commend to him the fascinating historical account of Question Time at the opening of the Procedure Committee report? I was intrigued to note from that account that in 1991 the Conservative Government rejected the shorter notice for Question Time that this Government are accepting. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will spare us any extravagant claims about Conservative commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, which was never borne out when the Conservative party was in office.
We welcome the proposal for a radical reduction in the period of notice for oral questions. The present period of notice is a clear fortnight, which is a ludicrously long period. Events in the real world have a tendency to move faster than the leisurely pace of our Standing Orders. The Standing Order before us today cuts the period of notice dramatically from 10 sitting days to three sitting days.
The Government also accept the recommendation for electronic tabling of questions. Traditionalists will be relieved to hear that they can continue to table questions with a pencil and a buff form. However, the Standing Order gives authority to Mr. Speaker to introduce electronic tabling for those Members who wish to use modern information technology, and who will welcome the convenience of being able to table questions direct from their constituency or while on parliamentary delegations. No business starting out today would adopt our present manual procedures, which are more in keeping with the period architecture of this Palace than the high-tech economy in which our constituents work.
Mr. Hawkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not share my concern that the opportunity for Members to table questions from their constituencies will simply lead to many Labour Members failing to attend the Chamber at all? They are more interested in being absentee MPs than in doing the job of parliamentary scrutiny here.
Mr. Cook: I only have to look around the Chamber to be encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friends are here to take a full part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman makes an unfair and unreasonable slur on the commitment of my colleagues. One reason why there is a majority among Labour Members in favour of earlier sitting hours is the fact that we are full-time professional MPs who are in the precincts in the morning anyway.
Shona McIsaac rose—
Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has started something. I give way to my hon. Friend.
Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of the 146 Members who vote in more than 80 per cent. of Divisions, 134 are Labour Members and that only

691
six are Conservatives? Does that not show that we on the Labour Benches take parliamentary scrutiny seriously? Of those Members, 34 are Labour women.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting figures that were, of course, on the tip of my tongue. They demonstrate beyond argument Labour Members' commitment to making this an effective Chamber.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the tabling of questions and give the proposals my full support. However, will he explain why an extra day has been allowed for the Wales Office? Has he seen its postbag since devolution was introduced? It has diminished considerably, so why should an extra day be allowed for the territorial offices? Should not the arrangements be the same as for other Departments?
Mr. Cook: I warmly support devolution and I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman's party did too. However, the consequence of devolution is that the execution of policy and, indeed, decisions on policy are now taken in Edinburgh, Cardiff and, when the Northern Ireland Assembly is restored, Belfast. The territorial offices have very small staffs and depend on consultation with the devolved bodies for consultation on answers. I would have thought that he would want us to introduce a change that would enable those Departments to consult the devolved bodies before coming to Parliament with an answer. That is why they will have an additional day in which to prepare the answers.
Before leaving the issue of electronic tabling, I wish to point out that we attach great importance to the principle that any question tabled in the British Parliament must be put down by an elected Member. It is important that we guard against parliamentary questions being initiated by staff without the approval of a Member. We will therefore seek a robust system of authentication that will show that the Member concerned has given specific approval to the question. We fully agree with the Procedure Committee that Mr. Speaker should keep the new system under review and be ready to intervene if there is evidence that it produces a sharp increase in the total volume of questions, as that might indicate abuse.
At the request of the Table Office, the new procedures for questions will not come into effect until January so that thorough preparations can be made. Before I turn from the Procedure Committee's report on questions, I hope that I will carry the whole House with me in recording our appreciation of the Clerks in the Table Office who always work under pressure and in circumstances that, on occasions, require a fine line in diplomacy.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of clarification, is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to allow encrypted signatures in the tabling of questions?
Mr. Cook: These are matters for the House authorities, whom we will consult. Indeed, we have offered them the services of the e-Envoy so that we
692
introduce—[Interruption.] I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst finds objectionable in that. The e-Envoy has a large, well-staffed and well-resourced office that contains expertise on electronic operations in government. Surely it is right for the Government to make that expertise available to the House to make sure that we get a robust system of authentication.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I am sure the Leader of the House carries us all with him when he proposes to reduce the length of time for tabling oral questions from 14 days to three. That would obviously improve scrutiny. In the same mode, I assume he agrees with my hon. Friend, whose constituency I cannot remember—[HON. MEMBERS: "Macclesfield."] How could I forget? I assume the right hon. Gentleman agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and supports the essential amendment on topical questions.
Mr. Cook: I suspect that I am slightly more familiar with the report and the hon. Member for Macclesfield than the right hon. Gentleman appears to be.
By accepting a dramatic reduction in the period of notice to three days, we expect Question Time to be more topical in general. If an urgent question needs to be addressed by someone other than the Department that is answering questions, it is open to the Speaker to accept a private notice question, which we propose should be renamed urgent question so that it is intelligible to the wider public.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress.
I want to mention one other aspect of questions. Another improvement to scrutiny will come from the proposal by the Modernisation Committee to introduce a question session on cross-cutting issues. Increasingly, Whitehall Departments are adopting a cross-cutting approach. If Westminster wishes to provide effective monitoring, we must also adopt new forms of scrutiny to match those developments. If the House approves the package tonight, we will consult the Chairman of Ways and Means on the best way to introduce such sessions in Westminster Hall. I would envisage the first such question session to be on youth policy, to a team of Ministers from the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health.
Better scrutiny is also why I believe that the Commons should be prepared to return as a matter of routine for September sittings. It is not healthy for the elected representatives of the British people to be absent for three months at a stretch. Too much happens while we are away, and too many decisions necessarily have to be taken by Government in our absence, for which there is no opportunity for Ministers to give an account to the Commons.
I was struck at the last two business questions by the number of hon. Members who demanded a statement on events that took place during the recess. If we had

693
routine September sittings, there would have been statements on many of those issues. I am confident, for instance, that the House would have heard, and would have welcomed, a major statement on the outcome of the important Johannesburg summit on sustainable development. Recent experience is that we have to make emergency arrangements to come back in September anyway. If every Member who demanded the recall of Parliament some time this summer votes for September sittings, I am confident of a comfortable majority.
I stress that this is not a proposition covertly to cheat Members out of the total length of their summer recess. The deal is that the House will rise two weeks earlier in July, which will be for the convenience of those Members with children at schools that go back in August. In return, Members will be expected to come back for two weeks in September. I understand the concerns of those Members with young children who wish to be at home when the children go back to school in the first week of September. In the event of the House agreeing to September sittings, I propose that we return in the second week of September.
Mr. Forth: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Cook: Of course. I could not resist giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not committed an inadvertent slip of the tongue, because he never does. We were led to believe that the House would sit for three weeks in September, which we fully and enthusiastically support. Has that mysteriously slipped back to two weeks in September, and if so, why?
Mr. Cook: There is no sudden change. On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report he will see that we discussed the possibility of two or three weeks. I have announced that we will return for two weeks in the coming year. We are open to consultation and have made it clear in the report that we will consult. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press us to meet in the first week of September, we will listen to those representations, but I think he will find them at variance with the wishes of many hon. Members, especially those with young children who attend schools that start in that week. It is only reasonable that we take account of the pressures on them.
I have stressed that the package will improve Parliament's ability to question Ministers and to scrutinise Government policy. The other major role of this Chamber is to scrutinise and test Government legislation. The package of measures before the House makes a number of proposals to improve the scrutiny of Government Bills. The first of these is the recommendation in the resolution before the House that there should be more routine publication of draft Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny. If we want better laws, Parliament should be consulted before the texts are set in stone. Pre-legislative scrutiny can be carried out through Select Committees or through Joint Committees of both Houses. Either way it gives the MPs
694
who are most specialised in the subject the opportunity to comment on the draft and to explore any problems in it with Ministers.
The reality is that by the time we reach the Second Reading of a Bill, battle lines have been drawn up on party lines. If the House wants to influence the shape of legislation, it has to get in on the act when those Bills are still in draft. The key to more effective scrutiny of official Bills is to provide more time for their proceedings through Parliament. I readily admit to the House that, as Leader of the House, I would like Bills to lie for a longer period before Parliament. I am sorry that only one Bill this Session has had enough time to be committed to a Special Standing Committee with the power to call witnesses.
The reason that I am compelled to hurry Bills through the House is the convention that any Bill that is not completed by the end of the Session faces sudden death. As far as we can discover, no other Parliament in the democratic world has such an eccentric rule. Our constituents imagine that they have elected us for a four or five-year term, and most of them would be surprised to hear that in truth they have elected us for a succession of four single years.
The official Opposition cannot have it both ways. Of course I understand that they will try to have it both ways, but they cannot really hope to have it both ways and keep a straight face at the same time.
Mr. Forth: Just watch.
Mr. Cook: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is very bad at keeping a straight face, which makes proceedings very entertaining.
The Opposition cannot demand more time for Bills and simultaneously insist that every Bill drives into a brick wall at the end of the Session. In the last Parliament, the Conservative party commission, chaired by the distinguished constitutional expert, Lord Norton, came down in favour of carry-over. In its report to the last leader of the Conservative Party it recommended:
"We believe carry-over should be the norm, not the exception. This will permit more structured scrutiny and more efficient distribution of the parliamentary workload."
If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to treat us to a display of indignation at the effrontery of the Modernisation Committee in recommending carry-over, perhaps he could also explain why his party's commission on the same topic came to the same conclusion.
I accept the Modernisation Committee's recommendation that if carry-over is adopted by the House, the longer timetable that it will permit should be used by the Government to provide more flexibility in the programming of Bills. I ask the official Opposition if they will accept the parallel recommendation: that if the Government demonstrate such flexibility, the Opposition should be willing to engage constructively in agreeing to programming motions.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not acting in collusion with my Front-Bench colleagues? He knows that I am

695
concerned about this issue, and it is a little disingenuous to suggest that the arrangement is being made only to give us more time to discuss legislation in the House.
Does the Leader of the House agree that the main constraint on the quantity of legislation at the moment is not the time available in the House of Commons but the time available in the House of Lords before Parliament is prorogued? Every year, the Leader of the House has to tell colleagues to turn away Bills because he cannot get them through the House of Lords, where he cannot programme legislation, before the end of the Session. Does he also agree that the other place is at its most powerful at the end of the Session when Prorogation is approaching and the Government are given the choice, at least in theory, of losing their Bill or making modest concessions on the most important amendments? This disingenuous offering of more time will provide the opportunity, in a few years, to produce a conveyor belt of legislation through the House and greatly reduce the power of the House of Lords, sometimes assisted by this House, to modify Bills at the end of the Session.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for clarifying that he is not acting in collusion with his Front Benchers, even though I sometimes think that they could do with his collusion—they might wish to consider that.
The Modernisation Committee's report is clear about carry-over. It states explicitly that the argument for carry-over is not to provide opportunity for more legislation, but to provide more time for current legislation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to rest on the House of Lords—I anticipate from his comments that he has some respect for that House—he should reflect on this point. Within the past year, the House of Lords has adopted proposals for carry-over of legislation. If the Lords can adopt such proposals, surely we in the Commons should not be left behind as the other House modernises its procedures faster than we do.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, in the case of any individual Bill, carry-over could not take place unless the Lords agreed to it?
Mr. Cook: We can carry over a Bill for our House, but we cannot do so once it has been through both Houses. I stress that under the Standing Order we are proposing, a Bill can be carried over only from one Session to the next, that it cannot thereafter be carried over, and that there will be a separate opportunity for the House to reconsider the matter if the Bill remains before Parliament for more than 12 months.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: What would be the extent of consultation with Her Majesty's official Opposition and other Opposition parties prior to the Government deciding to carry over a Bill?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman highlights an important part of the motion before the House. As he will he aware, in the Modernisation Committee report we have committed ourselves to consultation with the other parties in the House—both the official Opposition
696
and the other parties—on the broad shape of the legislative year, including consultation on which Bills might be introduced in draft, what the broad order of Bills coming before the House might be, whether a Bill begins in the Lords or in the Commons, and which Bills might prove to be appropriate for carry-over. That is wide-ranging consultation—much wider than any collective consultation that has previously been attempted in this House—and I hope that it will assist in developing consensus on the shape of the parliamentary year.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House confirm that nothing currently prevents pre-legislative scrutiny, and that none of his proposals on carry-over adds anything to pre-legislative scrutiny? If the Government were serious, they could introduce pre-legislative scrutiny without making any of the changes that are proposed today.
Mr. Cook: There are before us no Standing Orders on pre-legislative scrutiny, but there is a motion, the contents of which would ensure that there was a mandate from the House for those matters in respect of which there is no requirement for a change of Standing Order. That is why the motion deals with several issues, such as September sittings, for which no change of Standing Order is required. We could indeed call September sittings without a Standing Order, but we want a mandate from the House. I would find it helpful to have a mandate from the House with a clear instruction that hon. Members want to see more Bills in draft, and that is why I hope that the House will support it.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: Of course I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but then—if the House will indulge me—I
should like to go back to making a speech.
Mr. Kaufman: Consequent on his response to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), will my right hon. Friend clarify the implications of carry-over in relation to the House of Lords? It is an attraction to me, and perhaps to other Labour Members, that the provision on carry-over could mean that—to pluck an example out of the air—a Bill to ban hunting with dogs would be sure to pass through the House of Commons; but if the House of Lords were not to carry over in that Chamber, it might provide an opportunity for the Lords to find another way of blocking the will of the Commons.
Mr. Cook: My experience of the hunting issue is that offering any comment on it will not assist me in building a consensus on the proposals that I am putting to the House. However, we in the Commons could carry over Bills that started here. In effect, that really means that carry-over will be relevant to Bills introduced late in the Session, say after Easter. I do not anticipate the Bill to which my right hon. Friend refers being one of those that will wait until Easter. I suspect that I shall be hearing from him regularly during business statements if it is not in this place before Easter.

697
I shall continue with my argument. I was about to say that there are two distinct parts to the job of a Member. So far, I have dealt with our role of providing scrutiny at Westminster. The other equally important task is our representative function in our constituencies. The two complement each other. It is an immense strength of this place that Members can bring to it their direct contact with the opinions and the interests of the communities that they represent, among whom most of them live, and all of them work. The package before the House will help colleagues to be more effective in their work for their constituencies. The motion provides a mandate for an annual calendar of the sitting dates and the recess dates for Parliament for a year ahead. It will help Members immensely to make more effective use of their time in their constituencies if they can plan their engagements a year ahead.
I have been in the House for almost 30 years without ever being able to plan from one recess to the next when I can count on being away from Westminster. The motion will enable Members to make sensible arrangements more than two months ahead. If the House carries the motion, it will be my intention to announce in the business statement on Thursday the provisional dates of recesses up to October next year.
Michael Fabricant: Outrageous.
Mr. Cook: I rather think that that would be welcome to many Members. I do not know what is outrageous about it. If the hon. Gentleman really objects, I shall try to make an exception for his constituency.
Michael Fabricant: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if the motion is not passed, he will not give out the information at business questions? Is he saying that the information is available to him now but he will not divulge it if the motion is not passed, knowing full well that he could do so even if the motion is not passed tonight?
Mr. Cook: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I am merely the servant of the House. I cannot possibly proceed with a course of action that the House has just rejected. If the House votes down the motion, it would not expect me to ignore its view on the matter.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to all Opposition Members that I should underline "provisional". It will be our intention to stick to the dates, but our success in doing so must depend on progress. There will be an obligation also on the Opposition to make it possible for the House to rise on the announced dates.
Members' constituency work will also benefit from the commitment to an additional constituency week to be added to either the Easter or the Whitsun recess.
Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I will finish this point.
698
As a result of a holiday period, there is a limit to the number of meetings that can be undertaken with constituency businesses during these holiday periods. An additional week will enable Members to be in their constituency for a full working week.
Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that parliamentary recesses coincide, as far as is possible, with school holidays, so that Members can be working in their constituencies at the same time as their children may be off school?
Mr. Cook: I will obviously seek to do so. I anticipate that consultation with the other parties will reinforce that message. However, I cannot guarantee that it will always be the case. The important point of constituency weeks is that they should be spent in the constituency.
We recall that the Leader of the Opposition, to the entertainment of my right hon. and hon. Friends, has called on all Conservative Members to spend a week with the vulnerable in their constituencies. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been able to find time for his week with the vulnerable in Bromley and Chislehurst. I hope that he will find my proposal useful to him in seeking out the vulnerable in his constituency.
The earlier sitting hours on Thursday have assisted Members in their constituency duties by enabling most Members to return to their constituencies that same evening. We propose one adjustment to the hours on Thursday. We recommend that the House should rise one hour earlier at 6 pm, which would make it easier for many hon. Members from distant constituencies to travel back that same evening.
That naturally brings me to the interesting issue of the sitting hours on Tuesday and Wednesday, on which there are divided views on both sides of the Chamber. From many conversations over the past six months, I know that the only comment on the issue on which I can carry the whole House with me is that there is no prospect of consensus. I put the matter before the House in order that hon. Members can resolve it themselves. The Standing Order is a temporary one that will automatically lapse at the end of this Parliament if there is no positive decision to make it permanent. If it is carried tonight, it will come into effect from January.
On the Labour Benches, this will be a free vote. I am delighted to inform Conservative Members that twice when I have asked the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst whether he will permit a free vote, he has nodded in assent. I invite him to put that commitment on the record when he speaks, so that the quarter of Conservative Members who have expressed support for earlier sittings will be free to follow their own judgment.
There is nothing hallowed about our sitting hours. Our predecessors changed the sitting hours many times in response to changing social circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman might want to reflect that it was customary for the House to sit in the mornings and afternoons until the 19th century. It was only the invention of gas lighting that brought about what we now think of as the traditional hours of the House.

699
Perhaps it might help him to come to terms with earlier sittings if he were to think of them not as modernisation, but as a reversion to tradition.
Mr. Forth: indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: I am glad to have carried the right hon. Gentleman with me on that point.
The present late start in the day dates from an era when MPs were unpaid. The hours were convenient for MPs who could do a day's work in the law courts or the City and still be at the House in time for the main debate. Today, the vast majority of MPs, certainly on the Labour Benches, are full-time professionals. We are paid enough by our constituents for them to expect us to work full-time. Most MPs are now on the precincts in the morning and there is no reason why our sitting hours should not change to reflect that reality.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have read the Modernisation Committee reports very carefully and I cannot find any reference to consultation with the staff, who would undoubtedly be affected by changes in sitting hours, or with their trade unions. If I have missed such a reference, will my right hon. Friend point it out?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very important and fair issue. Indeed, the House of Commons Commission discussed it last week. If the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will wish to address the issue. He will be able to assure the House that the Commission has given an undertaking that there will be consultation with the staff on how we go about the changes and that we will want to ensure that no member of staff is disadvantaged.
I want the House to be a responsible employer. Personally, I do not take pride as an employer in hours that require many members of staff to be here late at night and some of them to be here for a number of hours after we have gone home in order that they may complete the day's business.
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning me in dispatches. In the event that I do not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, may I assure him and the House that the prospects for the staff are of the utmost concern not only to the Commission, but to Members of the House overall? I hope to make a very important contribution on their behalf if I do indeed catch your eye.
Mr. Cook: I think that that was the most elegant note to the Speaker that I have ever heard, but in the event of its being unsuccessful, my hon. Friend has been able to put his very important point on the record.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: We are now hearing from the entire Commission. Of course I shall give way.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I speak as one who also hopes to make an important contribution to the debate. Does
700
the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) certainly articulates the unanimity of the Commission in wishing to protect the interests of the staff, there is real division in the Commission, as elsewhere, about what best protects those interests?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman has views on the matter, and I do not expect to find him in my Lobby at the end of today. It is fair to say that the Commission is divided, and I do not believe that I represented it as reaching a common position on the hours. However, we have a common position that if the House votes for change, we must ensure that our staff are consulted and not disadvantaged.
The most important consideration on sitting hours must be what will make the House most effective. It cannot be most effective for Parliament to make no use of Tuesday or Wednesday mornings.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Cook: Let me continue a little further. Under current arrangements, exchanges in Parliament on major policy take place in the afternoon. We are all professional communicators; no one in the Chamber would plan a press conference for 4 pm. If we are serious about the elected Parliament of the people setting the agenda for public debate, we need to start earlier in the day so that questions, statements and opening speeches are made in the middle of the day rather than when many of our constituents approach the end of their working day.
Every week, I field complaints from the Opposition that the broadcasting media have speculated about the content of a forthcoming statement in the lunchtime bulletins. I agree that Parliament should be the first to hear policy announcements. Such announcements should be made to Parliament at a time when the lunchtime bulletins can report what has been said rather than speculating about what might be said.
Mr. Lindsay HoyleMy right hon. Friend's point is interesting. However, does it mean that we might first hear announcements on breakfast television?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I join him in deprecating any early release of information. [Interruption.] I have done that repeatedly. The earlier statements are made, the better the chance of ensuring that they are rightly heard first in the Chamber.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman to show fairness to both sides.
Mr. Brazier: The Leader of the House makes a strong point, but not in favour of the proposal on the Order Paper. Surely the matter would best be tackled through

701
morning sittings rather than starting at 11.30 am, as on Thursdays, and having announcements during the lunch break when most of the press are having lunch.
Mr. Cook: I am deeply distressed by the suggestion that my proposal might interrupt press lunches. Given that weighty argument, I shall reflect on whether I should proceed with it. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to vote for a 9.30 am start, which the Conservative amendment proposes. I regret that there are practical problems with that, not least for the Speaker's team, which must reach a view about the procedural matters on which they may have to rule when the House sits. I cannot therefore commend the amendment to my colleagues. That is perhaps a pity for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, because I doubt whether he will receive much support for the proposal.
Mrs. DunwoodyIn view of my right hon. Friend's points, I want to ask him about two matters. First, will he assure us that Ministers will not make all their public statements before 9 am on the various media? My second point relates to my right hon. Friend's proposal about Ministers' ability to make written statements, which deprives us of the right to question them. Will he assure us that Ministers will not make public statements on the media and then put their statements to the House of Commons in writing?
Mr. Cook: I disagree with my hon. Friend's last point. Our proposal on written statements accepts one of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. If she examines its report, she will read that the Committee commends the proposal because it makes such statements more transparent and more convenient for hon. Members. Every week, several written statements are published in Hansard. They are currently disguised as responses to planted questions. Frankly, it is much more open, grown-up, dignified and transparent to be open about their being written statements, and separately identifying them in Hansard, where we could all read them the following day. I regard that as progress.
Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I must make some progress, but I am sure that there will be an opportunity to intervene later.
I understand that many Members will want to continue to work in the precincts in the evenings, long after the House has risen. For their benefit, the Modernisation Committee has recommended that the Library, the Dining Room and other refreshment facilities should continue to be available in the evenings, as at present. I speak as one who once was locked in the Library by a security guard who assumed that all sane Members had gone to bed and was startled to be phoned up by a Member he had taken prisoner. I would not wish any colleague to be locked out of the Library or, for that matter, locked in.
The Modernisation Committee has also recommended that Committees should not meet during Question Time or the first statement. The Standing Order
702
before the House would prevent Standing Committees from meeting between 11.30 am and 2 pm while the House is sitting. However, I want to stress, as there appears to have been some misapprehension on this point, that there is no bar in the proposed Standing Order on when Select Committees may meet. That will remain entirely a matter for the members of those Select Committees. They could, if they wanted, meet during Prime Minister's Question Time, although I would not recommend that they miss such entertaining exchanges.
In practice, the majority of Select Committees already meet during sitting hours of the Chamber. Last week, 20 Select Committee meetings were held while the House was sitting, most at a time that would have prevented the members from hearing any statement in the House. I believe that the new hours will be for the convenience of the members of those Committees, because they may use any part of the afternoon after 2 pm, secure in the knowledge that they will also have been able to attend Question Time and the first statement of the day.
I understand and sympathise with the concern of Members that the new sitting hours should not result in restricted access for the public. The Modernisation Committee wants more, not less, access for the public. We do not believe that the Chamber should be shut to the visiting public while we are sitting. That is why we have recommended that the line of route should be adapted so that it can operate while the House is sitting as well as when we are absent. Other Parliaments successfully provide glass-fronted galleries, which enable conducted groups to see the Chamber at work and to listen to guides or MPs without disrupting proceedings. Planning for such an innovation is in hand. Seeing the House while it is sitting, rather than an empty Chamber, will be of much greater educational value to the public and to school children.
Mr. McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman's motion, if the House passes it, will introduce these changes in January. When will the procedures to allow visitors to view the Chamber come into operation? Obviously, there will be a long delay. When does he expect a glass-fronted gallery to be built so that visitors can see the Chamber?
Mr. CookThe hon. Gentleman is correct that it will take time to put the changes in place—I would not deny that—but planning has begun, and he is aware of some of the discussions that are taking place. I hope that we will see progress during next year.
Lynne Jones rose—
Ian Lucas rose—
Mr. Cook: I have already given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), so I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).
Ian Lucas: A great advantage of the current Tuesday and Thursday sitting hours is that people from constituencies such as Wrexham can travel down the same day, see the House before it sits, visit stunning parts of the House that I was not aware of before I

703
became a Member, such as the other place and the Robing Room, and then see the House at work at a later hour. My concern about the proposals for Tuesdays and Wednesdays is that all those people who live outside the metropolitan area will have that ability removed from them.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the immense attraction of this place as somewhere to visit. Indeed, visitor numbers have increased with each passing year, and I believe that they can continue to do so. I would have thought that the ability to take constituents round the Chamber while we are sitting in circumstances in which what is happening may be explained to them has serious attractions for my hon. Friend. After all, we want this place to be valued not as a piece of architecture or as a place with an interesting museum history, but as the beating heart of a working democratic constitution.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has done more to cherish this place as a museum than any other, so I certainly give way to him.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Parties of visitors may be taken round when the House is sitting, but whatever glass menagerie is put up, it will not be possible to take them into the Division Lobby or through the Members' Lobby in the same numbers as now, and the present line of route will have to be changed considerably. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, if the House of Lords sits at similar hours, parties would not be able to go into the Robing Room and other such places.
Mr. Cook: The House of Lords will have to make its own decision. I believe that there are many ways in which we can make a visit to the House more meaningful and more educational. It is extraordinary that we still have no interpretative visitor centre for people who come here, and one of our key proposals is to ensure that we provide such a service.
Richard Younger-Ross rose—
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress.
We should not be frightened from change by being apologetic about the hours we work. The British Parliament sits on more days than any of the major European Parliaments. Typically, we sit for 150 days each year compared with an average across Europe of about 100 days. We sit longer than any of the Parliaments in the major commonwealth countries. Whatever the sitting hours of the Chamber, most Members of the House will continue to put in 60 hours of work in most weeks.
For me, the important question is why the Commons should not sit in the morning. I attach much more importance to that question than to the question of when we stop in the evening. I do not think it unreasonable that MPs should be free to leave the building, if they wish, around 7.30 pm after voting. We are all busy people, and most of us will be back at our
704
desks early the next morning. Against that background, stopping at 7.30 pm can hardly be regarded as some kind of half day.
We should not kid ourselves that the public respect us for our commitment to public service when we stay up well into the night. On the contrary, they often think that it is daft. They see it as further proof that politicians live in a world of their own, and certainly are not representative of normal people.
In its statement of policy, the Conservative party states:
"We see no reason why the hours of the House should not more closely resemble the normal hours that most people work."
I warmly welcome that outbreak of robust common sense, but it will read rather oddly if the majority of Conservative MPs vote to keep our present abnormal hours. Perhaps they should listen to the views of Conservative voters. Today's poll found that, by a thumping majority of nine to one, voters think that Parliament should sit for the hours that we have proposed. Even among Conservative voters, support for stopping in the evening at 7 pm ran at more than 80 per cent.
The final verdict on the reforms must rest with the public who sent us here. There cannot be a responsible Member of the House who is not concerned about the decline in public respect and esteem for Parliament. At the last election, three out of five voters under 35 failed to vote for any Member in this Chamber. Unless we increase the voting habit of that generation as it grows older, we will be faced with a long-term challenge to the legitimacy of the House.
Many different issues must be tackled if we are to restore faith in party politics as relevant to people's lives. The media could assist by factual reporting of the serious substance of our debates rather than portraying politics as a celebrity-driven soap opera. However, we need to accept responsibility ourselves. Part of the difficulty in engaging those younger voters is that they see our procedures as quaint, our lack of new technology as out of touch, and our working conditions as eccentric. The package before the House will make the Chamber more effective at scrutiny, our proceedings more relevant, and our working conditions more normal.
Of course I recognise that all Members have a deep affection for this place. It is because of that genuine affection for the traditions of the Commons that some Members find it difficult to give up the way in which we have always done business. Those of us who support change do so because of our love of this place. I love the Commons, but I do not want it to dwindle gently into a museum attracting visitors on the strength of its heroic history. I want the Commons to remain the great forum of our nation, in which the views of the public find voice and in which their opinions are heard. I want the Commons to derive its authority from the respect and trust of the public, and because of that authority to remain the crucible in which Governments are forged and are broken. To retain that public support, the Commons must accept reform. I ask all those who share my love of this place to demonstrate it tonight by voting to bring the House into the 21st century.
4.35 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am happy immediately to echo and endorse the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House. It should be understood that there is no difference across the House—nor could there or should there be—in that we all share an interest and commitment in ensuring that this place plays its full and proper part in the parliamentary process. That much we share.
I have not been in the House for as long as the Leader of the House, but I have been around for about 19 years. Indeed, there are those who occasionally accuse me of spending too much time here; I cannot imagine why. That is my commitment to the House. All that I say today will be predicated on my judgment, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as to whether or not the proposed changes enhance the role of the House of Commons vis-à-vis Government. Our principal criterion will be that. It will not be the convenience of Members of Parliament, or even the response to opinion polls. I know how wedded the Government are to opinion polls, focus groups and so on, but however important a role those may play in many people's minds, I do not think that some judgment about the Government's perception of this place should be the definitive factor.
If we consider parliamentary democracies around the world—if we look to the North American continent, to continental Europe and to the continental Parliaments that have chosen to emulate our proceedings and history—we realise the sad truth. No matter how differently those democracies approach their politics in terms of consensus or confrontation, in terms of sitting hours and in terms of behavioural pattern, all around the world electorates are losing faith in the political process.
I do not accept the analysis so often presented to us—the suggestion that if only we can change the image of the House, the electors will come flocking back to the polling booth. I think we can dismiss straight away any notion that if we turn up at 11.30 am instead of 2.30 pm, or 9.30 am, and install glass corridors along which people can walk and see what we are doing, the electorate will be enthused and turn out to vote more often. We must find some other solution.
I want first to draw attention to some of the key phrases in the Select Committee's report. I shall then consider the motion in the name of the Leader of the House and say a few words about the important proposals tabled in my name and those of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Paragraph 7 states:
"Our proposals are based on the sound principle that good scrutiny makes good government."
There is no argument there. We believe that: we believe in the most effective possible parliamentary scrutiny of what the Government of the day are doing, and we seek to strengthen the power of scrutiny.
The report continues—what the Leader of the House has just said echoes this—
"The rights of every citizen would be diminished if Parliament lost its authority as the legitimate expression of our representative democracy, or if the decisions of Government are not effectively scrutinised by Parliament."
706
I am sure that Members throughout the Chamber can heartily endorse that proposition too. Where we may differ is in our view on whether what the Government—thinly cloaked as the Modernisation Committee on this occasion—propose will make the House of Commons more effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account.
According to paragraph 35,
"The prime problem in securing better scrutiny of legislation is the pressure on parliamentary time."
The Leader of the House made much play of that, in support of his proposal for what has come to be known as carry-over or roll-over. I challenge what he has said, at its most fundamental level. He has said that there is a lack of legislative time, meaning that the Government must be able to carry over their Bills from one Session to another. There are a number of flaws in that argument, the most obvious of which is that the Government are actually reducing the amount of time that the House sits. They want to do away with many Friday sittings, and they have already done away with the time after 10 o'clock in the evening, which the Leader of the House and his supporters much derided. The Government have systematically reduced the time available to this legislature for scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account.
Worse than that, due to the systematic and ruthless programming of Bills—in other words, automatic guillotining—the Government have given themselves lots of time in which to legislate. So the argument that the Government are somehow pressed for time within a Session simply cannot be sustained. Time is freely available to the Government, and if they wanted more time within a Session, they could restore it by reversing all the things that they have already done. The analysis of the Leader of the House therefore holds no water at all.
The current end-of-Session buffer provides some form of discipline on the Government of the day. It forces them to prioritise their legislation, and to propose only those Bills that they believe are important. The Leader of the House wants to remove that discipline, so that the Government can legislate as much as they want, unconstrained by the end-of-Session buffer. That is our principal objection to the idea of roll-over. That good example shows that the right hon. Gentleman's argument—that this proposal will somehow enhance the role of the House simply—cannot be sustained.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: In my view, the Leader of the House gave a very firm assurance during Modernisation Committee debates that it was the Government's intention not to introduce more legislation, but to provide better scrutiny of the same amount of legislation. Will my right hon. Friend challenge the Leader of the House now to give that assurance not just to the Committee, but to the House?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has done a very effective job in challenging the Leader of the House, and I am more than happy to pick up that challenge. In the end, I suspect that the acid test will be whether, over a very brief period, the Government start to increase the number of Bills that they introduce, unconstrained by

707
the end-of-Session limitation, and facilitated by continuing, ruthless and routine guillotining and timetabling of Bills.
Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about a tendency that is developing? There is pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills and scrutiny of them in Committee, but the Government are tending to introduce a lot of new clauses in another place. Because of guillotining, we are unable to look at such provisions at all, and the same point will apply to the terms of the proposal before us.
Mr. Forth: Sadly, that has proved to be the case. As recent experience shows—it is one reason why we voted against the timetabling of Bills—evidence abounds of our being unable properly to discharge our responsibility, as one House of the legislature, in scrutinising Bills. As a result, we are passing that responsibility to those in another place. I yield to none in my admiration for what the House of Lords does; I just wish that we were still able properly to discharge our responsibilities, in the way that our colleagues at the other end of the Building are able to do.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I to pass messages to each other through his speech. I respond to the challenge by saying that I fully stand by the commitment in the Modernisation Committee report that the purpose of carry-over is not to increase Government legislation. There would be no point in the Government's seeking such an increase, because it would be self-defeating. In the second year, one would run into even greater congestion if the total volume were increased. That is why carry-over—taking the two years together—cannot increase the total volume of legislation.
Mr. Forth: Well, we shall see. I think that we are entitled to be just a little suspicious of the Government's motives at this stage, so I shall sustain my opposition to carry-over, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so as well.
Mr. Peter Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the belief of many that—as my.
right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said—because we elect a five-year Parliament, the phased introduction of legislation during that period would be much more sensible? When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and he introduced legislation late on in a Session, did he ever feel that it might not be properly scrutinised? On the other hand, did he ever have to withhold legislation that he wanted to introduce until the new Session? I ask him to recall his feelings as a former Minister.
Mr. Forth: My recollection is that I was always reluctant to bring legislation to the House and that when I did it was always well planned and well executed. I recall that in the 1991–92 Session I took through the House what was at that time the largest Education Bill ever introduced. We probably spent some 120 to 150 hours in Standing Committee before there was any
708
thought of bringing in a guillotine. It is interesting to reflect on the approach to legislation in the 1980s and early 1990s, and compare it with the approach taken by the Government now. I have no difficulty with my memory of the rosy days that were my time as a Minister as they compare with the approach suggested by the Government.
The Modernisation Committee report contends:
"To be effective it is necessary for the House of Commons to make more use of the earlier part of the day."
I could not agree more. The Opposition are fully signed up to that proposition. What mystifies us is why the Government are making the odd, hybrid suggestion that the parliamentary day start at 11.30. In some ways, it is the worst of all worlds. We have picked the argument up and taken it to its logical conclusion: we propose that, to make the fullest use of the parliamentary day, it would make sense for the House to meet at 9.30 in the morning, and to allocate that morning session to the very important matters of departmental questions, topical questions, ministerial statements and all the other vehicles by means of which hon. Members of all parties can seek to hold the Government to account and question Ministers.
Mr. Brazier: Earlier, I invited the Leader of the House to comment on my right hon. Friend's excellent proposal. Did my right hon. Friend notice that the only objection that the right hon. Gentleman was able to raise was the technical one that it would somehow interfere with Mr. Speaker's ability to select amendments and so on? Is not that a bizarre argument, as such work could presumably be done on the preceding evening?
Mr. Forth: I have the utmost faith that you, Mr. Speaker, your colleagues and the Clerks of the House would be able to respond if the House wished to sit at 9.30 in the morning. I agree that the Leader of the House's objection to our proposal was rather spurious.
Having set aside the early part of the day to giving hon. Members the opportunity to question the Government and hold them to account, we want to be able to guarantee that the afternoon period between 2 pm and 7 pm would protect the House in its legislative role, which is when it considers the Second Reading and Report stages of Bills, for instance. The Opposition are mystified as to why the Government and the Modernisation Committee should have produced what is a rather half-baked proposal. What they propose is neither what we do now nor, as we see it, is it a proper use of the parliamentary day.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, when he uses the royal "we", he is not referring to everyone on the Opposition Benches? Further, will he also answer the point raised by the Leader of the House by making it plain that the vote on the motion before us is totally unfettered and free and that, when I vote against a start time of 9.30 am—as I undoubtedly shall—I shall be exercising that privilege with his total approval?
Mr. Forth: I assure my hon. Friend that I would never dream of attempting to speak on his behalf, and that I

709
shall not do so on this occasion. The Leader of the House has teased me about this a couple of times now. The right hon. Gentleman is a student of Hansard, and will know that once or twice I have been reported as having nodded assent. The Opposition have asked colleagues to be present for this very important set of votes but, beyond that, we expect all hon. Members to exercise their individual judgment on the merits of the matters before them. My role is simply to set out my views, the views of those of my colleagues with whom I have discussed these matters, and the views of those in whose name the amendments have been tabled.
In that regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I tender the apologies for absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)? He has been on parliamentary business abroad and has been unavoidably detained. He has asked me to convey his apologies to the House, and I hope that they will be accepted.
I do not want to get bogged down or diverted by the argument about hours, which I think reflects what the Leader of the House said. The hours that we sit have an importance, of course, and we must all make our own judgment about how best we think the House can discharge its responsibilities in the hours that it sits. However, that cannot be seen as the main issue. If we look back far enough in history, in its very early days the House sat at 8.30 am, for quite some time. Whether we choose to start at 9.30 or 11.30 in the morning or whether we continue with the current hours, we will consider the options and make our various judgments, but we must not become too distracted. We must focus on how we use those hours—that is the key to the matter. We must consider the way in which the changes will reflect that.
Paragraph 63 of the report recommends:
"On Thursdays main business should end at 6.00 pm which would better enable Members to travel that evening to their constituencies."
That is true, which is why we shall not oppose the recommendation. However, I know that many Members on both sides of the House find the argument about so-called family friendly hours a bit bizarre, when many families live in constituencies very far from Westminster. The sad truth is that this is rather an Islington argument. It has a certain appeal to those fortunate enough to have homes near the House. Even Mrs. Forth occasionally expresses enthusiasm for the idea that she might see me in the evenings. [Laughter.] I knew that I was pushing my luck with that remark. However, there is a serious point here—we must not become carried away with the idea that all Members of this House can go home, put on their slippers and cuddle the cat, or whatever else they cuddle in the evenings, because very many, almost certainly the majority, do not have that privilege. It is with that in mind that we, in our own ways, will be looking at the proposal on hours.
Caroline Flint: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope to catch your eye on this point later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I represent a seat in south Yorkshire and live there with my family as well. One of the difficulties in the debate is that we all have different types of family: some of us have children,
710
some do not; some of us live in London, some do not and some of us have constituencies nearby while some do not. It is not possible to have "one size fits all", but we can give greater meaning to the parliamentary week. If, when I go home at the end of the week, I am not tired because of sitting here until 10 or 11 o'clock at night, but have had a reasonable working day instead, I can better be a good mother to my family as well as a good MP to my constituents.
Mr. Forth: Far be it from me to comment on the hon. Lady's stamina. [Interruption.] I do not believe that such a consideration should be a principal determinant of the hours that we sit. When I came here in the 1980s as an obscure Government Back Bencher—admittedly as a much younger man—I was here very late a lot of the time, and I adapted and adjusted to that. [Interruption.] It has made me what I am today. Although that is a factor—indeed, all these matters are factors that we must consider—I do not believe that it should be the main determinant in deciding how we sit or work.
Ms Oona King: I recognise that that is not the main or determinant factor, but does the right hon. Gentleman concur that if Members have responsibility for families, working from 9 am to 11pm or midnight precludes having a life of any description? Of the 30 Members of Parliament on the Benches directly behind him, only two are women. We know of one Member who resigned recently because of this issue, so making our democracy more representative should be a factor that flits across colleagues' minds when they vote.
Mr. Forth: Of course that is a factor and each Member will decide how important it is to them in the context of their parliamentary work and their parliamentary duties. I have no difficulty with that proposition.
Gregory Barker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: I will, but I really want to move on. I said that I did not want to get too bogged down in this issue and I meant it; but it is obvious that it is very much on the minds of Members, so I shall give way to my hon. Friend. However, I want to make progress.
Gregory Barker: I have three young children, who live in the constituency with my wife. I do not know what time Labour Members put their children to bed, but if we do not finish voting until 7.30, what time during a school week could we go home to see our children even if they lived in London? It is complete nonsense to say that the proposals are family friendly; they are about slacking off to go to the theatre or do whatever else Members might want to do, rather than being in this place holding the Government to account as our constituents expect of us.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he illustrates well the range of views that Members bring to

711
this matter. That probably explains the wide range of responses to the survey carried out by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said that if changes were made it would be easier for us to go to the theatre, so I am rapidly being converted to new hours for the House.
However, does the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) agree that it is bizarre to the point of being ultra-ludicrous to suggest that there is any way whatever that we can reform the hours or procedures of this place so as to turn being a Member of Parliament into a job comparable with any other job?
Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to wrap up this part of my speech and move on. One of the conceptual difficulties that I have with the debate is that many Members seem to want to compare both our role and our environment with those in an office block or a factory. They see the House as a place where we clock in, pass as much legislation as possible and clock off.
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Glenda Jackson rose—
Mr. Forth: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to move on.
The debate illustrates—as it needs to do—our approach to our role in this place and, equally important, how we see the role of Parliament and of the House of Commons vis-à-vis the Government of the day. I do not see this place as a legislative factory and I do not believe that we should measure ourselves by the ease with which the Government get their way—quite the opposite. My avowed intention in this place is to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in order to try to ensure that what they do is properly scrutinised and that they are properly held to account.
Mrs. Mahon: I want to try to be helpful. In the real world, people outside this place work nights; they work shifts. Factories work 24 hours a day. Dare I mention firefighters, nurses, the police and local authority workers? May I also kill the myth about people not wanting to work in this place until 10 pm? I am sure that hon. Members will agree that for many women that is the only time that they can work. When my children were small, I worked at nights—12 hours a night—for many, many years.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she brings a rounded perspective to the matter. Many people outside would find this debate bizarre. People are often forced to work unsocial hours—sometimes through choice, but not always. In a funny way, if we work the occasional unsocial hour, we reflect the life style of many people outside. The idea that everybody "out there" works a neat nine-to-five day and thinks that we are a bit odd for working in the evening strikes me as strange.
Glenda Jackson: Surely one of the incomparable differences about the unsocial hours that the House
712
works is the fact that it is unusual in other workplaces to find subsidised drink, subsidised food and television sets that are almost invariably tuned to sports programmes—almost exclusively football. If the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) are confusing work with waiting until the Division bell sounds, I have to say, as a woman, that that is the antithesis of work.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady gives a very interesting description of the lifestyle of her colleagues. I, for one, will not intrude at all on that analysis, but it stands on the record and will return to haunt her—and them, I have no doubt—in future.
I want to move on as rapidly—
Kevin Brennan rose—
Mr. Forth: I really do want to move on, because I want to go quickly through the resolution in the name of the Leader of the House, which sets the framework for today's debate. At this point I can switch to positive mode, which we are urged to do these days, and present the smiling face of the Opposition, because I want to stress that we agree with a number of factors, and many of the phrases, in the resolution.
Of course we welcome
"more routine publication of bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny".
The only thing that I regret is the cautious tone. I should have preferred it if the Leader of the House had said, "We will publish all Bills in advance for pre-legislative scrutiny unless, as an exception, some sort of unusual or emergency circumstances preclude that". I would prefer it to be done in that way, but we will take at face value what the Leader is saying here and we welcome it, because we want more pre-legislative scrutiny and we believe that that will help us in our duties.
I wish that I could believe that there will be "more flexibility in programming" of Bills. If the Leader of the House is prepared to have discussions with us in the usual way about the proper scrutiny of Bills in Committee, we shall be more than willing to participate in those discussions. The difficulty that we have with what has happened recently is with the ruthless, routine timetabling and guillotining of Bills, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said a short time ago, so many of them are not properly scrutinised.
We also enthusiastically endorse sittings in September because it will give the House more opportunity to hold the Government to account instead of giving the Government the free ride that they have traditionally had for two and a half months during the summer. I am still intrigued, although I will not press the point at this stage, as to why what we thought was three weeks of Government agony in September has suddenly slipped to two, but that perhaps is too obvious to need further comment or analysis.
We will be proposing that the House meets at 9.30; I have given my rationale for that. We will seek to oppose the idea of written ministerial statements, which, although it appears to be a technicality, seems to give some sort of endorsement to the idea that Ministers should do more and more by written statement instead

713
of coming to the House and being accountable by giving oral statements. We will oppose the carrying over of Bills, for the reasons that I gave, and we will oppose the absurdity of deferred Divisions, which again we are being asked to endorse this evening, and programming, because we want to continue to make the point that we believe that these matters are wrong and diminish the effectiveness of the House and of parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House is saying, "We will, we will, we will"; does he mean that a whip is being operated by the Conservative party?
Mr. Forth: I do not know how often I have to say this, but I will say it again because it is obvious that some Labour Members require three or four repetitions before they understand. We are not whipping this business. What I have said is what I and my colleagues on the Front Bench believe to be the appropriate response to these very important matters, but we are telling our hon. and right hon. Friends that this is a House of Commons matter, and it is for them to judge, as they will in their different ways, and they will vote in different ways. If any proof is needed of that, following conversations with my colleagues I can assure the hon. Gentleman and others that, on many of these matters, there will not be unanimity among the Opposition. We shall demonstrate by the diversity of our views the mature approach that we take to these matters.
I hope that those who perhaps took a different view before I stood up will now be so persuaded with what I have said that nearly all of them will join me in the Lobbies tonight, but I suspect that that may be over-optimistic. I give way for the last time; then I will conclude.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I should be interested to know whether the shadow Leader of the House has any views on the future of private Members' Bills, because that is the great lacuna in the document. On Fridays, private Members can introduce their own legislation, or putative legislation, which can get on the statute book, but the document merely refers us to a review in the new Session, about a possible slot for private Members' Bills. Does the shadow Leader of the House have any views on this issue?
Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to do something that I like to do on these occasions: quote no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill. In giving evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1931, he said:
"I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book."
I could not and would not attempt to put it better myself. I believe that the present procedure for private Members' Bills is absolutely appropriate and that it gives a balance between the rights of private Members and the difficulty that should always be placed in the
714
way of legislation, so my own personal answer to the hon. Gentleman's very reasonable question is that there is no need to change the procedure for private Members' Bills, and I am sure that Sir Winston would agree with me if he were here today.
I hope that the House will accept that our approach and response to these proposals is measured. We are not against change in all cases. I hope that I have demonstrated that, where we believe that change is beneficial to the House and where it enhances the role of the House vis-à-vis the Government, we are prepared to accept and endorse it, but where we think that it is yet another step in the diminution of the role of the House and in the reduction in the possibility for Members to hold the Government to account, we will oppose it. That is why we have tabled amendments perhaps to eliminate some items and to change others. I hope that Members will look at them and judge them on their merits, and invite not only my colleagues—my right hon. and hon. Friends—but Labour Members to judge them in that respect and to vote appropriately later this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.
5.7 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak at this early stage in this important debate. As a member of the Modernisation Committee—I am the only Labour. Member who has served on it since it was established following the 1997 general election—I recognise that this is a compromise package. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tried for almost a year to reach consensus and to achieve as much support as possible to move forward the procedures of the House, and I congratulate him on his efforts. He will know that I would have wished to go further on one or two issues, but we have to go forward one step at a time, and I assure him that I shall vote with him 100 per cent. in the divisions later tonight.
Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend describes these measures as a compromise package, but does he not agree that, although it is right for the House to take the decision, it would have been better to consult the people who work here and whose working hours will be affected by these changes before taking a decision?
Mr. Pike: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reply to that point at the end of the debate. The various House Committees—that on catering and others—have tried to take account of such views. Let us make it absolutely clear that if the main votes are taken at 7 o'clock, the House will not shut down; the catering department, the Library and other facilities will remain open and many Members, including me, will continue to work at our desks until 10 o'clock. I stayed here until gone half-past 11 last

715
night, although the House rose earlier than that. I have no doubt that that will not change as a result of the proposals.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pike: I want to make my speech, so this will be the last time that I give way.
Mr. Turner: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), does not the hon. Gentleman agree that conventional, modern employment practice involves people putting a proposal to their staff, asking the staff for their view—not assuming their view, as the Government have done—and coming to a conclusion on the basis of the staff's view, as expressed by their representatives? This process seems entirely topsy-turvy.
Mr. Pike: I do not accept that at all. My right hon. Friend issued a memorandum almost a year ago, outlining his thoughts on the way forward in the House, and I believe that people, including employees and the staff, have had opportunities to express their views.
I would have had sympathy with the Procedure Committee on a couple of issues in relation to questions. Members will know that I have long held the view that we should be able to ask questions in the recess, and I still believe that. I accept that we will not be able to do so at the moment, but I hope that we will return to the matter at a future date. I also sympathise with the Procedure Committee with regard to topical questions, but I accept that we will not address that issue at this stage, although we may return to it.
As the shadow Leader of the House indicated, overwhelming support exists for the proposed 6 pm finish on a Thursday. I remember that the Conservatives put up quite a lot of opposition when we originally proposed a 7 pm finish for Thursday nights. It is now accepted and recognised that that finishing time does not solve the problem for those who live in the north and other parts of the country. The move with regard to Fridays is also sensible. I welcome the fact that the Government will forgo all Government Fridays, and that there will be only private Members' Bills on Fridays in future.
In respect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), he and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House know my view that one of the gaps that we will create should be used for private Member's Bills—I would suggest 7 pm on Wednesdays. Again, we must have a full inquiry on that issue, and I hope that, at a future date, we may be able to move in that direction. When we gave up Wednesday morning sittings in favour of Westminster Hall, I believed that that time slot could have been used for private Members' Bills. We will need to return to that issue.
Given the number of different proposals and views put forward by Members, I recognise that we will not get a consensus on Tuesday and Wednesday sitting times. I worked in a factory in which shifts changed every three days in a continuous glass-making process. Everybody used to say that they did not like the system, as they had to do three eight-hour shifts and then change and do
716
another three eight-hour shifts before moving on. Management used to say to me, as the shop steward, "Find a system that the workers prefer, and we will accept it and implement it," but we could never find a system to which everybody wanted to change. Every Member will have a different view on the way forward. I believe that the proposals for Tuesdays and Wednesdays are sensible, and, as I said, it has already been indicated that overwhelming support exists for the proposal for Thursday.
I think that we will adjust to the new system in terms of our Committee and other work. As for the suggestion that it will cause problems for Committees, many Committees already meet at half past nine in the morning. The Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am Chairman, sat at 9.30 this morning, as we have done consistently. I shall sit on the Modernisation Committee at 9.30 tomorrow morning. Some of the problems to which people are drawing attention are not insurmountable.
In my view, the most important change is carry-over, and I am very sorry to hear the Opposition's comments on the matter. Let us be absolutely clear—carry-over of legislation is crucial. I support it because I genuinely believe that people elect a five-year Parliament. At a general election, people vote for a Government to have a four-year or five-year programme, not four one-year programmes. There should be a sensible flow of legislation; it should not be restricted by an artificial cut-off, as will happen on Thursday next week. That is nonsense, and we must be sensible.
I link with that the introduction of more draft legislation, which will ensure better legislation, as carry-over will ensure better scrutiny of legislation. Many years ago, the shadow Leader of the House served on the Bill that became the Transport Act 1985. He will remember that that Bill was guillotined. Hardly any of it had been debated in the House of Commons, and many sections of it were not scrutinised in the other place. What an absolute nonsense for a Bill that has had tremendous implications for bus transport in the whole country since then.
Mr. Forth: Can I test the hon. Gentleman's memory a little further? Does he remember roughly how many hours my Government allowed that Bill in Committee before they guillotined it? Will he confess that one of the reasons why it was not properly scrutinised in the time allocated was that the then Opposition—I have no problem with this in those circumstances—filibustered the Bill so that it could not be scrutinised? Will he tell us how many hours the Bill was allowed in Committee?
Mr. Pike: I cannot remember the exact number of hours, but I can remember saying to the right hon. Gentleman in an intervention on one of his speeches that he made Margaret Thatcher seem a moderate. He said that that was a compliment and that he accepted it. That puts his position into perspective.
That style of debating and of dealing with legislation—the Opposition thought that their role in delaying proceedings and provoking a guillotine showed that they had opposed a measure—was nonsense. It was not constructive for the country and a 10-minute—or something like it—limit on speeches will ensure better

717
scrutiny. It is nonsense to believe that what we did in 1984 and 1985 is how people want Parliament to operate in the 21st century. I accept that there was filibustering, but I do not defend it.
I remember that when we considered the Gas Act 1986, the then Member for Rhondda spoke for two and a half hours about Wales having a national mistletoe planting day. At the end of that time, he had convinced me of the importance of the issue. However, debating in that way is nonsense, and that is what modernisation is trying to prevent. That is why we want time limits on speeches and better scrutiny.
The thrust behind the proposals for modernisation is not to make our job easier or to allow us to take hours off. That is not what I want. I want to ensure that we have better legislation and better scrutiny. I will not be here, but I accept that, in the years ahead, we will once again be on the Opposition Benches. That may be in 20 or 30 years, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may be in government again if he is not too old or past it. He will then view some of the changes that we are announcing today as very sensible. Draft Bills are important and carry-over is essential.
We also need an annual calendar. How stupid we all seem when constituents ask us whether we can do something in our constituencies and we have to say that we do not know. They sometimes ask us, "Can we come and lobby you on this issue in Parliament?", but we have to say that we do not know whether it will be debated. They tell us that they know that it will be because they have received notification. What nonsense that is. We should know and be able to plan the use of our time in our constituencies. If I accept a commitment in Burnley, I should know with 100 per cent. certainty that I will be able to fulfil it. The proposal is sensible.
Time limits on speeches are important. Many people will argue that it is wrong to impose such limits, but I believe that they are right. I do not have a right to speak at length if that means that I will prevent some of my colleagues from having an opportunity to express their views. We are all elected as equal Members, and we should have the same opportunities to debate the issues. The type of filibustering that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has carried out when he has opposed legislation has done the House a disservice. I hope that the proposals will be carried tonight.
5.18 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said. However, he paid tribute to the Leader of the House, and I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Gentleman down that path. The media and Members of the House seem to treat the proposals as though they are Government proposals. They are not. They are the proposals of a Select Committee, just as the proposals of the Procedure Committee, of which the hon. Member for Macclesfield
718
(Sir Nicholas Winterton) is the distinguished Chairman, are from an all-party Committee. It is important to recognise that.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: Yes, but I have only just started my speech.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman concede, however, that the so-called Modernisation Committee, like all Committees of the House, has a large Government majority and that in this case—unusually and wrongly—it is chaired by a member of the Government and, indeed, a Cabinet Minister? Does that not make the Committee rather different?
Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman is not a Committee member. I very much regret that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not here. I pay tribute to his role in Committee. He was helpful, sensible and level headed, and we attempted to produce proposals that would benefit the whole House in its relationship to Government.
I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has read the report, but he did not sit through the Committee's sittings. There was no minority report. The Conservatives did not vote against the report. Indeed, they made a number of suggestions to improve and strengthen it, some of which my colleague and I supported. It is a grave pity if the right hon. Gentleman has not had the benefit of the advice of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. The Committee reached an important consensus on strengthening the role of the House in relation to Government. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for accepting that suggestion. I dare say he did not play it up at great length in Cabinet discussions, but it is an important part of the report.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst plays a wonderful duet with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who takes a level-headed, low-key approach. We have got used to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst playing a more doom-laden, bloodcurdling role, as he did today. I see him nodding, so he agrees with my description. It is Dracula and Scooby-Doo.
Mr. Forth: Which am I?
Mr. Tyler: Whichever one the right hon. Gentleman thinks best displays his tendencies.
People who approach the problem with a conservative frame of mind—either big C or little c—must address the central issue. Unless the House does something to improve its working methods, we are in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant and being bypassed by the Government.
Let me give an example. The right hon. Gentleman said that his colleagues have a free vote. I accept what he tells us because he is an honourable man. Last week, however, he and his colleagues briefed the Financial Times as follows:
"It had been assumed that all MPs would be given a free vote. But modernisers now fear that the Conservatives may not be, since Mr Forth last week set out what he called 'the policy of the official opposition on sitting hours'."

719
So they have a policy, but they also have a free vote. Even more indicative of their frame of mind is what the article went on to say:
"This would involve the House sitting at 9.30am midweek—rather than 11.30am as proposed—and breaking for lunch."
That is the real issue. If we have an hour for questions at 9.30 and perhaps another hour for statements, that would take us to 11.30. So the official approach of the Conservative Front Bench is that the House takes from 11.30 to 2 pm for lunch. That is what their policy is all about.
Some Members who contributed to the debates on modernisation and the work of the two Select Committees, and who also responded to the questionnaire about how best to manage our affairs, took a much more practical attitude than that displayed by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of his party. We have a real opportunity to gain, or in some people's minds to regain, more control of the management of our business. It is an attempt to wrest back from the business managers and the usual channels greater control of our affairs. That might explain the rumours of the past few weeks, which also circulated in May. Perhaps the Government Whips are unhappy with some of the proposals. Opposition Members must think carefully about that. I hope that Back Benchers will not be bamboozled as they were in May.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's idea that any doubt about the proposals makes one a conservative with either a small c or a large C. Does he think that the whole package must be adopted by everyone and that there is no space for critical examination of elements of it? Surely the view of the House is that there is much merit in some of the package, but that there is much doubt about other parts of it.
Mr. Tyler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. This is a package, but I am not suggesting that every part is essential. Indeed, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that hours are not the only or even the predominant issue; there are other good parts to the package. My party has no whip on this matter, but I think that the majority of my hon. Friends agree that the proposals hold together as a good package.
The issues that we must address this evening are important and, if approached positively by all parties, they could make a major change to what I would call the balance of trade between the House and the Government. One example is the Procedure Committee's recommendations on questions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield and his colleagues on that Committee for their thorough job of investigating how we can improve our ability to put topical questions. I agree with the amendments on that subject tabled by several members of the Procedure Committee.
We should have topical questions, and I regret that the Government have apparently shut the door on that proposal. If it is not passed this evening, I hope that through the appropriate channels we may tactfully suggest to the Speaker that we would like more private notice questions to be permitted, particularly from Back
720
Benchers. The extent to which private notice questions are dominated by Front-Bench Members, including, on rare occasions, my colleagues, is a pity. There should be more opportunities for private notice questions or, as we suggest in our report they should be renamed, urgent questions.
The purpose of the changes in hours is not to make the House and its procedures more Member friendly or even more family friendly; it is to make them more voter friendly. That is why the report places great emphasis on the fact that we have, through the various media, to address an audience that is quite different from the audience of 100 or 200 years ago. Parliament, if it is to be effective and relevant, has to be accessible, in the full sense of the word, and visible. It has to be shown to be setting the daily media agenda rather than simply reacting to it much later.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that what I am about to say is coloured by the fact that I support at least 80 per cent. of the proposals. Is he not aware of recent moves by media companies such as the BBC to devote less broadcasting time to this place? For example, some reporters are going out, away from institutions such as Westminster, to set the political agenda elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We will not attract media attention and, therefore, voter interest back to this place until it does its job, which is to hold the Government to account. The hon. Gentleman has not yet proved that the changes, apart from being an improvement for the Members, will improve the scrutiny of the Government.
Mr. Tyler: That is a matter for individual Members to decide. The BBC gave evidence to the Modernisation Committee in which it welcomed the fact that Parliament would be seen to be taking the initiative earlier in the day. During the 1992–97 Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman was not here, there was a succession of evenings when we were voting at 10 o'clock and, on occasion, defeating the Government, but our electors had no idea of what we were doing. Commentators on the television and radio news repeatedly stated that something was going on in the House of Commons but they could not tell the public what was going on because the House was still voting—what a ridiculous situation.
There are still some members of the press who will sit through our proceedings all evening and attempt to get something about them in the broadsheets the next morning. The Press Association is the exception that proves the rule. However, the majority of those who, in a former age, sat in the Gallery and wrote screeds to be read by an elite in the broadsheets have long since gone. We must use the modern media to communicate with the people who send us here. That is what these proposals are about. Their aim is not to make life easier for us but to make Parliament more accessible to those who voted for us.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The truth is that, apart from breaking news, the modern media will not report anything much after 5 pm. In my view, the proposals are not about protecting families or anything else, but about Parliament doing its job and

721
speaking to the nation. There is no point in having long, drawn out speeches at 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, when no one is listening to us.
Mr. Tyler: I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, and I hope that all hon. Members will therefore support shorter speeches. I shall try to speak briefly, so perhaps I should take no more interventions.
As the Leader of the House pointed out, the House sitting in the evening is a comparatively recent phenomenon. I have to take indirect responsibility for that, in that it was a notable constituent, Sir Goldsworthy Gurney of Bude, North Cornwall, who invented a gas light that made it possible for Members of Parliament to see what they were doing in the evening, thus making it possible for the House of Commons to sit then. That happened in the early 19th century; before then, our predecessors found it impossible to see what they were doing, dependent as they were on candlelight. I therefore think that there is a strong case for adjusting our business to the current technological position.
I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about carry-over. There is an extraordinary degree of misunderstanding about carry-over. The absurdity of Second Reading debates and divisions coming along like London buses, three or four at a time, before Christmas, followed by a great dearth as the Bills go to the other place, and then a rush as they come back here for final stages, does not lend itself to intelligent scrutiny. It is similarly absurd that Governments introduce Bills that have not been properly prepared because they have to do so immediately after the Queen's Speech. Carry-over offers opportunities to spread the business, but safeguards are important
There are two important safeguards, the first of which has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) raised the issue in the Committee. If a measure is carried over and a bit more time is spent on it, less legislation is possible in the second year. There is a natural rate of throughput. I cannot accept the suggestion that carry-over means that a lot more legislation can be pushed through the pipeline—there simply is not the capacity to do that. More important still, as Lord Norton, an important constitutional expert, made clear, the House of Lords has also built in a highly effective safeguard to ensure that that House is not steamrollered into accepting carry-over, except in suitable circumstances.
Mr. John Burnett: What is important is the interaction on carry-over between the Lords and this place. Some Members on both sides of the House feel a degree of disquiet about that power, which we see as fettering our own. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be individual votes on each Bill to be carried over—it is a once-only thing—and individual votes by both Houses; and that failure in one House means that the Bill fails? Is that correct?
Mr. Tyler: It would be wrong of me to pretend any great expertise in how the other place will manage its business, but I think that the safeguard is critical. There is no way in which the carry-over can extend beyond the
722
second Session—in effect, there is a 12-month envelope. Secondly, there is no way in which the Government can push an extension through the House of Commons without a debate. Of course, the Lords have to abide by their own rules and we cannot constrain them, but I am persuaded by the Conservatives' constitutional specialist, who gave evidence on that issue, that there are effective safeguards.
It is also worth mentioning that since all parties are now apparently devoted to the principle that the second Chamber, once reformed, will never again have a majority from any one party, the likelihood of the Lords proving to be irresponsible in applying the safeguards is extremely limited
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman favours a wholly elected House of Lords. How, in the name of goodness, can one guarantee that it will never have a majority from any one party?
Mr. Tyler: It depends entirely on the electoral system. I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not permit me to advance further down that route. There is no method under an electoral system that I would support, or I am sure that he would support—
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I would not.
Mr. Tyler: —that would produce a majority for any one party in the House of Lords. I am grateful to hear the hon. Gentleman's apparent reaction to that.
Westminster Hall has proved a considerable success, not least because the different and more consensual layout enables Labour Members to cross-question Ministers without feeling in any way disloyal. The result is extremely interesting. I have participated in a number of debates at Westminster Hall, and Ministers have to answer to all Members in a way that is less party political but more effective.
I accept the point that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made about deferred divisions. We need to look at that matter again. It is notable—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present to hear my compliment—that under the leadership of the Leader of the House there has been a great reduction in the number of deferred Divisions.
The issue of programming motions is also with us. I believe that it requires a great deal more attention. We have an explicit assurance that if the package before us makes some real progress, programming will be one of the subjects that has to be debated, not only with those who occupy the Front Benches of both Opposition parties, but with Members generally. I believe that those who will undertake a particular stage of scrutiny, as members of a Standing Committee or when a Bill returns to the whole House, should have the greatest say in how that exercise will be undertaken. That has begun to happen embryonically with some Bills and in respect of some Committees. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has given us a lead on the extent to which the Chair of a Committee can assist in that process. That is extremely important.
Finally, there is the issue of short speeches. Clearly, I should try to complete my remarks as soon as I can to meet the requirement. I shall take advantage of a

723
quotation that was handed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Members may know that in former time reports of the proceedings of this place were sometimes illegal and sometimes very constrained. Very often the only people who could tell the outside world what was really going on in the House were the Doorkeepers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has told me of a Mr. William White, a former Head Doorkeeper. In 1870, he wrote:
"If all useless verbiage could be strained out of our parliamentary speeches, their force would be increased, the morning papers might diminish their reporting staff and the House might rise every night at 12, and many a valuable life would be prolonged."
I intend to prolong my life by coming to a conclusion.
First, I believe that this place works best when we adopt an evolutionary approach to the way in which we operate, not a revolutionary one. To the extent to which we have achieved consensus in the Modernisation Committee, that is much to the credit of all members of it, not least to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who has played a constructive role.
Secondly, I believe that we must increase the topicality and relevance of our proceedings. Thirdly, we must try to ensure that our proceedings are more visible and accessible to those who send us to this place; otherwise we are in great danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant and giving too much power to the Government, who will then have literally the whip hand.
As I have said, I believe that the proposals are voter friendly, which is what gives them their strength. If we can both improve scrutiny and have more control over the management of our own business in the House, we shall be doing a very good turn for Parliament this evening.
5.38 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall speak mainly against the proposed changes to the sitting times on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The amendment to motion 6, which is in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, will give Members an opportunity to vote against earlier sitting times on Wednesdays without denying them the opportunity to go home an hour earlier on Thursdays, which I support.
I am a moderniser—but not at any price. I am in favour of measures designed to improve the quality of scrutiny but opposed to any that diminish it. I am especially keen that Parliament should sit for at least two weeks in September. First, it has always seemed wrong that the Government should enjoy a three-month holiday from scrutiny each summer and, secondly, however hard we try, it is not possible to explain to our constituents that we are all hard at work in our constituencies during September. If we care about the esteem in which this place is held by people outside, the issue of the summer recess is a bullet that had to be bitten. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on doing so.
As my right hon. Friend said, the big prize if we are to make this place more effective is prior scrutiny of legislation while it is still in draft and before it becomes set in stone. I know that there have been some successful experiments, but I look forward to seeing such scrutiny happen as a matter of course. I welcome what he said
724
about the subject and I hope that I live long enough to see the day when it comes to pass. Some of the measures that we are considering—notably the ability to carry forward legislation from one Session to another—willmake that easier, and I shall vote with enthusiasm for them.
Indeed, I shall support all the proposals except those that would allow the House to knock off at 7 o'clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. My right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that his sole purpose was to make Parliament more effective. I cannot for the life of me see how cutting three hours off the parliamentary day will make us more effective. [Interruption.] I realise that hon. Members will suggest that we are not reducing the time, but simply moving it backwards.
Joan Ruddock rose—
Mr. Mullin: To save my hon. Friend the trouble of having to intervene, let me say that, for me, the parliamentary day does not consist merely of what goes on in the Chamber. That is the difference between us.
Helen Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am aware that we are on opposite sides of the argument, but on the question of the number of hours in a day, does he recognise that the majority of us are conscientious MPs? We arrive here at 9 o'clock or 8 o'clock, but the different hours, in addition to the events, parliamentary functions and discussions that will continue throughout the evening—we are all politicos—will make our active day longer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One good reform would he that of keeping interventions as short as they should be.
Mr. Mullin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; bearing in mind that I am confined to 12 minutes, I hope that you might take account of the odd lengthy intervention.
I accept that all hon. Members—or just about all—are conscientious. I do not question that for a moment, but I repeat that I believe that a parliamentary day does not consist only of what goes on in the Chamber. That is my only point and I propose to move on.
We are told that the change is part of a drive to make this place more family friendly, but for those with young families—
Mr. Bryant: The Leader of the House never said that.
Mr. Mullin: I have heard it said, perhaps not by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, but many times. The proposal might make this place more family friendly for those who are lucky enough to live within commuting distance of Westminster, but what are the 500 or so of us who live beyond commuting distance supposed to do—wander around this place in twilight?
Mr. Bryant: Have a life.
Mr. Mullin: I have a life, actually.

725
Are we supposed to go on cultural outings? Perhaps the theatres and art galleries of the west end will be full of newly liberated Scots and Welsh Members. Somehow I doubt it. If I were a spouse living several hundred miles away, I would prefer to know that my other half was snug in the warm bosom of the mother of Parliaments— [Interruption.] I am sorry if hon. Members do not like what I am saying, but I would be grateful if they at least did me the honour of listening. I would prefer to know that my other half was snug in Parliament, instead of roaming the streets of the west end with too much time on their hands and too much money in their pockets.
That, however, is not my main objection. My main point is that what my right hon. Friend is proposing will inflict damage on the Select Committees at a time when we are doing all that we can to enhance their status. Like many, though by no means all Select Committees, the Home Affairs Committee meets in the morning so that we do not have to compete with the business in the Chamber and in the hope—
Joan Ruddock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that it is clear that her hon. Friend will not take an intervention. She should therefore sit down.
Mr. Mullin: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am anxious to make my speech and our time is limited.
My Select Committee meets in the morning so that we do not have to compete with the business in the Chamber and in the hope that our deliberations will attract the attention of the outside world from time to time. That is more likely if meetings take place in good time for media deadlines and if we are not competing with the Chamber.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mullin: I have made my position on interventions clear.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier that no one in their right mind would organise a press conference at 4 pm, to which I would add, "or a Select Committee". I chair the Home Affairs Committee, which used to meet at 4.30 pm on Wednesdays for the convenience of the practising lawyers. Soon after I became Chairman, I received a letter from the home affairs correspondents of The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. It states:
"Can we press you to make one small reform in the way your committee is run? The previous chairman, for reasons of which we are not aware, insisted that the committee's hearings did not start until 4.45 pm. This timing made giving any media coverage to all but the most sensational proceedings of the committee very difficult as often the hearings did not end until 6.30 or 7.00 which is far too late for routine stories to be filed and used prominently in the next day's papers"—
726
[Interruption.] I am determined to get to the end of my speech, with the House's permission—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. And with my assistance, if necessary.
Mr. Mullin: The letter continues:
"Consequently much of the valuable and interesting work done by the committee was undertaken in complete darkness as far as the public were concerned…
Can we urge you to consider moving the time of your meetings?"
We solved the problem by moving the meetings to Tuesday mornings. However, if my right hon. Friend has his way, we will be forced back into afternoon or early evening sittings. Far from improving the quality of scrutiny, the proposal will diminish it.
Mr. Robin Cook: Five Select Committees met last week at 9.30 am. There is enough time for a two-hour meeting before the House sits at 11.30. There is no reason why Select Committees cannot meet before the House if they wish. However, it is extraordinary that my hon. Friend argues that the House should construct its hours around the Committee rather than vice versa.
Mr. Mullin: I accept that different Select Committees have differing experiences. The problem with the Home Affairs Committee applies to some of the other big Committees: a great deal of the business in the Chamber is within our remit. In some weeks, that applies to perhaps a third of the business. The proposed change will therefore prove difficult. I do not make too much of it, because I acknowledge that different Select Committee members wall have different experiences. However, the problem exists, and changing the time will not improve scrutiny one iota.
I want to make another point that some hon. Members may consider minor, but is worth factoring in. A strength of our system is that Ministers are obliged to mix with the poor bloody infantry. Anyone who visits the Tea Room on any Tuesday or Wednesday evening after 7 pm will find Ministers, from the Deputy Prime Minister down, dining and socialising with Back Benchers. A good deal of informal business is done in that way. If Ministers are no longer obliged to come here after 7 pm because there is no vote, they will simply stay in their Departments until they finish their boxes. Those who live in London—most of the main movers and shakers do—will then go home, and the relationship between Back Benchers and Front Benchers will be damaged. I simply mention that minor point in passing in case no one else considers it. Perhaps those who care about the relationship between Parliament and the Executive will wish to bear it in mind when they vote.
I urge hon. Members to vote against motion 7, which provides for earlier sittings on Tuesday, and in favour of amendment (a) to motion 6. In supporting amendment (a), hon. Members would vote against earlier sittings on Wednesday without jeopardising the proposed new arrangements for Thursday and Friday, which I support. I shall press the amendment at the appropriate time.
5.49 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The majority of my comments relate to motion 4 on parliamentary questions, and to motion 5 and the amendments standing in my name and those of other members of the Procedure Committee.
I begin by thanking and paying tribute to all the members of the Procedure Committee from all political parties, who showed tremendous commitment and hard work in producing this very important report. The Committee's report on parliamentary questions is the first major review of the subject for over 10 years. We say that the system of parliamentary questions is
"an essential part of the process by which Parliament exercises its authority and holds the Government to account"
However, there are major flaws in the way the system works.
We began our inquiry by seeking the views of all Members of the House through a questionnaire. I believe that it was important to do so, because the composition of the House has changed so much since the last major inquiry.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: For the worse.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend is entitled to his view.
There is a new generation of Members, and we wanted to know how they use questions and whether they think the system is working as well as it might. The clear answer to the questionnaire was no, at least in some respects. We have put together a package of recommendations that attempts to redress the deficiencies that our survey clearly identified. I am pleased that the Government's reply to our report accepts most of those recommendations.
At this stage, I wish to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who gave very stimulating evidence to our inquiry and has engaged constructively with the Committee at all stages. In a moment, I shall deal with a small number of recommendations that the Government have rejected, but that should not in any way detract from the fact that, overall, their response has been very positive.
The biggest single criticism of the oral questions system is that it lacks topicality and relevance. That is because the deadline for tabling questions is still 10 sitting days, or two calendar weeks. As a result, it is often impossible for Members to raise in the Chamber the issues that the rest of the country is talking about. The Chamber therefore appears to be out of touch and irrelevant. The real questioning of Ministers, as has already been said in the debate, takes place on "Newsnight" or the "Today" programme.
As part of our inquiry, we researched the history of the questions system. We found that the House never intended that the notice period should be so long. As we say,
"the present deadline arose as the unintended consequence of rules designed for other purposes".
728
We also point out that very short deadlines were the norm 100 years ago. Before 1902, a question could be tabled for answer the following day, and from 1902 to 1947, only two days' notice was required. The current two-week deadline is absurd. We have recommended that it be replaced by a deadline of three working days. We accept that the deadline should not be shorter than that, because I believe that it is reasonable for Departments to have two working days to prepare the briefing for their Ministers.
The Government's response to our report broadly accepts our recommendation, but proposes that the three territorial Departments—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—should have a slightly longer notice period and that our proposal should be further modified by discounting sitting as well as non-sitting Fridays from the calculations. It is worth making the latter point to the House.
The Procedure Committee discussed the Government's response at its meeting last week. We were slightly sceptical about the need for the territorial Departments to be given several extra days' notice, which may conjure up the image of relays of horsemen galloping off to those far-flung places, Edinburgh and Cardiff, or people rowing across to Belfast. We concluded, however, that the Government propose relatively minor modifications of our proposals, which we are content to accept.
The overall thrust of our recommendations has been accepted by the Government, and is embodied in the Standing Order changes that the House is invited to approve tonight. I believe that if the changes are approved they will have a major impact on Question Time. They will make it much more incisive and much more relevant. We made several connected recommendations, which the Government have also accepted. In particular, we recommended that Members should be allowed to table oral questions on any day after their last Question Time and before the minimum notice period—that is, generally up to four weeks before the day for answer. That represents a major relaxation of existing rules, which would be much appreciated by all Members.
In general, Members who responded to our questionnaire are much happier with the written questions system than that for oral questions. However, there is concern about the distinction—I say this with emphasis—between named-day questions and ordinary written questions. About half of all written questions tabled are for a named day, and a third are for the earliest possible day. Frankly, the members of the Procedure Committee simply do not believe that such a high proportion of questions can legitimately be described as urgent. We believe that this is an abuse of the system. It is counter-productive, because it leads to a proliferation of holding replies and makes it less likely that the genuinely urgent questions will receive a rapid response.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have limited time, so, as Chairman of the Committee, it is difficult to do so. If I can, I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
We have therefore recommended that the House should impose a daily quota per Member of five named-day questions. However, we rejected the Government's

729
suggestion that the minimum period for a reply to a named-day question should be extended from three to four working days. As we say in our report,
"this seems to us wrong in principle: the object of a reform should be to reduce the total number of named-day questions to a sensible level, not to introduce greater delay in replying to questions that are genuinely urgent".
We make another major recommendation in relation to the use of technology; I know that this is both controversial and sensitive. We considered the implications of allowing questions to be tabled electronically. The big problem is ensuring that electronic tabling does not encourage abuse, with Members giving carte blanche either to their researchers or, even worse, to outside organisations and lobbying groups to table questions on their behalf.
It would be ridiculous to ignore the potential benefits of new technology and refuse to allow electronic tabling. We considered whether we should recommend that the House insist on what we called "strong authentication" of the identity of Members. We could employ a system using what are called biometric techniques, such as fingerprint or iris recognition, which would ensure that questions were submitted only by a Member in person rather than by anyone else acting on his or her behalf. However, such systems would be expensive, complicated and, we suspect, liable to extensive teething problems. Members might also find it rather undignified to have to submit their fingerprints or squint into an iris recognition device every time they want to table a question.
We have therefore recommended that, in the first instance, the House should conduct an experiment in electronic tabling of questions using a "weak authentication" system. It would be similar to the system already in operation in the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords. There would be added safeguards—for instance, questions would be accepted only from addresses in the Parliamentary Data and Video Network, not just from any e-mail address. None the less, we recognise that there would still be potential for abuse with that option.
We have therefore recommended that Mr. Speaker should have power to abort the experiment if it became clear that large-scale abuse were taking place or if the number of questions tabled rose steeply and ran the risk of overloading the questions system. If that were to happen, we would have to cut our losses and revert to the more expensive option of strong authentication. I very much hope that that would not be necessary.
The Government have accepted all the recommendations that I have mentioned, sometimes with minor modifications. I shall conclude by dealing with the one major recommendation that they have rejected, which is that there should be a twice weekly session of topical questions in the Chamber. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, following departmental questions, there should be a 30-minute period in which questions would be asked on a single, topical subject. Mr. Speaker would choose the subject on the basis of applications made by Members the previous day.
730
In making his choice, Mr. Speaker would be guided by specified criteria, including
"topicality, urgency, the public importance of the subject, suitability in terms of potential for supplementary questions, party balance, and balance between Opposition parties and"—
this is even more even important to Government Members—
"backbenchers on both sides of the House."
I am looking particularly at the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when I say that. Mr. Speaker would aim to achieve an overall balance between those criteria over a period of time. He would also have discretion, if he thought fit, occasionally to substitute two 15-minute sessions for one 30-minute session.
I am sorry that the Government have decided to reject that recommendation. In my view, it would be an effective way of restoring to the House some control over the use of its time, and that is important. At present, the Executive have total control over when statements are made to the House and on what subject. The system of private notice questions gives the official Opposition some scope to take the initiative, but only very occasionally, and. Back Benchers have no equivalent opportunities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
6.2 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I intervene in the debate as a member of the House of Commons Commission. Under statute, the Commission is responsible for the House's finances and employs almost all its staff. We do not take any collective view on the merits of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in the effects that the proposals will have on the House administration and on the services that the House provides. I am also aware of some concerns expressed by Members and by staff, which have been reflected in the questions put by my hon. Friends and responded to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The implications of the motions before us are obviously of great importance to the Commission, and we and the Board of Management, chaired by the Clerk of the House, have given them considerable thought. It is extremely difficult to assess the full implications of the changes at this stage, mainly because there are so many variables. I shall give four brief examples.
First, I noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on when Select Committees may meet. Select Committees may decide to meet much earlier in the day. If they do, there may be difficulties for staff who would have longer journeys to work, and possibly a longer working day. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is up to Committees to decide when they meet. The Commission cannot anticipate: we have to react.
Secondly, many House staff are not allowed to take leave when the House is sitting. If the windows for leave narrow, that rule may have to be changed. In turn, that may require additional staff to provide cover.

731
Thirdly, at the moment the summer recess is a key period for major works with minimum disruption. All of us who happened to be here over the summer will have seen one of the largest building sites in Europe. September sittings will reduce that period, so there may be a cost premium, which in any year will depend on the nature and extent of the works. However, if we have a calendar for the year ahead, the ability to make firm plans will offset that perceived disadvantage.
Lastly, the earlier finish on Tuesdays and Wednesdays will probably affect the need for catering services in the evenings, but by how much will depend on how many Members, their staff and the staff of the House eat here after the rising. September sittings may redress the balance somewhat.
It will be clear to the House that the effect of these proposals will depend crucially on how the House, Committees and Members adapt to any new arrangements. The House is not just an organisation: it is also a living organism and, because of its nature, is not easily predictable. However, I can assure the House that we, as Commissioners, and the Clerk and his colleagues are on the case, if I may use the jargon from the television—which we do not always watch in the evenings between votes.
On finance, the Commission will try to meet any additional requirements in the current financial year from resources already allocated. In December, we will consider the House's estimate for 2003–04, and will have the opportunity to make financial adjustments then. In the longer term, we will make any necessary provision in the three-year financial plans, which will be approved next summer.
As for the staff, we must ensure that we remain good employers. That is a matter of concern, and my right hon. Friend referred to the Commission's strong involvement in that. If the House approves the motions before us, the proposals may well make life easier for many staff. If they do not, we must ensure that those staff are not disadvantaged or demotivated, and that services continue to be delivered to the present high standards. That is a priority for the Commission and the Board. If problems arise, they will be discussed with the staff affected and with the trade union side.
Mr. McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the new arrangements will reduce or increase the running costs of the House, bearing in mind the fact that the Leader of the House has said that the facilities that are currently open until 10 pm or 11 pm will remain open in the future?
Mr. Bell: I have already said that we will make any necessary provision in the three-year financial plans, which will be approved next summer, in the light of the decisions that the House makes tonight. If additional resources or staff are shown to be required in particular areas, we will provide them.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of how we can become more accessible to our constituents. He mentioned a glass-fronted gallery that would enable constituents to see hon. Members in action. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) called it a glass menagerie. However we describe such a proposal, the fact is that earlier sittings of the House will
732
limit constituents' tours on those days. Hon. Members will know—my right hon. Friend has confirmed this—that one of the Commission's announced strategic aims is to increase public access to the House and knowledge of its work. Non-sitting Fridays will make up some of the shortfall, but we are also costing Saturday opening for visitors, and we are discussing those matters with the authorities of the House of Lords.
The long-term parliamentary calendar recommended in paragraph 74 of the Modernisation Committee's report would greatly help our long-term planning. I am sure that the House is pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's statement that provisional dates for recesses up to October next year will be announced in his business statement on Thursday. I know my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of ensuring that that is rolled forward every two months or so.
I hope I have made clear the strong concern felt by the Commission and the House about the effects on staff, facilities and amenities of any decisions that we make today. That concern will continue in the light of any such decisions. I commend the views of the Commission to the House.
6.10 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: Two of the most misleading words in the political dictionary are "reform" and "modernisation". They are nearly always used to camouflage proposed changes with ulterior and concealed motives, and both therefore feature prominently on the cover of the report that we are debating.
We do not need to agree with the grand old Duke of York that any change at any time is always for the worse to know for a fact that some changes are not for the better. As our constituents find in their personal lives, changes are indeed often for the worse.
The House of Commons has been continually reforming and modernising its procedures and perquisites since Dick Crossman was Leader of the House in the 1960s. I remember listening to debates almost identical to this 40 years ago. When morning sittings were introduced they were a total flop: not only lawyers and stockbrokers like me but a great many Labour trade unionists and the like did not attend in the mornings. The Wilson Government quickly dumped the whole idea, and everyone agreed that Dick had been too clever by half. I hope that these proposals will have the same fate—although I do not think there is anyone quite as clever as Dick Crossman in the present Government.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, the object of the exercise should be to improve scrutiny of the Government by Back Benchers. These proposals will have the opposite result. When I first arrived here, Ministers of all parties were genuinely in awe of the House of Commons. I am bound to say that I have never grown out of that myself.
In his retirement, Harold Macmillan told me that he was seldom able to lunch before the then twice-weekly Prime Minister's Question Time, so tense did he always feel at the prospect of facing questions from the House. It would be encouraging to think that the proposal to take parliamentary questions before lunch was motivated by kindly considerations of that sort, but I very much doubt it. I am told that Ministers eat only

733
sandwiches nowadays; moreover, their general behaviour demonstrates a complete contempt for the House and an absolute preoccupation with the media. That, in fact, is what lies behind all these proposals. Ministers have no great love of Parliament as an institution.
The proposed batch of so-called reforms will undoubtedly make things worse. The imposition of a permanent maximum 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will greatly increase the influence of the Executive and reduce the power of the Chamber.
It is a mistake to assume, as someone did earlier, that all parliamentarians are equal. We are all equal in the sight of God, but we are not equal as parliamentarians. Some parliamentarians are very much abler and more experienced than others, as well as being better speakers. They are the ones whom the House and the country want to hear. The modern development whereby speakers are selected—largely by a computer, I understand—on the mathematical basis of how often they happen to have spoken during the current Session, rather than on the basis of whether they have a special contribution to make, is not desirable, and is one reason why the House is usually almost empty of all but those who think they will be called to speak.
If we want to improve the standing of Parliament, we should understand that the hours during which we sit have almost nothing to do with it. What will determine Parliament's status are the personalities of those elected to this place: their distinction, their experience, their character, their independence and their capacity for oratory—heart-moving oratory. Since Tony Benn left the House, there is hardly anyone capable of producing that.
Anne Picking: Is not the fundamental purpose of our being here to represent our constituents, not to stand up and be windbags?
Sir Peter Tapsell: As a matter of fact, I do think we must represent our constituents, but we do not do so by being dreary, ignorant bores.
A rigid, universal 10-minute limit on speeches would have destroyed our parliamentary heritage. I know we will be reminded— it is astonishing that we have not been reminded already—of the sermon on the mount and the Gettysburg address; but although Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ could move the world in 10 minutes, most of us need a little longer.
A great parliamentary speech is a work of art. It resembles a symphony: it has a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have light and shade, variations in tempo and tone, passion and wit, and sustained, serious intellectual content. It must concern an important issue on which there are strong, competing views in the House and in the country. I think of Wilberforce evangelising for the abolition of slavery, John Bright crusading for cheap food and free trade, Churchill pleading for rearmament, and Sydney Silverman, in my parliamentary youth, calling tirelessly for an end to hanging. All spoke from the Back Benches, and at length.
There were many, many others—a whole great galaxy of parliamentary heroes, some of whom never reached the Government Bench, but whose voices still echo
734
across the centuries. If they had been confined to 10-minute speeches we would never have heard of them, and Britain would long ago have gone down the plughole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call—
Sir Peter Tapsell: I have hardly begun!
Lloyd George advised the young Harold Macmillan not to say anything in the first five minutes of his speech, but to wait for the House to fill up. It is happening rather slowly this evening.
Bob Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that he would also be allowed to respond to no more than two interventions during his speeches? As he has taken one from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and one from me, I have now denied others—including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who I see wants to make a comment—the right to intervene. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I think that I could have done even better without a second intervention.
Let me now turn to the proposals for sitting hours. New Labour seems set on turning the House into a safe haven for nursing mothers and geriatrics like me. I do not presume to speak for the mothers, but I suppose I should be grateful: if we are never to sit after 7 pm, I see no obstacle—the Almighty and my electors permitting—to my remaining here for several more Parliaments. I may, like Lord Randolph Churchill, die by inches in public, but at least I will not—unlike the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—ever be tired.
The proposed new working arrangements are rather nicely judged to be unsatisfactory for effective opposition, but inconvenient enough to prevent Back Benchers from pursuing a profession and gaining experience of what is rather slightingly called "the real world", or acquiring honestly—rather than by brown envelopes—that financial independence that can be such a bulwark of independent thought, speech and voting integrity. The proposed new hours are, in short, a charter for party political hacks.
To develop the sensible point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), who intervened on my speech, the greatest merit of outside interests is that they enable a Member to maintain inside this House a proper perspective on the lives of the people whom he or she has been elected to represent. An MP cannot spend all weekend simply wandering around supermarkets in his or her constituency, much as I enjoy doing that. A competent MP needs to be able to put the interests of his or her constituents to the fore, in the context of the national scheme of things, and of the ever-growing international pressures of the modern world. To do that, he or she needs a great deal of experience that cannot be acquired just in this House, in its Corridors, or in the Rooms that used to be smoke filled.
Ideally, we would all have much more experience than we have at the moment. However, for a whole variety of reasons that are inevitable in the modern world, many of

735
us come into this place without the sort of experience that people had when I entered the House. A holder of the Victoria Cross, commanders of cruisers and brigades, major trade union leaders, chairmen of great companies and editors of great newspapers then sat in this House. All that has gone, and it is not going to come back, but we must not produce a way of life in this place that is attractive only to retired polytechnic lecturers.
What are we all going to do after 7pm? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Ideally, we would all return to the bosom of our family, but many of those bosoms are far away. The prospect of 650 parliamentarians suddenly released, like the prisoners in "Fidelio", tramping the streets of London looking for vulnerable people to help, is one to which only a Hogarth could do full justice.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time, I am afraid, is up.
6.23 pm
Anne Picking: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak after the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). What an abysmal contribution that was; it has set us back mega. It is great to be able to stand up, posture, pontificate, show off and make a wonderful speech, but, as I said in my intervention, we are here to represent our constituents.
The fact that I am even on my feet and speaking is overwhelming for me. Because of the pecking order and the current system, which is unfair, the opportunities for new Members to make contributions in this Chamber are very limited. I should be able to represent my constituents in East Lothian in the same fair and equal way that my hon. Friend the Father of the House is able to represent his constituents in West Lothian. If speeches are time limited, I and the other new Members who are trying to find their way and make a difference in this place—a place that we, too, are in awe of and respect—will be able to do that.
The reason I ended up on the Modernisation Committee is a story in itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was my replacement on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions after its vole last July. My reward for doing the honourable thing by falling on my sword was membership of the Modernisation Committee. I doubt whether a new MP would normally have that honour, and I have thoroughly enjoyed serving on it under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The Modernisation Committee seeks to make this Parliament relevant and engaging, and to increase the level of participation among elected Members of the House. What on earth is wrong with that? Rather than repeating what others have said, or trying to ensure that our speeches are heard back at the ranch or included in a press release, we should make disciplined contributions, and engage in meaningful debate and wholly proper and efficient democracy.
I intend to be unique. I intend to make the shortest speech because I want to set an example, but before I finish I want to point out that the argument concerning carry-over versus genuine scrutiny does not make sense. If we want more genuine scrutiny, we must adopt carry-
736
over. It is absolute nonsense to argue that legislation will be rushed through and that we will run out of time. I want far more time, so that there is proper scrutiny to ensure effective and efficient legislation.
I hope that all other Members will adopt my policy of making short, sharp contributions. We should remember that this is an experiment—we do not have to get too worried about protecting the status quo. Let us try to do things differently. If the new method proves more effective, let us adopt it; if it does not, we can ditch it or change it. Nothing is set in stone. Just because the way in which we have worked over the years has been okay—just because we have eventually got there by dilly-dallying—that does not make it right. We have a duty to try to do our work more effectively. If we expect the firefighters to modernise in order to promote and provide better public services, what is wrong with us modernising to promote and provide better services for our constituents?
6.27 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on the subject of carry-over, and I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I say that because I was the spokesman on constitutional affairs when Lord Norton produced his report, which I thought a wholly convincing document. It made admirable sense on that subject, and I shall certainly exercise my free vote in favour of the Leader of the House's proposal in this regard. Much of the report is refreshing, attractive and acceptable. For instance, I have no difficulty in supporting the proposal for September sittings. It is extremely difficult to make a logical case against that proposal, so I shall vote for it.
I am not against so-called modernisation in all particulars. However, I do believe that if we are to change, it must be for the better, and I am troubled by a number of issues. I do not like the way in which the Government are going to abandon Fridays. We have little enough time in this House to debate issues on the Adjournment. Such issues may not be hugely contentious in political terms, but they are of great national importance and need discussing. To sacrifice Friday upon Friday is a profound mistake. Of course, I want a large number of Fridays to be devoted to private Member's legislation, but to get rid of all the others is, frankly, wrong.
Nor do I like the arbitrary 10-minute limit on speeches. Here, I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who made a marvellous, rumbustious speech. Would that he could have gone on for another 12 minutes. Mr. Speaker and his colleagues in the Chair—including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—have the wonderful facility of decreeing time limits. Mr. Speaker decided on a 12-minute limit for today's speeches. Last week, he decided on an eight-minute limit. Sometimes he decides on a 10-minute limit, and on others he opts for a 15-minute limit. That seems the right, flexible approach. When a vast number of Members want to speak, we have to be cut down, but when they do not, it is entirely appropriate to allow us to develop our cases at rather greater length.

737
I come to my principal argument against the recommendation on length of speeches. I am one of those Members who like to speak without notes. I like the spontaneity of debate, but when we are time limited it is impossible to maintain that spontaneity and to give way when one likes to do so.
Mr. Tyler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, has read the recommendations. A standard 10-minute limit on speeches is not proposed. The proposal is more elastic. It gives discretion to the Chair, but provides that the norm should be 10 minutes when there is pressure of time on a debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The recommendations give very little discretion to the Chair. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is one to talk: he rabbited on for 20 minutes. today and finds it very difficult to keep to a limit.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, as I want to develop my arguments and deal with the main point, which is my reason for opposing this recommendation. Those hon. Members who have been here for a long time know that I like to give way. I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, and like to be able to answer interventions. That is a good thing to be able to do, but it is very difficult when one labours under a limit.
I want to finish my speech in less than 12 minutes, so that other hon. Members can contribute. In the time left, I want to concentrate on the recommendation with regard to hours. It is true that, in the past, the House has sat at different times. It used to begin early in the morning in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but in those days the Chamber was paramount. There were Committees, but nowhere near as many as now. In those days, hon. Members did not suffer from anything like as many conflicts, and their constituency work load was nowhere near as great as it is today.
I enter my office never later than eight in the morning, but even then I find it difficult to cope with all the demands on my time so that I can get to the Chamber at 2.30 pm. The hon. Member for East Lothian, as she spends more time in the House, will find that she becomes more involved in a variety of matters. My work in the House has caused me to be involved with heritage bodies and other organisations, and I have found that people—reasonably and properly—want to see me. They want to discuss with me the issues in which they are involved, and I need to have time for them to do so.
Moreover, I like to sit on Select Committees. At the moment, I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I had to say that I could not attend this afternoon's sitting. I consider the Chamber to be of paramount importance, and I felt that I had to be here for this debate. If we move to the new hours, that conflict of loyalties will be increased by factors of 10 or 100 for some hon. Members.
There is nothing to be said in favour of moving to the proposed new hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I was not terribly happy about the change made to Thursdays, but it is now part of the parliamentary
738
calendar and I accept it. I shall vote for the proposal that the House finish its business at 6 pm on Thursdays because I reluctantly accept that the House will not do away with the experiment.
Paul Farrelly: The hon. Gentleman is fair minded and independent, but the shadow Leader of the House has proposed that it is logical to start proceedings at 9.30 in the morning. Several hon. Members have cast aspersions on the motives of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in apparently wishing to out-modernise the modernisers. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the right hon. Gentleman really believes that the House should sit at 9.30 am?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I would no more seek to answer for my right hon. Friend than he would seek to answer for me. He must answer for himself. As I said during his speech, I disagree with him. I believe the proposal to start at 9.30 in the morning is profoundly wrong. I shall not support it, and I would not do so even if a three-line Whip were imposed.
I believe that being a Member of Parliament is not a job. It is a way of life and a vocation to public service. We are not here to serve our personal convenience or to pander to the media's every demand. We are here to be the tribune of the people, and must serve at whatever hours are reasonable. I do not object to the move by the Leader of the House towards ending the practice of sitting very late into the night, but we are here to serve our constituents, as the hon. Member for East Lothian said, and to debate the great issues of the day. Most of all, we are here to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise legislation. We shall reduce our ability to do those things if we accept these recommendations.
Some hon. Members have said that parliamentarians are not the flavour of the month, and that people do not attach to the Chamber the same importance that they once did. One reason for that is that hon. Members have become increasingly toothless over the years.
I have made many speeches in the House—from the Opposition Dispatch Box and from both Opposition and Government Benches. I have criticised Governments of both parties. My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House is the best example in history of a gamekeeper turning poacher, but as a Minister he did not like to be held to account much. He was as brilliant on his feet as a Minister as he is as an Opposition spokesman, but circumstances change cases.
I have been in the House for more than 30 years—not as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle—and in that time Parliament has become increasingly subject to the whims and caprices of the Executive. If we approve the proposed changes, we shall be giving up many of our freedoms as Back Benchers. We shall reduce still further the Chamber's influence on the nation's affairs.
Earlier, I mentioned the need to meet and talk to people from outside the House. I see nothing wrong with the possibility that some of those conversations might take place over lunch. Under the proposals, there will be no lunch hour. Those hon. Members who, like, me, want to be here on a Thursday, when the House sits at 11.30 am, have breakfast at about 11 and go through

739
the day without a break. That happened last Thursday: many of us sat in the Chamber through the whole day as the House debated local government finance. The proposed hours will deprive many people outside the House of the opportunity to talk to and influence hon. Members. If we are truly to serve the people of the nation, we must be available much more readily than the proposals will allow.
The Modernisation Committee's report is like the famous curate's egg—good in parts. Several of the proposals will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the parliamentary institution. I support those proposals wholeheartedly. However, if adopted, the limit on speeches and, more importantly, the change in hours would make Parliament much less influential in a relatively short period of time.
There will be also knock-on effects for those who serve us here. They will not have quite the life that they have now. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was right to speak about the unanimity of the Commission in wanting to do everything possible to cushion staff from the effects of change, but effects there will be and they will not be to those people's advantage. I urge hon. Members not to support those proposals.
6.38 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the House making greater contact with the electorate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spoke about how the House needed to reflect a rapidly changing society. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said that the electorate should not feel that we were out of touch with people and that what we did was irrelevant.
If our constituents heard this debate, they would be amazed at its self-absorption and introversion. They want hon. Members to debate and decide the issues of the day. Some Labour Members will disagree with me but, regardless of what they and Opposition Members think, I believe that it is not our working practices that fail to engage with people or cause reduced polls in elections, it is what we in this House do and fail to do.
People are worried about the legislation that we pass and the issues that we discuss. They do not care about amendments to Standing Orders that might turn one set of gobbledegook to another. They care about what we do. I stay in this House because I want to participate in changing the lives of my constituents for the better and to participate with colleagues in debating the issues of the day. That does not mean that I necessarily agree with my colleagues. In addition to being a legislature, this House is a forum. If it is a forum, it has to have proper debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) may say many things with which I disagree; my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who is not here at the moment, may say many things with which I disagree; but it is essential that they have the chance to say them—and it is essential that they have the chance to say them in a way that could change minds in the House, but also communicate with people outside.
I support many of the proposals, but I am worried that some will make a genuine exchange of ideas in the House less possible. My hon. Friend the Member for
740
East Lothian (Anne Picking) spoke about the need for meaningful debate. She is absolutely right about that. Indeed, what is happening this very evening has given us an opportunity to witness the way in which meaningful debate in the House is being eroded and damaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) did not take interventions; other Members did not take interventions, even with compensatory time, because they cannot look at the digital clock the whole time. That being so, genuine debate in the House obviously calls for self-discipline. We do not necessarily want Members making speeches of 20, 30 or 40 minutes, but to confine them to an arbitrary time limit on the basis of a mandatory time limit, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes, will damage genuine debate.
Mr. Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way for the very reason that I am giving.
We have in the Leader of the House one of the finest debaters I have listened to in the 32 years in which I have sat in the House of Commons. He would not have developed that reputation if there had been mandatory time limits when he was developing his skills as a speaker. My right hon. Friend knows the high regard in which I hold him, but it does look as though he is pulling up the ladder that he climbed and that others will be unable to climb it.
Genuine debate requires an exchange of ideas. Genuine debate means that when I listen to an hon. Member, I may have my mind changed. If I cannot do that because I am looking at the digital clock the whole time, wondering about the length of the intervention and the length of my response, I am hobbled. I do not claim for a moment that my contributions to debates in the House are necessarily of any great value, but my constituents send me here to represent them. That means that I have things to say, whether or not those things are good or valid. That is for me to decide and for me to have a chance of trying. That is why I believe that the House will be making a serious error if it votes for mandatory time limits.
Let us imagine it is 1938. Winston Churchill gets up: he inveighs against Chamberlain, he inveighs against appeasement, he inveighs against Hitler and he inveighs against Mussolini. He says that we must be prepared for a second world war. While he is developing his argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker says, "Order. The right hon. Gentleman has come to the end of his 12 minutes." We cannot know when a speech is necessary and we cannot know when a speech may not be prolix but essential to the way the country operates. That is why I hope that the House will not vote for these mandatory time limits, but leave it instead to the discretion of the Speaker, although I would actually prefer even that not to happen.
There is no way in which we will ever turn this House of Commons into a rational organisation comparable to other workplaces and activities in which people are employed. This place is sui generic—a large room in which people speak, listen to each other, change the laws of the country and revolutionise the country, as the Attlee Government did between 1945 and 1950. There is

741
nothing like it—we cannot compare the way in which we conduct our activities with the very important work done in a motor car or computer factory. This is different. This is a House of Parliament. It is not a sausage machine or a conveyor belt. It is not here to be efficient. A Parliament is not about time and motion studies; it is about listening to views, perhaps conflicting, and, out of the clash of views, changing the way in which the country works and reflecting the views of its people. This is a Parliament, not a factory. It is not a debating society. That is where the former leader of the Conservative party went wrong—he thought that it was just a debating society, but that was not enough.
If we lose sight of what we are here for, and believe that by having time limits we can hear more speeches and that by working from 9 to 5, or whatever it is, we will persuade our constituents that we are like them, we will fail. The very fact that we are here is because we want to represent our constituents, but we are not like them. If we were like them, we would not be here. If we were like them, we would not have fought to get here; we would not have done the things that got us here. We are sui generis—we are the British House of Commons. Although I support many of the proposals that my right hon. Friend makes and shall vote for them. I fear that the proposals on time limits and the change in hours will damage us as a House of Parliament, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on that.
6.47 pm
Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I agree with his theme that culture is more important than procedure, and I hope to return to that point in a moment.
One needs to put the debate in the slightly broader context of the modernising agenda since 1997. The balance of the reforms so far have, in my view, made life easier for the Government. The automatic programming of every Bill, the introduction of deferred Divisions and the cut off at 10 o'clock may, incidentally, have made life more congenial for individual MPs as well, and I am not against that. However, the consequence has been to tilt what I call the terms of trade away from Parliament towards the Executive. We now need to tilt them back.
Helen Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a large majority has something to do with it being easier for the Government than it was in the first Parliament to which I was elected?
Sir George Young: I strongly believe that in the last Parliament the terms of trade shifted away from Parliament towards the Executive and made it easier for the Government to get their business through the House. The criteria by which I judge the reforms before us is what they do to those terms of trade.
I find this a much more balanced package. There has been a genuine attempt to find and build a consensus, unlike what happened in the last Parliament, when the reforms were forced through using a parliamentary majority. I welcome the new tone and am able to support most of the proposals, with one exception.
742
The most radical proposal has not been mentioned once in the debate. I refer to paragraph 44 of the report in which collective consultation with other parties is proposed on the Queen's Speech. That represents, or could represent, the first tentative steps towards prising the Government's fingers off the programme of the House. Many people believe that ownership of that programme ought to be here and not with the Government. So I welcome that proposal, and would like to know more about it. Will there be a Committee? Will Back Benchers be on it? Will the Executive have a built-in majority on that Committee? If this proposal represents the first step towards the House repatriating the ability to control its own business, I believe that it could be more important than many of the others.
In principle, I am not opposed to carry-over. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I accept the arguments in the Norton report that carry-over is a more sensible approach to the scrutiny of Bills and that we would get a better flow of legislation. When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, it would be helpful if he would confirm what I think was said in an exchange during the opening speeches: if there is disagreement between the two Houses at the end of a Session, this House cannot unilaterally carry over the disputed measure. As long as we have that safeguard, I shall be happy with the proposals for carry-over.
I approached the question of an early start with an entirely open mind, but when I read that section of the Committee's report I found it one-dimensional and almost blinkered. Paragraphs 54 to 63 are nearly all about the Chamber—as if MPs did nothing else. In his introductory speech, the Leader of the House made the same mistake: he tended to discount what takes place in the morning. Only in paragraph 64 of the report is there an acknowledgement of life outside the Chamber. Then we hit this sentence:
"Changes to the sitting hours in the Chamber will require consequential changes for other parliamentary procedures, such as meetings of Select Committees, Standing Committees and Westminster Hall."
There are no real concessions there—no thinking through of the impact on the rest of the House.
I shall briefly quote from appendix 1 of the first report of the Modernisation Committee's first report in December 1998. Paragraph 12 states that
"the Government is not persuaded that a change of sitting hours to normal office hours is in the best interests of the House, individual Members or the Government."
That was the evidence of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who was Leader of the House only four years ago—an unequivocal finding against the decision to move the times of sittings. There are some powerful paragraphs in that annexe whose impact has not faded.
Mention was made of the impact on Ministers, who normally spend the mornings in their Departments or making contact with the real world. The report refers to the impact on constituency work—a point touched on by hon. Members in this debate. It states that morning sittings would be "bound to detract" from Standing Committee and Select Committee meetings. It is unclear what has happened during the intervening four years to overturn those unequivocal recommendations from a former Leader of the House.

743
A further, albeit subsidiary, point is that much of the business for Thursdays is unwhipped. On Thursday, we shall debate defence on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Last Thursday, we debated local government finance on the Adjournment. If we stopped at 7 pm on Wednesdays and there was a tendency to schedule unwhipped business for Thursdays, some colleagues would be tempted to go home, compressing yet more business into two parliamentary days and generating unhelpful media comment.
I am not unsympathetic to the case, but the consequences have not been fully thought through, nor has the case been fully made. I am not minded to support the option for a 9.30 start either.
I welcome the move to greater topicality for departmental questions. I should have gone further and proposed a ten-minute period at the end of departmental questions for completely open questions. The Prime Minister tries to answer open questions about the Government for about half an hour each week so there is no reason that a Secretary of State, too, should not be expected to answer open questions for about ten minutes about the management of his or her Department. That would make the question session even more topical.
A reform that I should have liked is alluded to in paragraph 80. Opposition parties should be able to trade in Opposition days for the right to demand a statement on a subject about which the Government are reticent. The report's proposals ensure prime time—in fact, even more time—for Government statements, although I question the assumption that such statements should last an hour, but it would have been fairer to balance that reform with the right of Opposition parties to demand a statement, also in prime time. That would have been consistent with holding the Government to account. Traditional Opposition days, even if they are taken as half days, do not represent the best use of Opposition time. We need a more flexible approach.
I am unequivocally in favour of shorter speeches although I am open to persuasion as to how we would achieve them. Speech limits work well in the upper House where contributions tend to be focused. This Chamber should strive to be less like Radio 3 and more like Classic FM—a recommendation that may not find its way on to the BBC's "Yesterday in Parliament" programme.
The question is not whether a 15-minute speech is better than a 10-minute speech, but whether three 10-minute speeches add more value to the debate than two 15-minute speeches. The marginal utility of the last five minutes of a speech that could be shortened to 10 minutes is less than that of a fresh contribution that might otherwise be lost.
There is a risk involved. We see it already. Members who realise that they will not get in will clamber aboard the opening speeches, which are not time-limited. Some Front-Bench speeches are far too long and if Back-Bench speeches are to be compulsorily, or voluntarily, shortened, we must have discipline from the Front Benches.
Having spoken in favour of short speeches, I plan this to be one. The reforms will not dramatically change how we are perceived unless they are associated with what
744
has been called "cultural change"; it is not when we meet, but what we do when meet. Prime Minister's questions, for example, represent not the best but the worst of the House. Until we can change that event from a ridiculous alternation of the obsequious and the over-aggressive to a more focused exchange on one or two serious subjects, the public will say that it does not matter when we are in the Chamber but how we spend our time.
Yes, procedural change is important, but it will not alter things of itself; cultural change is also necessary.
6.56 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It is a privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to be able to speak in the House. The debate is important, because we ought to set out where we stand on these issues. Many hon. Members want to put their case and it is important that we all have the chance to do so.
I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is essential that we put the facts as we see them.
As we have the privilege to be Members of Parliament and to represent the voters who put us here, we should not be in this place out of self-interest. The problem with this debate, however, is that it is about self-interest, whatever we decide.
We ought not to abuse the privilege that people have given us, but that will occur if we continue to reduce our hours. No doubt, I shall hear later that the proposals do not mean a reduction in our hours, but merely a change. I disagree. The reduction in hours will come. If we start earlier in the morning, instead of in the afternoon, something will have to be squeezed somewhere. That will be either a Select Committee or a House Committee. Some of us are members of both; we make up the numbers because other Members do not want to serve on Committees.
What will the problems be? I am usually in the House before 9 am. Other Members have pointed out that they are in before 8. That is important because of our staff. The debate seems to have been all about us. Well, it should not be only about us; it should be about the people who work in this place and the people who work with us—the forgotten people. We find it easy to forget them, yet we make many demands on their time.
When we come in at 9 o'clock, there is mail to go through. We have to check the questions for that day, read the Order Paper and the newspapers. We have to consider what is relevant to the constituents we represent and what the people who work with us do for the rest of the day. There is work to be done first thing in the morning.
Then we might go on to a meeting of the Catering Committee, which begins at 9.30, or to a Select Committee that starts at 10. Those meetings are held in the mornings. It is important not to squeeze time, so that we continue to have the choice to take part in such meetings without giving up something else.
We were rightly told that Westminster Hall was a privilege when it was instituted. It is right that we can decide to speak in Westminster Hall in the morning without missing something in this Chamber, but if the reforms go ahead, we shall face challenges. Where will our time be spent?

745
It is wrong to say that we shall not lose time due to the proposals. We shall obviously lose time. That is what worries me.
Mr. Bryant: There were several occasions when I took part in debates in my hon. Friend's name in Westminster Hall, on issues such as Gibraltar, when I had to choose between attending a Select Committee sitting or Westminster Hall. Do not all of us spend a great deal of our time choosing between different elements of our parliamentary responsibilities? Of course the day will not get shorter or longer as a result of these changes, but the important thing is to try to make it possible for the public to understand what we do in this place, and continuing until 10 o'clock at night makes little sense to them.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because some might argue that it was not his choice to go to Westminster Hall but that he was instructed to go there, and that is what we all remember about those debates; so I do not think that he should get away with that quite so easily.
We do make choices as to how we allocate our time, and this debate is about those choices. We have made major changes in the House, and they have made it easier for Members. I think that 10 o'clock is the right time to end on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. There are genuine reasons for finishing earlier on a Thursday. I represent a constituency in the north-west. Whatever form of transport one chooses to take—the Virgin west coast main line, the motorways or whatever—the north-west is not the easiest place to get to in the British Isles. In fact it seems to be one of the hardest journeys to make at the moment. But it is important that we are seen to be working hard in the House on behalf of our constituents. That is so relevant and so important to them and we should not lose sight of it.
Many Members will wish to push their case and I respect every Member's views because they are all based on valid reasons, but I remind them that we represent those who work in the police and the health service, and others, who are on call 24 hours a clay and work unusual hours. Have they the right to change their hours? No. They are on a contract; they are expected to work to it. They are expected to work to the hours that they are given on the rota. Surely we should respect the hours that we have put into the House, not change them to make things easier for ourselves.
We should be considering the people that work with us and the people that work in the House. I have not noticed anyone putting the case on behalf of the people who work with us and I certainly have not heard many people make a strong case about the staff that work in the House, who are very important as well. What do they wish to see coming out of this modernisation? Surely case studies of the people that work in this place should have been brought to us first instead of being presented after we have taken the decision.
Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that our staff like us to stay here until 10 or 10.30 at night?
Mr. Hoyle: I am not sure how well the hon. Gentleman treats his own staff, who work with him. I think of people as working with me, not for me; I believe that it is a team that works together, so I always find it interesting when people say "who work for us". We should say, "the team that work with me". I meet them at 9 in the morning. They go off. They do not work until 10 o'clock at night; far from it.
The danger is that pressure will be brought to bear on the staff that work with us. If Members are in Committee at 9 in the morning, when will they meet their staff? Will it be at 7, 8 or 9 o'clock at night? That is the weakness of the case that has been made by the hon. Gentleman; I should have thought better of him. Those are the people that we should start looking to. The problem is that we are always looking to what we want.
Mr. Bell: I repeat the commitment that I gave as Commissioner: that we will of course take great interest in the future of the staff, whatever decisions are taken by the House tonight.
Mr. Hoyle: Surely it is better to take the views of the staff first, rather than what we decide in the House tonight. At least we should be taking a more enlightened decision if we began to understand what the staff views are, because they are important. I should have expected the trade unions to submit a paper to the Leader of the House. The GMB represents some workers in the House. I do not know whether it has sent a paper to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stating those workers' views, but I should have thought that it would have been beneficial to know what the people who make the House tick think. The great danger is that it is always about us, and the self-centredness of MPs becomes very apparent.
Mr. Martin Salter: My hon. Friend does not appear to be aware that the original memorandum from the Leader of the House has been out for consultation since December last year, and the Board of Management of the House of Commons has commented on it. The idea that that proposal has been railroaded through is untrue.
Mr. Hoyle: I did not say that; let me explain more slowly. I am serious about this, because the staff are important. There are many letters in the report, expressing many views, but they are from Members of Parliament. What I do not see is the opportunity for staff in the House to send a letter and for that to be reproduced, like our correspondence. It is a shame that we do not have the views of the staff that work here and of the unions that represent them. Those views have not become apparent to us; they certainly have not been given to us. It would have been beneficial if they had been.
David Hamilton: Surely my hon. Friend is not arguing that members of staff should be working long hours. Surely the argument should be that we should be paying them decent wages and giving them a decent contract to work for us. It is argued that we should be pushing staff towards longer hours along with us. That is wrong, surely.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is why I have raised that point. I am making the opposite

747
argument to the one that he supposes; let me explain it in a way that we should all understand. At the moment, people who work in the House have split shifts. The great temptation will be to move to one shift. We shall then be putting pressure on staff to stay a little bit longer to accommodate the Members of the House. The danger is that we shall be extending their hours, not reducing them.
Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. I wonder whether, among the views that he has read in the report, he read a submission by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which comments that business and industry leaders have in the past pointed out the irony of the situation whereby Ministers and other MPs speak to them about the advantages of work-life balance while current parliamentary practices make it impossible for Ministers to practise that themselves.
Mr. Hoyle: That is right. It is always interesting to see that we do represent one another and to note the views that are expressed. There is a widely held view that we shall be putting pressure on Ministers as well if we are not careful. If we contain the hours, some constituencies will lose the benefits of ministerial visits because Ministers will be under constraints forcing them to be in the House. That is a weakness. In ministerial terms, Lancashire seems to be the colonies of this country; it is rare for Ministers to come that far north. It will become impossible, I stress, to persuade Ministers to come that far north in future unless we have a conference there.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks and include Cheshire with Lancashire in that respect. I have just taken a straw poll in the Tea Room, of the staff, and they are all very much hoping that they will be able to retain the current hours, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has so ably outlined.
Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that intervention. It is important that we ensure that the jobs of those people, who look after us so well, are not under threat. There is a great danger that if these proposals are approved tonight, those jobs will be under threat, and I certainly do not want to be associated with people losing their jobs.
7.8 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Many of us can concur with the common sense with which he makes his case. There is much in the proposals presented by the Leader of the House with which I can agree. I should like to mention those before coming to the ones that cause me more concern.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is most welcome, and I think that we would all like to see that extended as much as possible. The Leader of the House mentioned the tabling of questions, possibly using electronic methods. I support that, given the necessary safeguards. Technically, I cannot see why those safeguards cannot be introduced. I do not agree with the proposal that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield
748
(Sir Nicholas Winterton) about fingerprinting. I would not be very comfortable about handing over my fingerprints to the Conservative Whips Office. However, if we might use electronic signatures, as would happen in a business environment, to protect our security, I am sure that electronic tabling would be feasible.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: It was not our proposal.
Mrs. Browning: I am relieved to hear that.
A test should be applied: does each of the proposals before us tonight strengthen the opportunity for Back Benchers to scrutinise and challenge what the Executive is bringing forward? Some of the proposals not only do not advance that cause, but take it further back, so I oppose them.
The first of those proposals is that on the general change to the sitting hours of the House. Many people have given reasons why they do not believe that that should take place. I do not subscribe to the idea that, somehow, out there among the wider electorate, there is the belief that changing the fact that the House of Commons sits until 10 o'clock at night will enhance turnout figures at elections or people's perception of us.
It is indicative that, in the opening statements and elsewhere, the impression has somehow already been given to people on the outside who may have no idea of parliamentary procedures that we do not have that much of importance to do in the mornings, yet we all know that we may be attending Select Committee or Standing Committee sittings, or just doing our constituency work or other work that interests us in the House.
I particularly like to use mornings to see people on a one-to-one basis. I am not a great believer in the working lunch; I would rather people came in for an hour and made their case over a cup of coffee. I prefer information to be brought to me in that way, yet the opportunity to do that would be curtailed if the House were to sit earlier. I certainly would not expect many of the organisations, charities and people who come to see me to make their case to do so in the evening after the House had risen at 7 o'clock, and I am concerned about that restriction.
I am also concerned about written statements unless they represent a genuine alternative to the planted written question. Many hon. Members have experienced the anomaly of raising with a Minister something particular to their own constituency only to find that the issue is dealt with in a planted written answer to a question asked by a Member whose constituency is hundreds of miles away and who cannot possibly have a constituency interest in the matter. If the proposal were intended to tidy that up, I would have no problem with it. That would be a very sensible move forward. However, I would be concerned if the proposal were intended to let Ministers off the hook by allowing them not to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer questions from Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield expanded on written questions to Ministers during his work with the Procedure Committee, and they are of genuine concern to all of us. I table named day questions, but not more than five a day. I do so because it is becoming more and more difficult to get a timely

749
response to letters sent to Ministers on important constituency matters. One would expect the Cabinet Office rules to apply. They state that Members should receive replies from most Departments in 21 days, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will have noticed that many of us are forced to table written questions simply to chase up answers to letters sent to Departments.
I had to table such a question only last week, seeking a response to a very straightforward letter that I first sent in May to the Department of Health. I had chased that letter in June and again on 1 September, but I had to table a named day question as soon as the House returned after the summer recess to receive an answer.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take account of that in any change to tabling questions and the way in which we can question Ministers in a written format and orally, because there is huge frustration, certainly among the Opposition, at the rather sluggardly way in which Departments respond to questions and correspondence from Members of Parliament.
Although I support in principle the changes to the sitting hours, particularly those involving the summer recess and the House returning in September—I hope that we will know whether it will be for two or three weeks—one of the reasons given for those changes is that, if there were a need to recall Parliament, there would be an obvious window of opportunity to debate urgent matters that occur during the long summer recess. However, we should look much more seriously not only at the summer recess, particularly in relation to Departments being able to handle written questions, but at the need to recall Parliament.
The proposed war against Iraq arose almost immediately at the end of the summer term this year, but I have absolutely no doubt that the House would not have been recalled if it had not been for the actions of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and many other colleagues who arranged for Members of the House to convene outside the House under the chairmanship of former Speaker Weatherill to debate a matter of great importance to them. I agreed to participate, and I am told that 50 per cent. of all hon. Members indicated that they would attend that meeting in Church House. That would have been a great embarrassment to the Government, as I am sure the Leader of the House would agree. Back Benchers should not be forced to go to those lengths to get the Prime Minister to ask the Speaker to reconvene the House when a matter of such national importance is before us.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Would it reassure my hon. Friend to know that the Procedure Committee may well undertake an inquiry into that matter during the next Session? We have received a number of representations, and I hope that it does not frighten the Leader of the House in any way to say that we believe that it falls within our terms of reference.
Mrs. Browning: I am comforted by that information, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be as receptive to the Procedure Committee's recommendations as he has been to other matters.
750
I wish to move on to matters in which I was involved in a previous incarnation that are before us again tonight: guillotines, programme motions and deferred voting. I must tell the Leader of the House that I am very concerned to hear flexibility in programme motions used as a bargaining chip. I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) when she forced programme motions and deferred voting on the House, and my clear understanding was that there would be flexibility.
We were given many assurances—they are all in the record of the House—and the Government promised in introducing those proposals that there would be automatic flexibility and that they would listen to the official Opposition in arranging programme motions for each Bill. So it is a matter of concern that, somehow, that flexibility is promised only if others are prepared to go along with other proposals before the House tonight, and I ask the Leader of the House to reflect very seriously on that. I shall regard it as a broken promise if the promise that he is now making, which was not honoured by his predecessor, is used as a bargaining chip for other matters.
I have reservations about the carry-over of incomplete Bills, and I am waiting for the Leader of the House to reassure me during his winding-up speech that that proposal will not be used just to enable the Government to push through controversial legislation that has been blocked in another place.
I do not think that the work of the House will be enhanced, or made more effective or more popular simply by changing the sitting hours of the House. It is not my intention to support the right hon. Gentleman's motion to bring forward the work of the House during the week to 11.30, but equally, for the same reason, I cannot support it beginning at 9.30 in the morning either, so I warn my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I shall not support his proposal.
7.18 pm
Stephen Hesford: May I begin what I hope is a short speech by referring to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), who is not in her place now, as she suggested the way forward? My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said that there was an element of self-indulgence in some of this, and I agree, having listened to some of the contributions so far. However, I am open to doubt about whether it is self-indulgence for the reasons that he mentioned or whether it is a question of self-importance. Should we not focus on what is effective, relevant and representative?
Listening to the views of some of my constituents, I do not believe that defending some of the traditions of the House speaks for them. When they come up to me at constituency meetings, they ask, "Stephen, how often are you down there? You work through the night, do you? You are there till 10 o'clock." They do not mean, "You're my hero, you're fantastic, what stamina you must have, I voted for you because you're a muscle man"—[Laughter.] The House has reformed its procedures over the years, as has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is no longer in his place, said that

751
changing the practices in this place would not make us more representative. I disagree. It would make us more recognisable to the people out there whom we represent.
Some of the major changes in Parliament, such as guillotining of business, were made in the 19th century. I am sure that, in debates at the time, Members claimed that an ancient tradition of Parliament was being taken away. The then Liberal Government introduced programming motions and guillotines to deal with Irish Members—Parnell and others—who were filibustering simply to gum up business. It cannot be right that the House cannot reform itself. That is the purpose of the proposals, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and all those involved on bringing them forward. This may never have been a popular subject in the House, certainly among those who have served here for many years, perhaps for a good reason—perhaps a feeling of loss, because it is what they knew as lads—but I say, "Get a life, move on, let's modernise ourselves."
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) made what was, in some senses, an entertaining speech, but it did not entertain me; nor did it entertain some of my hon. Friends. He talked about Members who spoke with distinction, and he named three people, all of whom were men.
Mr. Robin Cook: He couldn't stand Thatcher.
Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman could not stand Thatcher, and many people in the House would agree with that sentiment.
Mr. Wiggin: Sexist.
Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman says that that is sexist, but sadly, the speech of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, which might otherwise have been considered entertaining, contained an element of sexism. It was an old-fashioned lads' speech about a lads' club that should not be changed.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I had the privilege of listening to his extensive contribution on the Mersey Tunnels Bill recently. It was an example of a particular type of speech, which, I am glad to say, is not overused in this House. He nearly persuaded me to join him in the Lobbies on the issue of very short speeches.
Stephen Hesford: I am not sure what the relevance of that intervention was.
I want to pick up on two other matters, and I shall not repeat what other Members have said. One is from personal experience—mention was made of me going to the gym. As Members may know, I broke my leg earlier this year while playing for the parliamentary football team—
Mrs. Browning: How many women are in the parliamentary football team?
Stephen Hesford: The hon. Lady may be surprised to know that there are several women in the squad.
752
In terms of notice for oral questions, I agree that the time limit of 10 working days or two weeks should be shortened. When I was incapacitated and had to rest in my constituency, my constituents were saying seriously, "Stephen, you can't go down there, you can't travel, you can't move. How can you take part?" The answer, even in the 21st century, was that I could not take part, although I could table written questions. I suggest that in these days of video links, telephone conferencing and so on—this goes beyond the recommendations, so, in some ways, I am saying that the recommendations do not go far enough—
Mr. Forth: Come on.
Stephen Hesford: The shadow Leader of the House says "Come on", but let us think about dragging ourselves into the 21st century.
My main point is that if we do not reform ourselves, we do not make ourselves relevant to members of the public outside. I want to argue that point particularly in relation to female representation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) says from a sedentary position that that is rubbish. Would she like to intervene and explain why?
Mrs. Browning: It is rubbish because men have families, too, and fathers in families are just as important as mothers.
Stephen Hesford: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree—I thought that the Conservatives had realised this, being more caring and sharing these days—that her party needs more female candidates and more ethnic minority candidates. One of the reasons people are put off being Members of Parliament is the lifestyle.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend tell me how many seats there are in which the Labour party has difficulty in assembling a shortlist of candidates when there are vacancies?
Stephen Hesford: It is a question not of assembling a shortlist but of translating that into female representation in the House.
Geraldine Smith: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that female Members do not want to work long hours? When I became a Member of Parliament, I realised that it was much more than a job—it was a way of life. My constituents come first. We should not be trying to cram all our business into shorter hours, as we will lose out, particularly if we go ahead with the proposals for Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
Stephen Hesford: I have only a minute left, and I want to draw the House's attention to a letter—I do not know whether every Member received it, but I hope that they did—sent out by the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Stephen HesfordWhy does the right hon. Gentleman make a male chauvinist representation on all these

753
issues? [Interruption.] I am sure that he will regard that as a compliment. The letter, from Julie Mellor, says that Members' attendance for the debate could mean
"the difference between allowing these important changes to take place or leaving Parliament where it is, with l9th century patterns of business and membership."
That would be a great lost opportunity to expand the representation in this Parliament.
7.30 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), who, I suppose, has proved why we need a time limit on speeches. I do not understand what he was going on about when he said that he was not able to speak in this place. I broke my leg in two places last week, and I am still managing to speak. It is not that difficult. I agree that the Opposition Benches are not exactly filled with retired VCs and major-generals, but we can still hop along and make a speech.
May I say to the Leader of the House that his appointment was a brilliant one? He is proving to be one of the best Leaders of the House that we have ever had. He is totally committed to this place. He loves it, as we all do. I have been here for only 19 years compared to his 30, and I will surprise him by saying that I agreed with much of what he said.
Quite a lot of myths have been expressed in the debate. We have heard some very good and amusing speeches. For example, we heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and it is true that Winston Churchill made some truly tremendous speeches, but most of them were delivered when he was Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, so they would not have been affected by the proposed time limit. Let us be realistic. In the 1930s, when he spoke on the Government of India Act 1935 and on other matters, he spoke to a House that was nine tenths empty.
However, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point—I hope that the House will take it on board—that there will be occasions when a limit should not apply. For example, in a defence debate on a matter of national security it would be absurd to limit a Back-Bench speech from a former Defence Secretary to eight or 10 minutes and perhaps prevent him from making a valuable contribution based on his personal experience. Mr. Speaker and his Deputies must have discretion to allow some Members to speak at greater length.
Mr. Bryant: When Winston Churchill spoke in the 1930s he was a Privy Councillor, so he was not subject to the 10-minute rule that operated for much of the 1930s. In fact, he was able to speak from the Front Bench.
Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. At that stage, Winston Churchill already had enormous experience, and the example underlines the point that I am making. There will be occasions when Members of particular experience should be allowed latitude.
We have all sat through debates in which the Whips have run out of the doors of the Chamber to look for people to speak to deliberately fill out the debate. Let us
754
not delude ourselves: Parliament is not working—most of the time the Chamber is empty. There has been a flight of interest from the Chamber—and not just from the general public, but from Members of Parliament. That might be the result of our procedures or may be to do with the fact that we all have offices and televisions and many of us sit on Select Committees. That is the reality, but let us at least try to get debates that are topical and to the point and in which Members give brief résumés of what they believe. One can give a great speech in 10 minutes. How long was the Gettysburg address—three, four or five minutes? If one chooses one's language carefully, one can make a great speech.
Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that in today's conditions Churchill would have been able to rise to the challenge of giving a short speech on the important topics of the day?
Mr. Leigh: That is what I said. I am sure that Churchill would have done so.
I believe that the Leader of the House has generally got it right. On most occasions, for most speeches, from most Back Benchers, 10 minutes is enough. If that gives younger Members more chance to get in, that is all to the good. It is frustrating for hundreds of them—mainly those on the Government side—who can hardly ever take part in a debate.
Mr. McCabe: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point about short speeches, but would not time-limited speeches tend to reduce Members' willingness to take interventions? That, in itself, would limit debate. Instead of debate, we would have a series of 10-minute statements.
Mr. Leigh: I have already given way three times in my speech, because I notice that the Clerk stops the clock each time that I do so. If we pass the reforms, there is the suggestion that speakers will have injury time. We should speak for 10 minutes, and the more interventions we take, the more interesting our speeches will be. If we are given injury time, that is all to the good. That suggestion is in the proposals, so I do not accept the point that time limits will lead to sterile debate.
I am normally a great admirer of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—he is a superlative parliamentarian—but I did not understand his argument on sitting hours. It was not one of his better speeches. What was the point that he was trying to make? He said that, as Chairman of the Committee, he was approached by members of the press who told him that there was no point in the Committee meeting after 4 o'clock because it would not be reported. It now meets in the morning, but he suggests that the Chamber should meet in the afternoon. There is no logic to his point.
David Hencke of The Guardian came to the Public Accounts Committee and told us that, since Gladstone's time, the Committee had always met at 4 o'clock on Monday and Wednesday. Our hearings are virtually never reported, and that is the honest truth. We get plenty of reportage about our reports on the National Audit Office and of some of my comments, but our hearings are very rarely reported, because they are at 4 o'clock. David Hencke said that there was no point in

755
our meeting at that time in the afternoon. The modern deadlines of the modern press world dictate that, unless one deals with a real item of news, what one says after 4 o'clock will never be reported.
What is the point of our being here and pretending that what we say at this time—7.36 pm—will be reported in tomorrow's national newspapers? How many Back Benchers now present have had their speeches reported recently, even in the broadsheets? The answer is precious few. It may be that even if they speak at 11 am, they will not be reported—that is probably true—but there is at least a chance that they will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) gave one of his marvellously entertaining speeches. He said that we must go out and work during the day as barristers, trade union leaders, members of the regular armed forces and that sort of thing. That is great, but how many former regular Army officers, with one great exception whom we all know, sit on the Opposition Benches? How many distinguished lawyers are on our Benches? There are very few. I see a lot of retired special advisers on these Benches. I am not criticising them, but that is the reality.
There is the myth that, if we can only keep our current hours, we will draw in great talent such as captains of industry, trade union leaders and distinguished barristers. However, they are not coming here, because we do not pay them enough. They earn too much outside and do too big a job. The reason that they do not come here has nothing to do with our hours. Let us leave aside the myth, because the truth of the matter is that, sadly, the House is primarily composed of full-time professional politicians. We must dispense with the illusion that we live in the Victorian age and that we all go out during the day to get to know the real world. I wish that were true, but it is not.
Mr. Forth: Can my hon. Friend give an example of what he thinks is a model legislature or Parliament that attracts the attention, support and enthusiasm of its voters?
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes a very wise point. He is right. All over the world, interest is flying away from elected Parliaments. Whether one considers the Senate, which is non-confrontational, or the Australian Parliament, which is very confrontational, one sees that there is less and less interest. That is to do with the fact that our societies are very affluent. Certainly in the House, the two political parties are drawing closer together and there is not the great divide of class or the huge areas of poverty that there were in the past. All that is true, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether we meet at 9.30 am, 11.30 am or 2.30 pm. They are facts of life. Let us, at least, try to fight back.
We can live in the past and say that the procedures that we adopt now should remain the same as they have been for 100 years. We can give speeches of 20 or 30 minutes of very little relevance and delivered by people who do not understand the subject, who have been tapped on the shoulder by a friendly Whip and who
756
speak in the hope that they will be promoted. We can make those speeches at 7.30 in the evening. It is all very cosy, but what does it achieve?
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes it clear that he is saddened by the move to an increasing number of professional politicians, which is reflected in the proposal to sit earlier. Bearing in mind the fact that some of us have a manufacturing background, does he think that his approach will help to widen the composition of the House or merely to enshrine it, which would be the result of adopting the proposals that he seems to advocate?
Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. As someone who had a real career outside the House, my hon. Friend is an exception to the rule. I wish we were encouraging more people like him, but we are not and we must live with that reality.
I have one last point to make on Committees. There is a great myth that we used to have wonderful Standing Committees. What we actually had was loads of filibustering. We wasted 100 hours in the early weeks of a Committee. In 18 years of Labour opposition, how many Bills did they stop by using that great parliamentary power of delaying legislation? Labour Members can intervene if they like.
We used to debate Cromwell's statue. It was meaningless. We need timetabling if we are to move with the real world. However, if I support the Leader of the House to that extent, will he at least acknowledge that much of the timetabling has been draconian and that we need co-operation between the two Front Benches so that we get a decent debate? In the last Parliament, a Bill's Committee stage, Second Reading, Report and Third Reading were held on one day, which was absurd.
The Leader of the House is a genuine parliamentarian. He is trying to change the approach and to get agreement, and he is broadly doing the right thing. I support him on limiting speeches generally, on timetabling and on Parliament meeting early in the day so that there is a chance that when we speak the nation will listen.
7.42 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been sitting here feeling deeply deprived. I go through my correspondence during the day and sit in my constituency surgeries at the weekend, and it is obvious that I have a unique, special and different electorate. I have always known that, but it has now been demonstrated. They talk to me about the laws on social security, education, housing and immigration, but somehow or other, and I cannot understand why, over the past 30 years no one has come to me and said, "I will not vote for you if you stay in the House of Commons after 10 o'clock at night." I have obviously been desperately deprived because what they say to me is, "This is a bad law. It affects me in this way. Go and do something about it", and they expect me to go and do something about it.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not in the Chamber. I am sure that that has nothing to do with the

757
fact that I have just risen to speak. I have read some of his suggestions carefully. They include:
"Modernisation is about enabling MPs to do a more effective job for their constituency and for the country"
and that the new Thursday working hours were a success because they enabled
"statements to take place in the morning when parliamentary scrutiny is more likely to influence the media agenda."
Not Members of Parliament, just the media agenda.
I have carefully scrutinised some of the gifts on offer from the Leader of the House. Sadly, I begin to detect that some of them come with slightly dubious origins and even more dubious benefits. For example, a number of radical and important changes were made in the last Parliament, every one of which had the direct effect of limiting something. Timetabling limits the opportunity of the Opposition to comment on legislation in an effective way. Timetabling of speeches limits the opportunity of Back Benchers to intervene and comment.
All those suggestions have to be considered carefully, and I ask myself one question: who benefits from the changes? Is it the House of Commons? Will we get better legislation? Where in the suggestions is there a drive to give Select Committees the right to debate their reports on the Floor of the House? Where is it suggested that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to initiate legislation?
Members who have not been here for long—I used to hate people who said that—might not know that we had the right to initiate not just private Members' Bills, but motions to debate political subjects and to get a vote on them. Perhaps they do not understand the terrible power that has been taken away from them. On Friday we could debate important subjects and get a vote of the House. If 300 or 400 Members managed to stay here on Friday, as they did, and register their opinion on abortion, reform of the laws on homosexuality and other contentious issues important to their constituents, it was guaranteed that the Government of the day would take that seriously. They might not like it and go around exercising considerable pressure on the Members of Parliament who had registered their votes and views, but they took note of them. Now we do not have that opportunity.
Motions are not voted on. Everything that is contentious can be discussed in a debate on the Adjournment of the House. I have never worked out the socialist position on the Adjournment of the House, but I am happy to debate it at inordinate length. What I do know, however, is that that procedural change means that Members of Parliament who once had the opportunity to influence the Government have not got that chance today.
If I thought that tinkering with the hours would give Back Benchers a new power that would reinvigorate the Chamber and debate within Parliament, I would not only support my right hon. Friend but would be well ahead of him. I would be out there, drawing people into the Lobby, saying, "This is the best thing that's ever happened." But I will not be doing that because we have to judge the suggestions against what has already happened.
758
When my Select Committee was grandiose and large, one half of it used the pre-selective system to look carefully at local government finance. Much detailed work went into that. Committee members spent many hours of considerable importance reading documents and talking to members of local authorities and taking evidence from them. Her Majesty's Government took about as much notice of that work as if it had been written in Greek, and I do not think that many speak Greek even in this Cabinet.
It is suggested that all legislation will be in a form that will allow us to assess its importance. We will have a huge impact and be able to change it before it comes before us as a Bill. I have to say that I am slightly unsure whether that is the case. I have also considered other suggestions and applied them to my Select Committee. The Leader of the House watched with some interest what happened when the Committee wanted to take evidence from Lord Birt and others who not only had important parts to play in the legislation that we were examining, but had influenced matters. For example, Treasury Ministers were negotiating the contracts that my Committee was considering, but we were told that we did not have the power to insist on them appearing in front of us. We were told that they were simply advisers and out with the parliamentary system. If the motion reformed that practice, I would be way ahead of the Leader of the House.
Let us get rid of the idea that these proposals are intended to benefit the female of the species. Nothing proposed by male parliamentarians is for the benefit of the female of the species, no matter which political party those males represent. Changing the hours will do nothing to change the representation of women in this place; no artificial means will do that. We belong to a voluntary party, and the only way to get good female candidates is to persuade the people whom they want to represent that they are capable of doing the job. They have had no difficulty doing so in the past, and they will have no difficulty in future.
People say, of the change to the hours, that after seven o'clock we will be able to have a life of our own. I have never had any difficulty in having a life of my own. There are those who say, "Of course, you would be able to stay here, in the Dining Room." I remember Barbara Castle, when she retired, saying to all the assembled members of the parliamentary Labour party, "I am not going to thank you for the friendship because, to be perfectly honest, it's been a bit uneven."
The people who vote for us do so because they think that we can have an effect. It would be nice if they voted for us because of the size of our hips or the kind of accent that we have, but they do not. They vote for us because we put before them a programme with which they identify, and they expect us to keep to it and to demonstrate that any law passed in this House is workable, is responsible, is not unfair and is properly drafted. When we understand that and we prove to the people of the United Kingdom that that is really what we are doing, we will not lack support for our political institutions and we will not have difficulty finding people who want to listen to what we say.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) says that Select Committees do not get any publicity if they sit in the afternoon, so they cannot do so. I have to tell him that I chair a Select Committee that has managed to

759
get quite a lot of coverage, and it meets at half-past 4 in the afternoon. It gets publicity because we talk to people about matters that they want to know about, and we put those matters into the public domain.
I came here to create laws, not to create a nice little timetable that would enable me to try to find a hairdresser after seven o'clock at night. I came here to influence political views. If we are really serious, my Government, of all Governments, should be saying to Labour Back Benchers that in future they will give every one of us much more power to question Ministers and to insist on statements—the things that are not in these proposals. If the Government were serious about that, every Labour Member would be in the Lobby behind them.
7.53 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: There probably is no better example of why speeches should not be time-limited than the contribution by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of what was the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee when I was a member. On the other hand, having heard the efforts of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I can see that 10 minutes can be too long, and having a time limit may keep people on their feet for longer than they should be.
I wanted to speak today because I am an extraordinary person: I am somebody whose father was a Member of the House, so I speak on behalf of the children of Members. That is why I believe that there is great validity in the proposals put forward by the Leader of the House. When people accuse us of being stupid for sitting here late into the night, we have a duty to our electors to defend ourselves against those accusations and to live in the real world—I must say that I find it difficult to live in any other world. Why are we not talking about sitting until 7 o'clock on a Monday as well? We should have consistency, and I rather fear that despite all the sanctimonious comments to which I have been forced to listen throughout this debate, the congestion charge will have far more of an effect on the timetable kept to by Members than anything that is decided today.
One serious proposal is the extra day for Departments to prepare answers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland questions so that the Government can discuss those answers with the Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. My problem with the proposal is that, as one knows if one has ever tabled a question on a devolved matter, such questions are rejected. I am therefore curious as to why an extra day is needed for Ministers to decide whether a question is out of order and whether they will answer it. If questions on devolved issues are to be answered, I welcome the proposal, because at the end of the day it is British tax that is divided up under the Barnett formula.
Ian Lucas: May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman consider his drafting of questions? I regularly table questions on devolved matters, and I have never had a question rejected.
Mr. Wiggin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ask real questions about real issues in the Principality because he will find that it is extremely difficult to get a straight answer.
Ian Lucas indicated dissent.
Mr. Wiggin: Yes it is. However, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can ask questions about devolved issues, and I wonder what Assembly Members think of his skills because I am sure that they fiercely defend their right to discuss devolved issues.
It is important to alter the summer recess, and I welcome the Government's suggestions for change. One of the most difficult tasks is to explain to electors why, for two and a half months in the summer, we are unable to put points to the Executive.
One criticism that I have of the proposals concerns the e-mailing of questions. The ability to table questions electronically would be a positive step, but it appears that it will not be possible to table them by e-mail. Instead there will be a special web-based formula. Why cannot we have e-mailing of questions? That is the format that most people would prefer, and we ought to have the most sensible and practical means of sending questions to the Table Office. I am also unhappy about the proposal for a fixed number of written questions for a named day because it would be constructive to have as much flexibility as we can muster.
One aspect of the operation of the House that I find most unpleasant is not tackled. I refer to the Speaker's list and the fact that one does not know when one is to be called or who will speak beforehand. The arrangements in the other House are sensible, and I wish that we would adopt them.
I shall not take my full quota of time because it is important that as many people as possible get to speak. If we could have more practical, positive and flexible opportunities, not only for Back-Bench Members but for all those who seek actively to represent their electors in the way highlighted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, we would do something sensible today. Unfortunately we are only tweaking the arrangements, but at least let us change them for our families.
7.57 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will go straight for the jugular and tackle some of the most controversial issues.
This is not an attack on tradition—we all value tradition—and it is not change for change's sake. This debate should not be called "Modernisation of the House of Commons"; its title should refer to efficiency or effectiveness. Modernisation for modernisation's sake is nothing. As parliamentarians, we should be trying to ensure that we have the culture, the environment and the framework to enable us to pass effective legislation on behalf of our constituents.
In contrast to what was said earlier by a speaker whom I greatly admire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I do not regard myself, in this place, as somebody who is different from others. I have always maintained that we are exactly the same as the constituents who send us here. We are here doing a job, a privileged job, as their representatives and as part of them—not as a glorified, strange species that exists in a rarefied environment—and that is how we should present ourselves.
I turn first to one of the most contentious issues: whether we should start earlier and finish at 7 pm on Tuesday and Wednesday. If amendments (a) and (c)

761
to motion No. 6 were agreed to, that proposal would be dead in the water. Efficiency is not about how many hours in the day one works. The macho concept that the more hours one works, the more productive one is, is outdated. The Government have led the way in tackling that attitude in industry. Surely it is not beyond the skills of those in this Chamber and of the administrative and support staff to organise our day in such a way that we can effectively carry out our work and still have a home life and be rounded human beings.
Let me restate the example already given of an MP who comes in at 8 o'clock in the morning and starts by opening her mail. At 9 o'clock or 9.30, she proceeds to a Select Committee or a Standing Committee sitting. Around midday, she breaks to meet someone for a cup of coffee—albeit a working cup of coffee—followed by a working lunch with the Church Commissioners. She comes into the Chamber to listen to ministerial statements—she is working very hard indeed—then away she goes for another tranche of Committee sittings. In the evening, she has the superpower to return to the Chamber to listen to the debate, to sit on the Bench for two, three or four hours, and then to contribute a superb speech displaying an intellect that is alive and an energy that is still going after 14 hours. She will not do this on only one day; she will do it on three days. I admire her. She is an example to us all—an example of the most ludicrous way of working I have ever heard of.
The organisation, no matter how busy or self-important it is, should be able to organise its working day more efficiently. The diligent MP I mentioned might be able to boast of the long hours to her constituents and the media, but surely it would be better if she were able to justify her existence by saying "I helped to pass first-class legislation, with a clear head, unclouded by a 14-hour shift—and, by the way, I also have a balanced family life which helps me to make fully rounded decisions."
John Mann: I am trying to follow the flow of my hon. Friend's argument about a balanced family life, but take my situation: my family lives in Nottinghamshire. How will the changes enhance my balanced family life?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a very good point, which highlights my lack of self-interest as a MP for Ogmore in Wales, a little further down the M4. I will not benefit from those changes either, but I would not deny the benefits to other MPs, and I think that their contribution will be more effective for the changes.
We must be aware that many members of the public do not believe in the fable of the hard-working MP. Instead, they believe in the fable of the old boys club, whose members include the MP who arrives late after his day job in the City.
Linda Gilroy: So persuasive has my hon. Friend been that as an MP for a far-flung constituency who started her day by representing the interests of her local airport in an Adjournment debate this morning, who wants to take part in the Adjournment debate on fireworks, and who has sat here for five and a half hours waiting to be
762
called—making one or two interventions in the meantime—I now intend to listen to his speech, but then leave the Chamber to work on preparation in my office rather than remain here to speak.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps I will answer some of the points she raises during the rest of my speech.
As I was saying, many people do not believe the fable of the hard-working MP, expecting Parliament to be an old boys club, in which the MP turns up late in the day after working in the City, shows his face in the Chamber, perhaps contributes to the debate, and then disappears We know that that is not the truth, do we not? None the less, that is how we are perceived outside. The House of Commons has many fine traditions, but blind adherence to nonsensical long hours is not one of them. What about the tradition before 1570, when Parliament met from 8 am to noon; or the tradition dating from 1650 to 1700, when the House met at 8, 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning; or the tradition of sitting on Saturdays, which came to an end only in the 1730s, so that Sir Robert Walpole could have at least one day's hunting a week? Fine traditions all, but I am glad that we have got rid of some of them.
A survey showed that over the summer—the long summer recess—the Houses of Parliament were the No. 1 visitor attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom. I therefore welcome making Parliament more visitor friendly—a place in which my constituents might learn about the workings of the House, not just about. the long tradition and the pageantry. We must change the emphasis from ancient to contemporary, from pageant to working government, and from the past to at. least the present.
The hours must be changed to reflect modern working practices. That does not mean that we will clock out al 7 o'clock in the evening. I urge the Government to propose ways in which after 7 o'clock we could make constructive use of the Chamber, Westminster Hall and elsewhere in the Palace. There should be no compulsion on MPs to participate into the evening—that would fly in the face of everything I have said—but there should be scope to make use of these fine buildings and the facilities, to argue more in Adjournment debates and to bring Ministers to the House. We could win the PR battle about the old boys club operating here, but be in danger of losing the next one, which starts when the media turn around and say that the changes are all about letting MPs clock off at 7 o'clock. We need to counter that with effective proposals on how to make use of the evening.
Mr. McCabe: Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend wants to constrain the normal working day, but then create extra space for new activities? What is the value of that?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will till my hon. Friend what the value is. It is unbelievable to me that our organisation is supposed to represent the best in democracy, yet we cannot organise our core business to happen at times that other people recognise as the core working day. What else can we do in the evening? I can give one fine example—youth activities, with youth

763
parliaments and young people getting involved in our democratic processes—and I am sure that our talented Ministers can produce others.
The changes will allow Parliament better to set the news agenda for the day, and I do not rubbish that, but that will not be of benefit only to the Government. It will be of benefit to the Opposition if the press have more time to digest and analyse their responses—okay, perhaps there is a flaw in my argument and that is not such a good idea, but it will give more time for the quiet man to be heard.
Amendment (d) to motion 3 suggests a more radical option of commencing at 9.30 am. I am sympathetic to that proposal, but in this tradition, at this stage, I think is a step too far. Many hon. Members, myself included, find that the initial part of the day is useful for preparation for speeches. However, I believe that the case for an earlier start will become clear in the near future, especially if we have the evenings in which to prepare.
Amendment (b) to motion 4 proposes a twice-weekly session of topical questions. My name is on that amendment, and I welcome the fact that it is being debated on the Floor of the House, but my colleagues will excuse me if I do not support it. The Procedure Committee unanimously agreed that it should be debated, and that is right and proper, but allowing questions to be submitted with three days' notice will guarantee a far greater element of topicality than we currently have.
I am running out of time, so I will skip part of my speech. The production of a calendar a year in advance is so obviously needed that I am surprised that we are discussing it only now, in 2002. An earlier finish on Thursday would be most useful to MPs who serve constituencies further afield than the home counties—I would certainly welcome the opportunity to get back to my family a little earlier. The additional week at Christmas or Easter that I can use in my constituency will be a tremendous advantage to any modern-day MP.
The change to the summer recess has considerable advantages in terms of media and public perception. It is right that we should return earlier, then break for the conference season. It is also right that we should break a little earlier for the summer recess, which will enable me to visit schools and talk to youngsters about how my role is important to them.
I close by paying tribute to the members of the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee and to all those who have contributed to the debate. To vote against the proposals would be to send a message to our constituents and the public at large that we are more concerned with tradition than with good government. To support the changes shows that the House is moving from the medieval to the modern. I commend the proposals.
8.8 pm
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has given one of the most illogical speeches that I have heard this evening. He prays in aid of modernisation the practices of the past, yet in the past there was very little legislation. It is the sheer volume of legislation that we have to deal with today that dictates the hours that I believe we have to sit.
764
With a 12-minute allowance, he said that he had to skip a number of pages of his lengthy speech, yet he argues in favour of a 10-minute allowance for speeches, which would ensure that there would be almost no debate at all.
Tonight we have heard some tremendous examples of what the House of Commons can provide. We have heard bravura performances from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and, in his own and different way, from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who was robust in dealing with interventions. However, we will not have any interventions if we are to have only 10-minute speeches.
Mr. Tom HarrisWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Fabricant: I shall give way to this one because I am sure that it will be a good 'un.
Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the first-class speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) may well never have been delivered if it was not for the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches? That is the fact that surely every Back-Bench Member should welcome.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. It is up to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Chairmen's Panel to do just that. It is up to the Speaker to determine how many Members have asked to be called. Time limits on speeches can then be set to allow those Members to speak. The Leader of the House is suggesting that there be 10-minute limits, and that is just plain wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Fabricant: I will not take a series of interventions because there is a time limit on speeches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked the most profound question of all. She asked whether the proposals advance the ability of the legislature to question the Executive and call it to account. Will the legislature be better able to scrutinise legislation? I think that the answers to these questions are no. These proposals are all about making life easier for right hon. and hon. Members.
Some of the motions are good. For example, I think that the motions to introduce topicality will do considerable good. They will improve Parliament and make us more relevant. However, we must be clear about relevance and how we are perceived by the population. This evening, many Members have said that in the United Kingdom, in the United States and even in Australia, where there is compulsory voting, the numbers of people casting a vote, as opposed to turning up at a polling station, are falling. That is because Members and their legislatures are not seen as relevant.
I do not believe that any of the proposed changes, apart from those relating to topical questions, will improve the perceived relevance of the House.

765
Going home at 7 o'clock and not properly scrutinising legislation will not improve the perceived relevance of this place.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of topical questions. Does he agree that perhaps the one positive thing that we are discussing is handing back to Back-Bench Members some authority over the timings of the House, which at present is almost exclusively in the hands of the Executive of the day?
Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. For that reason I shall be supporting his amendment. His Committee recommended that there be topical questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It is interesting and, indeed, revealing that the Leader of the House chose to ignore that suggestion.
I agree with some hon. Members who would say that the Leader of the House is probably one of the best that we have had in 10 or 20 years, but I think that he insulted the House by a most extraordinary display at the opening of the debate. He said—Hansard will record this—"If you vote for my proposition, on Thursday I will reward you by telling you when your Christmas holidays are, when your spring holidays are and when your summer holidays are." What a bribe, and what an insult to the integrity of right hon. and hon. Members—
Mr. Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Fabricant: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
What an insult. The right hon. Gentleman thought that we could be bribed so easily. That is dreadfully wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked about there not being captains of industry in this place. There are many reasons for that, but none that has anything to do with the number of hours that we sit. I like to think that I have made a contribution to this place—others have made many other valuable contributions—but such contributions are not confined to what we do in the Chamber. Contributions are also made in Select Committees.
I am well aware that the Leader of the House said that 20 Select Committees meet when the House is sitting. However, the proposition that important Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, which is ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), should sit at a time when there are questions and statements is absolutely wrong. It is bad enough already that we have to make the choices that we do. It is completely wrong that we should find ourselves in a situation where the House is weakened still further by Members being unable to be in the Chamber.
What alternatives are being planned? The second bribe that is offered by the Leader of the House is when he says, "Don't worry, we shall turn Parliament into a gentlemen's and gentle ladies' club. The House will not be sitting after 7 o'clock, but don't worry. The bars will still be open, as will the restaurants." I understand that
766
the hon. Lady for Oscars, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), would go still further. It seems that we shall have a cinema club. In fact, we shall all be able to go out and enjoy the cinema. No doubt that is being encouraged by the Whips on both sides of the House to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle said, that the legions of people, as in "Fidelio", do not go out trawling the streets for goodness knows what.
Sir Peter Tapsell: That is a bowdlerisation of what I said.
Michael Fabricant: It is a summary of what my hon. Friend said. He made a powerful speech, which he would not have been able to deliver under the conditions that I believe will be introduced if all the proposals are passed.
Mr. Pike: On the issue of short speeches, does the hon. Gentleman recognise exactly what is being proposed? It is proposed to allow two extra minutes for interventions within a 10-minute speech, and time will be allowed for the interventions. Virtually 14 minutes will be available if a Member gives way twice during a 10-minute speech.
Michael Fabricant: Yes. However, what I do not understand, and what the hon. Gentleman has not taken up, is why there needs to be change anyway. I welcome the proposed change of Standing Orders, which will allow the Speaker to assess how many Members want to contribute to a debate, and to adjust the time allocated accordingly. However, it seems nonsensical that there will be a fixed limit of 10 minutes regardless of how few or how many Members want to participate in a debate. That seems to reflect the usual respect that is accorded by the Executive to those who wish to speak in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Chorley—it is a pity that he is no longer in his place—took up the question of staffing in this place. It is clear from the response of the Leader of the House to a question asked by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that there was no consultation about staffing before the event. There will be consultation after today, but no questions were asked before. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said in an intervention that he had conducted a straw poll in the Tea Room, the result of which revealed that the staff, if they could, would resist the changes that are being proposed.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) speculated on what we could do after 7 o'clock. She said that perhaps hairdressers could be opened for her later in the evening. I may or may not want to make use of that facility. However, we should not come here to visit hairdressers or to go to cinema clubs. We do not come to this place to enjoy a sort of social club. Our role primarily is to scrutinise the Executive and to examine legislation. That will not be best achieved by leaving the House at 7 o'clock. Similarly, it will not be best achieved by having to make difficult decisions about whether to appear in the Chamber or whether to attend meetings of Select Committees.

767
I believe that the situation that we enjoy now is enjoyed for the best. We shall gain no respect nationally if we make changes tonight that are not for the benefit of the legislature but are merely for the benefit of our personal convenience.
8.20 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: I made it clear in my maiden speech, which was on this very subject, that I would certainly seek to serve to the best of my ability, however ineloquent I may be, those progressive forces in the House that work to promote the cause of modernisation. I have been glad to serve in that guise as a member of the Procedure Committee in its lengthy investigation of the way in which we table questions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for his chairmanship of the Committee, which I believe has had a lot to do with the number of suggestions that the Government have accepted. I shall return to that point later.
When I was a student studying political science and the nature of the British constitution and its institutions, of which this House forms the beating heart, one of my standard texts was written by John P. Mackintosh, a distinguished Edinburgh university professor and, until his death, the Member of Parliament for East Lothian. As the originator of many incisive and searching commentaries on the political world as he found it, he described and, indeed, defined in his texts the nature of the British constitution and its ability to accommodate change. Although he died some time ago, his analysis of how change comes about in the constitution is still relevant today.
John Mackintosh is best remembered for describing that regenerative process of constitutional change as the ability to fill old bottles with new wines. Even old bottles develop fault lines and cracks and need to be replaced rather than recycled. At the end of the day, it is not the bottles that are important, but the quality and clarity of the wines that fill them. In simple layman's terms, this debate is about the quality of the legislation that we produce. It is that which matters to our constituents, and not the quaint processes that we follow to produce it. While having one eye on the parallel world outside this House, we therefore need to seek to serve the public better by embracing modernisation and adapting to change by adopting more modern work practices, just as parties on both sides of the House have encouraged other public bodies to do.
The work of the Modernisation Committee must therefore be applauded and its proposals should be accepted as the part of the dynamics of change that we must all embrace. What organisation would survive, whether in the business, social or academic arena, if it did not plan its work in a constructive and strategic fashion, ensuring that those who are charged with carrying out its business construct a proper business plan and know exactly when that business will be conducted during the calendar year? Such plans make it clear when exams have to be sat or tax returns filled out, and might even deal with when family events can be arranged. In addition to the ability at last to carry over legislation from one Session to the next, such change will allow Governments truly to achieve and fulfil the mandate that they have been given by the public,
768
without the fear that the business that they have been charged to conduct may be derailed through the obstructive and obscure tactics of an Opposition who are willing to employ technicalities of procedure to deny the popular will.
In the course of the consultation carried out by the Modernisation Committee, I made clear my preference for an early start at 11.30 and also for a finish closer to 9 pm than 7 pm. Such a finishing time would extend the hours available for business. I made the proposal not out of perversity, but in the hope that the extra hours would give Back Benchers such as myself greater opportunity to contribute to the debates in this Chamber. Indeed, I am glad to be called earlier in this debate than I usually am.
I also made the proposal in the light of the great unhappiness felt by a vast majority of Back Benchers—hon. Members should be well aware of this point—about the way in which their opportunity to contribute to debates is sometimes denied because of the preferential allocation of speaking time according to seniority. Membership of the Privy Council, often in respect of services given decades ago, gives a privileged set an unlimited speaking time. As a result, many hon. Members are excluded and their views and those of their constituents are ignored. I well remember sitting through the emergency debate about Iraq after having received letters and had meetings with churches, but being denied the right to speak. As a result, my constituents were disfranchised and left to one side. We cannot allow that to continue.
On balance, having listened to the debate, I am convinced that the proposals advanced by the Leader of the House are worthy of support. The early finish will allow greater and less interrupted opportunities for hon. Members to become more involved in the myriad all-party groups and Back-Bench committees and to question Ministers more. It will also aid them in developing a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the issues with which we have to deal on a daily basis. I believe that a limit on speeches, however abused, will go some way to address my fears about speaking times in the House.
As for the opportunities that we Back Benchers have to contribute to debates and how they are ordered, I believe that the issue may be better addressed as a subject of the calmer and more collected deliberation of an appropriate Select Committee. Having served on a Select Committee, I can see the benefits of such a process. Certainly, the work of the Procedure Committee on issues relating to how we table questions and the way in which they are dealt with, which has made such a significant contribution to the modernisation proposals, offers a useful format for such a review. I should like again to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee for the way in which he guided our deliberations. I believe that the quality of the work that was done and the report is a tribute to him and the way in which he handled the Committee's proceedings.
It is also worth forcefully making the point that the Committee took the opportunity to visit the Scottish Parliament, which started from scratch, to review the way in which it dealt with tabling questions, before reaching our decisions and forming our recommendations. The reduction of tabling time, the

769
introduction of electronic tabling and the cross-cutting question sessions in Westminster Hall on specific policy areas will have a huge impact on the way in which we scrutinise the Executive. The Committee could see the benefits of the first two of those proposals in action during our time in Edinburgh, where they have been in operation—I refer especially to electronic tabling—since 1999.
As a member of the Procedure Committee, I should like to speak in support of the amendment tabled in the names of its members, including mine, and set out on the Order Paper, proposing that we introduce an extended Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday that deals with specific topics of relevance and contemporary concern to hon. Members and their constituents. We feel that the proposals deserve serious consideration and we urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who is not in his place. The issue is not that we want to continue Question Time. We want the opportunity, which is already enjoyed in the House of Lords, to pick a specific topic for Question Time and have a half-hour in which hon. Members from both sides of the House can do a lot of work on that topic and focus on it. I know that the Leader of the House has referred to the proposed cut to three days in respect of tabling questions as a sop in that regard, but the issue at stake is completely different. It relates not to the tabling of specific questions, but to the ability to concentrate on a topic that we can choose in discussion with the Speaker and to put greater focus on the question at hand. Such questioning would give much greater opportunity to question Ministers more regularly and more quickly. It would also ensure that a sharper spotlight was focused on departmental policies. I think that that is a worthy and noble aim. The proposal would do a great deal to enhance the role and status of ordinary hon. Members and sits well with the rest of the long-overdue package of modernisation.
While supporting and welcoming the proposals, we should not accept them as a final word. Although we have made significant progress, if we succeed in gaining the approval of the House for all the initiatives, much will be left to be tackled. While the changes will make a difference, there is still a lot to do. However welcome they are, they go only part of the way towards ensuring that we adapt to and accommodate the rapidly changing world that lies just outside the vaulted and grand gateway at St. Stephen's entrance. That is where the real world resides. We have heard about engagement with the public, and some time soon we will undoubtedly have to review how we as parliamentarians and a Parliament interact with both the constituents who elect us and the communities that we serve.
I believe that many of the innovations of the devolved Scottish Parliament are worth considering. The work of the Public Petitions Committee, which is chaired by my constituency colleague and predecessor, Mr. John McAllion, must be an advance on the old, large, green handbag that sits forlornly behind the Speaker's Chair. If we consider the number of petitions in that bag and the number of people who can attend the Public Petitions Committee and present their case to
770
parliamentarians, albeit in another Parliament, there is no comparison. The Leader of the House and his team should examine that. A Select Committee that is appointed to consider petitions and their bona fide anxieties would start the process of re-engagement.
Only when we meet the challenges, match the changes outside and look the modern world in the eye, without feeling embarrassed about the quaint and quintessential reminders of the way we were 40, 50 and 60 years ago that continue to be perpetrated in our practices, can we say that we have achieved genuine modernisation. There is a long way to go.
8.30 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: I begin by making what is perhaps a dangerous admission—I am not familiar with every dot and comma of the report that has been placed before us. I have taken a course of action that is perhaps even more dangerous: coming to the Chamber to listen carefully to the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members.
There is sometimes a temptation on the Conservative Benches to regard any proposal that the Government support as a plot against the interests of Back Benchers. I emphasise that that is not my view. Some of the proposals that the Leader of the House advanced are right and I shall vote for them. It makes sense to return in September. I have experienced only one parliamentary summer and it appeared to go on for a long time. The proposals about questions are also right, and I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on that. However, I shall not support all the Government's proposals.
I want to consider the main subject of our discussion—the hours. I admit that it would be in my interest for the House to stop sitting at 7 pm more often. I represent High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire. I live there and in London, and it would be convenient for me to knock off at 7 pm more often, but that does not apply to other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made that point in an intervention. Knocking off at 7 pm more often would not be convenient for him. However, the vote should not be decided on what is more convenient for me and less convenient for the hon. Gentleman. More important than my interests or the hon. Gentleman's are those of the House.
The House should fulfil broadly two functions. First, it should act as a forum for debate—a point that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made well—and, secondly, it should hold the Executive to account. I want to outline my view of the impact of the Government's proposal to sit at 11.30 am. If the House sat at that time more often, the Chamber would fill for Question Time in the morning, but tend to empty in the lunch hour. What would happen then? Ministers would make statements at lunchtime, and it would not be in the interests of good government if the House emptied when Ministers made important, controversial statements on which they should be held to account.
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend believe that, in the spirit of modernisation, the Government will next propose bringing sandwiches into the Chamber?
Mr. Goodman: That thought was not at the forefront of my mind before my hon. Friend mentioned it.
Mr. Andrew Love: Business questions are taken at 12.30 pm on Thursday. Government and Opposition Benches are always full between 12.30 and approximately 1.30 pm.
Mr. Goodman: That is not always the case, although I agree that it sometimes happens. I do not believe that it would invariably be the case for statements, but I may be wrong.
All sorts of duties compete for Members' attention. They include coming to the Chamber and questioning the Executive, attending debates in Westminster Hall, meeting constituents and serving on Select Committees. Sitting in the morning would mean either that hon. Members would be more likely to come to the Chamber, and not have time to see constituents, serve on Select Committees or attend debates in Westminster Hall, or vice versa. I appreciate that there is some overlap, but how much do we want? We should aim for as little as possible.
Perhaps the debate about hours and timed speeches comes down to one simple question: what is a Member of Parliament? There are two views. First, a Member of Parliament is a person who does a job. If we believe that, we should sit from 9 to 5 or from 11.30 to 7, we should not have outside interests and we should be paid as professional politicians, without outside work that informs our job as Members of Parliament.
The second view is that a Member of Parliament is not simply a person who does a job, but a representative whose outside work informs being a Member of Parliament. I have no interests to declare and my entry in the Register of Members' Interests is therefore empty. However, I believe that the House gains from Members of Parliament who also work outside and can bring their experience to bear. It is therefore good that the House can sit for hours that are sometimes inconvenient.
Peter Bradley: How many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who have remunerated outside interests work on the shop floor or stacking shelves in Tesco? Are the majority earning significant fees in the City, in consultancies or the law courts? Will he comment on the fact that those who have remunerated outside interests tend to vote in an average of 65 per cent. of Divisions, whereas those without such interests vote in 91 per cent.? What conclusions does he draw from that about the commitment to Parliament of his hon. Friends who have outside interests?
Mr. Goodman: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to make a party political point, but it does not obviate the choice before us. We must decide whether the first view o f what constitutes a Member of Parliament is more sensible than the second. I take the second view, but I understand if he takes a different one.
Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Goodman: No. I am sure that the hon. Lady will forgive me as I have given way to several of her colleagues.
772
The real question before us is whether a compression of the hours is more likely to enable the House to fulfil the objective of holding the Executive to account, or better to account. I do not believe that it is, which is why I shall not vote with the Government on their proposal to start at 11.30 am. I shall not, I am afraid, support my Front Benchers' proposal to start even earlier in the morning, either.
8.39 pm
Helen Jackson: It has been an interesting debate so far, and many Members on both sides of the House have said, "Well, there is a lot in the Modernisation Committee's proposals that I agree with," before picking out one or two aspects of the package proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that they do not like. That takes me back to 1 May 1997.
I must spoil the consensus by mentioning a couple of party differences. It is a mistake to think that there was not a clear party feel in May 1997—we were a new Government with a new, large majority. When we came to power, we were intent on introducing the minimum wage, reducing youth unemployment and many other big things, but the public also wanted us to get a grip of this place, as they felt that Parliament had been male, clubby and set in its ways. One of the driving forces that led us to a considerable election victory in May 1997 was the feeling that we really would make a difference, especially to how politics looked and felt to us all. I was delighted, therefore, to be on the first Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Tyler: I do not want to dilute the hon. Lady's partisanship, but she will recall that the proposals derive from an agreement between her party and mine in the so-called Cook-Maclennan talks before the 1997 election.
Helen Jackson: It is lovely how the Liberal Democrats always manage to say, "Me too, me too" if it is a good thing or. "Nothing to do with me" if it is a bad thing, although I am perfectly happy, on this occasion, to say, "Yes, all right, you were on our side then."
The lesson for many Members around the House has to be that, without the establishment of the Modernisation Committee, many of the reforms that have taken place since 1997 would not have happened, because there is no question but that a Modernisation Committee and the proposals in this package of reforms that the Conservatives agree with simply would not have been on the agenda had they won that election.
I want to refer to a right hon. Member, but I cannot remember his constituency. He is the tall one who rides a bicycle. [Interruption.] Thank you. In the first Modernisation Committee, of which I was a member for a whole Parliament, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the Conservatives were adamant that sittings were not on the agenda. Why not? Because we did not finish at 10 o'clock, we did not programme legislation, debates were open ended and we frequently sat here until midnight and beyond.
The priority at that stage was to introduce some sensible programming to the legislative timetable, but there was opposition to any notion of carry-over to

773
achieve a parliamentary timetable of Bills. That was considered dangerous. This is an incremental reform, and I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House taking it on board and taking it further.
David Taylor: I, too, served on a previous Modernisation Committee. My hon. Friend suggests that the existence of the Committee since May 1997 has led to considerable change. May I put a slightly different point to her? The Modernisation Committee on which I sat was rapidly becoming bogged down in the mud of past practice, but the vision, tenacity, energy and powers of persuasion of the Leader of the House have brought us to today's debate. It really is as simple as that.
Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend, but he needs to recognise that the money was spent on Westminster Hall and that debates have been taking place there. Proceedings now finish at 10 o'clock, and there have been many other changes. This package is a continuation of the process.
I draw hon. Members' attention to something that has not yet been mentioned. Public opinion is still in favour of our reforming the sitting hours of the House. The figures in the YouGov survey show that 90 per cent. of Labour voters and 82 per cent. of Conservative voters are in favour of these reforms.
I stress that hon. Members who argue that these reforms are nothing to do with improving scrutiny are barking up the wrong tree. They have everything to do with improving scrutiny. It is a mistake to believe that scrutiny is achieved only through Select Committees. There are countless ways in which Back Benchers can scrutinise the Executive. Day in day out, we ask questions of Ministers during statements, we write letters to Ministers, we complain to the press, we use the media, we hold meetings, and we bring constituents to see Ministers. Some of the toughest scrutiny that I have participated in was through the all-party parliamentary group on water. When my party was in opposition, Members from both sides of the House piled in to support what that all-party group argued for. It was not a Select Committee, but we got changes to the legislation when the Labour Government came to power. It held its meetings in the evenings so that the public who cared about that issue could discuss it with Members.
That brings me to the question of the sitting hours of the House, which should be put in its historical context.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Lady seems to be advocating that the only route to respect for this Parliament is through reform and modernisation. Would she accept the lesson that can be learned from Scotland? Members of the Scottish Parliament can submit parliamentary questions by email, it sits for less than two days a week, and its longest sitting went to just beyond 6 o'clock, but esteem for that Parliament is the lowest in the United Kingdom.
Helen Jackson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He makes a point about the devolved
774
Assemblies, which must win the support of the electorate in those areas. I believe that they will work hard to do that.
The sittings issue has caused the most dispute. It has been said that starting Question Time and statements earlier, with the possibility of further statements in the middle of the day, will have a negative effect on MPs' ability to scrutinise the Executive. I cannot see that. I believe that altering the sitting hours will, within a number of years, be acceptable to everyone in the House and outside. People will wonder why on earth Parliament took so long to change.
The historical context is that MPs were part-timers who earned their money in the mornings. Some Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), have been honest enough to admit that. He thinks that it is a good idea for Members of Parliament to be part-timers who earn money in the morning and come here to do their business in the afternoon. I do not think that that is what the public expect of Members of Parliament. The House will be improved and the public will give us more credit if we start our serious business in the Chamber in the morning.
Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Jackson: No.
Some of the arguments about Select Committees are somewhat spurious. It has been said that Select Committees that meet in the afternoon will no longer be able to do so and will have to meet at 9.30 in the morning. There will be three clear afternoons a week for the deliberations of Standing Committees, Select Committees and other Committees, added to the possibility of two hours in the mornings. That will increase the potential for scrutiny in the House rather than removing it.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Jackson: If I get injury time.
Mr. Williams: May I clarify the position of Select Committee Chairmen? When the modernisation proposals were first presented, we made no recommendations about sitting hours. When I discussed the matter with the Liaison Committee on Thursday morning, it was evenly divided: as many Chairmen favoured the change as opposed it. There is no unanimous view that Select Committees will be damaged—and the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, meets at 4 pm.
Helen Jackson: I believe that there is a difference of view. I refer to my side of the House, the other side of the House, the Commission and the Liaison Committee.
I think that when something that has existed for a long time is changed it is a bit scary, but people settle down and arrange how to do their work as well as possible remarkably quickly. I think that that will apply to Select Committees and scrutiny, and also to other aspects of the House's business.

775
Some people are worried about starting at 11.30 am because they do not know what they will do with their evenings. I would like to think that the House of Commons, indeed the Palace of Westminster, will continue to be a thriving, vibrant place in the evenings. Members of the public who work during the day will have an opportunity to come here for political meetings. We MPs are politico-nutcases: if a really useful political discussion is taking place in the evening with members of the public, we would want to meet them and hear their views. This is where that should happen. Indeed, I am sure that the Leader of the House will find new ways of using the Chamber after 7 pm, and of using Westminster Hall. I am sure that this will remain one place where we can spend useful evenings.
We will have a choice, however. Occasionally we may well want to eat outside with friends, because we are not tied to this place. It will become a good, grown-up Parliament.
8.53 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: There is more than a hint of fantasy in some of the rumours and bluster that have been flying around this place over the past few weeks, as traditionalists struggle to find coherent arguments against the sensible reforms proposed by my right hon. Friend's Committee. As a member of that Committee, I want to explain how we tried to construct a package that would benefit Members across the political spectrum and throughout the country. It was not an easy task.
These proposals represent modest progress towards a 21st-century Parliament, but they are hardly revolutionary. They include measures to ensure better scrutiny of legislation: more Bills would be published in draft, and more legislation would be carried over. The current archaic procedures create legislative logjam, and often result in the cutting off of proper scrutiny of Bills. That means that bad legislation finds its way on to the statute book too often. Question Time would become more topical and relevant. Parliament as a whole should aspire to that. Notice for the tabling of questions would be reduced from 14 days to three.
Some have fully embraced the conspiracy theory that our proposals for a limit of 10 or 12 minutes on speeches is part of some obscure Government plot to shut up awkward Back Benchers. I can assure them that the very opposite is the case. The limited opportunity for Members to speak—articularly for those from the 1997 and 2001 intakes—s a source of continuing irritation to those on both sides of the House. We have all seen stooges be occasionally wheeled out by those on both Front Benches to shut up a particularly awkward Back Bencher. That has certainly happened to me [Hon. Members: "You are a stooge."] No it is the other way around. I asked for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see a Whip smiling, so it is clear that they put their hands up to that one. More Members of Parliament speaking means a wider representation of views in this House, which could make life more awkward for the Government, rather than easier.
Long-serving Members should also understand the frustration of newly elected MPs at the fact that the time available for them to speak is often used up by 25-minute dirges from long-serving Members of a House in
776
which seniority triumphs over brevity. It is high time that we dispensed with the Buggins' turn principle in this place. All our constituents should be treated equally; all have a right to an equal level of representation, however geriatric their Member of Parliament is, or is not.
The Commons is at its best when its arguments are short and to the point, and when as wide a cross-section of views as possible is expressed. I defy all but the most paranoid to conclude that these proposals are anything other than entirely sensible and fundamentally democratic. They will enhance the workings of Parliament for both Opposition and Government Members.
The opponents of reform have concocted all sorts of spurious objections to the modernisation package. The proposal on sitting hours was subjected to an incredible campaign of misrepresentation by those who oppose change for whatever reason. If adopted, the new hours will be exactly the same in number as the current hours, but they will be more civilised and more sensible. The proposal to begin the summer recess earlier in July, but for Parliament to reassemble for part of September, does not represent a single day's less work for any MP in this place. Whatever else these reforms are designed to do, they are not designed to make us work less hard or less often.
I do not have children myself, but I sympathise with my Scottish colleagues, who, due to differences in the school calendar, sometimes have only two weeks at home with their children in the school holidays.
Mr. Pike: The same is true in Burnley.
Mr. Salter: I am given to understand that the same applies in Burnley. I believe that the Leader of the House has been slightly remiss in not consulting Conservative Members on the exact calendar for school holidays for Eton, Harrow and other such places. In any case, as has been said in many other more eloquent contributions, three months is far too long for any Government of any political persuasion to escape the scrutiny of Parliament.
It was the devil's own job to produce a package that could appeal to a cross-House consensus. Obviously, the hour off on Thursdays will benefit people who have some distance to travel, and I welcome that. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said, the proposed hours for Tuesdays and Wednesdays could prove beneficial to people like him and me, who live some 40 miles from London. However, the flip-side is that those who, like me, travel home most nights will have less time to spend in their constituencies in the morning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, there is no one-size-fits-all package. There is no perfect solution.
Mr. McCabe: I accept that there is no one-size-fits-all package, but given that there is no conspiracy here, what is the rationale for coupling the popular proposal for a 6 o'clock finish on a Thursday with the contentious change in hours? Where is the logic in that?
Mr. Salter: That is a question best directed to the Leader of the House, but I say to my hon. Friend in all comradeship that he will do himself no favours if he

777
cherry-picks elements of the package for purely personal reasons. We are putting together a package of reform for the House as a whole, not for individual Members.
Some Conservative Members have argued for consistency in the times that we start and finish. It is wholly ridiculous to assume that this House could meet before 2.30 on a Monday, given the distance that many colleagues have to travel. There is little scope to alter those arrangements, and no alterations have been proposed.
However, there is precious little justification for Parliament waiting to begin its business until 2.30 pm on a Tuesday and Wednesday. Conservative Members and sections of the press like to try and focus attention on the time that Parliament will finish its business, but the real question has to do with the time that we start. The earlier start is the key. When there are votes to be counted, the House will likely finish at 7.30 or 8 pm, but I fail to see how that is at the cutting edge of family friendly policies.
On Fridays, most hon. Members will have a full day of constituency business, advice surgeries and other engagements. That will eat into what the rest of the human race laughingly calls the weekend. Starting early will give the Commons more chance to set the news agenda for the day and allow greater coverage of our deliberations. The proposed earlier start will enhance Parliament, not diminish it.
Mr. Goodman: If we are to start early, why not start at 9 am rather than 11?
Mr. Salter: That question will be put to the vote. However, it is incongruous that the Conservatives, who oppose a start at 11.30 and propose one at 9.30, should be prepared to vote for the status quo if their proposal is not accepted. The Conservative proposal is a smokescreen to hide the party's real agenda, which is to disguise the fact that 66 per cent. of all Conservative Members have business interests outside the House. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) said that morning sittings would not work because they would interfere with his stockbroking activities. That is the priority that two thirds of Conservative Members give to serving their constituents. They would rather sit in the courts or on company boards than in the House of Commons.
I am warming to my theme—the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has inspired me. One Conservative Front Bencher has no fewer than 16 directorships to nurture. It is no wonder that he wants the mornings off. He is not here now, and I wonder why.
There is a Conservative Chairman of a Select Committee who, as well as being a practising barrister, moonlights as a director of eight companies while at the same time being a partner in another company and an adviser to two more. We should not be surprised to learn that that hon. Gentleman opposes the reform of the House's hours of sitting. One wonders when he has time to sleep.
I commend the research that has been done into the reasons for and against reform, but the matter gets even more absurd when one hears that hon. Members are
778
worried about what they will do with themselves between 8 pm and 11 pm, two nights a week. I assure them that it will be OK. The bars and restaurants will still be open; drinking, eating and working will not be banned under the proposals.
I expect the pattern of the House and its activities to change. There is no reason why the meetings that we have in the morning at present cannot be held in the evening. I look forward to having dinner with constituents without being interrupted by the Division bell. I do not need my pager to buzz or a Division bell to ring to tell me when to work and when not to. As Members of Parliament, we define the scope of our responsibilities in our own individual ways.
There is little that I can say to provide succour and support to any MP convinced that a change in hours will cause his wife to accuse him of having torrid affairs. The recently revealed activities of Mrs. Edwina Currie and Mr. John Major demonstrate that afternoons are as good a time as any for illicit love-making.
We have reached the depths of ridiculousness, but the opponents of reform have no shame. Only last week, I heard of a former Whip putting it around that the proposals are merely a plot to abolish the overnight allowance. That would have a particular effect on southeastern MPs from my region. I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to stamp on that piece of nonsense when he responds to the debate.
Concern has been expressed about conditions for staff. I learned my politics representing staff in the workplace The proposal has been out to consultation since December last year. Any trade union official who did not represent his members' views in that time is not worth his salt and should look for another job.
It is easy for us to tell other public service workers such as firefighters, health service workers and teachers that they must modernise, but surely we should be setting an example. Why is it right for other people to modernise and change the way in which they do business while we hang on to some notion of tradition, as if the way that we have done things for 100 years is somehow right?
This debate is turning into a battle royal between the radicals and the reactionaries. It will determine the fate of our programme to modernise and make more relevant and effective our creaking democratic institutions. If this Parliament, with its huge new intake in 1997 and 2001, cannot reform this place, an opportunity will be lost for a generation.
9.5 pm
Mr. Stephen McCabe: It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I agree with him on one point—this is no Great Reform Act 1832. When we find ourselves comparing the abolition of the property qualification, the extension of the franchise and the abolition of rotten boroughs with Members of Parliament who are concerned with looking after their narrow self-interest and getting home a bit earlier at night, we are in some difficulty.
There is some merit in the package of proposals before us. A lot of the measures are welcome—the revised line of route, conducted tours, pre-legislative

779
scrutiny, the attempt to avoid the clash between Westminster Hall and Committees, provisions for the Speaker on a Friday, and support for the production of a calendar are all excellent proposals, and I will happily support them. However, we are told that the proposed change in hours is a reform that will make Parliament more accessible and raise our esteem in the eyes of the public. I do not think that it will make Parliament more accessible. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said in an intervention on the Leader of the House that that is fine for tourists who want to come here at 9.30 in the morning for the line of route tour or for people who live within 30 miles of London. However, for people who live in Birmingham, Wales or any other region, it means that the day out they could have had coming to Parliament, seeing Prime Minister's Questions and meeting their MP will disappear. The alternative is to get up at about 6.30 in the morning, pay the expensive train fare to come, and then have less of a day here. MPs will have a compressed day, with more business and less time to spend with their constituents. I am extremely dubious about how this proposal will make the place more accessible.
If the proposals are to raise our esteem, why is the question about hours framed in terms of setting the agenda for the news? In the past few years, all we have talked about is the culture of spin doctors and how we are against it, yet we are saying here that we want to change the hours so that we can set the news agenda. We know that people will be on brief and on the breakfast news to get in first. It is nonsense and will do nothing to raise our esteem.
Since I have been in this place, no constituent has yet come to me and said, "I am really worried about the hours you work." No one has ever raised that with me, but they will say how crazy it is that we have spent a whole day debating how we can narrow our hours so that a proportion of us will get home early. That defies any logic and judgment.
I have doubts about the carry-over. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sincere when he says that it is not the intention to have more legislation. However, it is the tendency of all Governments to legislate as much as possible, and if we create conditions in which there is more opportunity, I bet my bottom dollar that we will have more legislation. It will stack up at the other end, so although the proposal looks attractive on the surface, I have doubts about whether it will make sense.
In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, I pointed out that the proposal to finish at 6 o'clock on Thursday night is popular—there is little dissent about that. However, what is the logic of coupling that proposal with the one about hours? There is to be a free vote. The process will be open. No one is trying to manage or railroad us, so why have we unnecessarily coupled together those two things?
Caroline Flint: If we end Thursday sittings at 6 o'clock, without making other changes, we shall be reducing the hours for debate in this place.
Mr. McCabe: In order to allay my hon. Friend's anxiety, I am happy to find another hour somewhere else in the week to stick back on.
780
We are coupling together two things that do not need to go together, because we know fine well that the proposal about the hours is contentious. We are creating a false linkage. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). We should deal with the issues that people want to tackle; if we do not want to deal with something, we should not be railroaded into it.
Many Members have talked about the 10-minute limit on speeches. I have no problem with the proposal that we should make short speeches, but recently we have noticed that such limits have tended to reduce Members' willingness to take interventions. The worst example was during the recall debate on Iraq. All over the place, people were demanding the recall of Parliament, but instead of a debate full of interventions we heard a succession of 10-minute statements that had been written on the previous night before the document was released in the morning. They added very little to the debate.
If we add some injury time, but for only two interventions, we are saying that debates must be limited to formatted 10-minute speeches with two interventions. That will not enrich the parliamentary process; it will do nothing for us when we are dealing with real matters where there is a difference of opinion and we need to try to influence each other and persuade each other of our views. It will turn us into a succession of robots, with two little gaps in our speeches.
Mr. Love: The other thing that characterised the Iraq debate was the fact that a large number of Members never got to say anything at all. There is tension, but the proposals would offer a reasonable compromise to ensure that we have the type of debate that my hon. Friend wants, with contributions from as many Members as possible.
Mr. McCabe: I am not disputing the proposal that we should make shorter speeches. In general, I support it. My point is that to entrench two interventions per speech will not necessarily assist reasoned debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and several other Members said that we must do everything in our power to avoid time wasting in Parliament. However, if I was in opposition, one of the few weapons at my disposal would be the opportunity to frustrate the Government, and that might involve a certain element of time wasting. Although I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that it will be 20 or 30 years before we are in opposition, I am not sure that I want to put myself in the position where almost no powers would be available for an Opposition to frustrate a Government that is hell-bent on doing things that I disapprove of.
Such ideas are attractive when we have a huge majority, but the time will come when that will not be the case for members of my party. If I disagree with a Government, I want to be able to frustrate them.
9.14 pm
Peter Bradley: It is extraordinary that this modest package of reforms should be the subject of debate rather than consensus. That it should provoke such passion and that we should take such pains over it is not to our credit.

781
It will bewilder the public. It shows how detached we are from the daily realities that they experience. After all—I have heard very little reference to this—this is their place. This is their Parliament, not ours. We are here under licence to represent their interests, to give them a voice and to ensure that the laws that we pass on their behalf are good laws. We are not here, although many Members—some on the Labour Benches but many on the Opposition Benches—believe that we are, for our own convenience, our own comfort, our own aggrandisement or, in some cases, our own profit.
The key question in my mind is: do our current arrangements here help us to discharge our duties to our constituents as efficiently and effectively as possible? In my view, the answer is no. I have heard hon. Friends cavil at the idea that we should make this place an efficient place in which to do business. I find that extraordinary. We demand of our constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said a few minutes ago, that they should modernise their working practices, whether it be in the public services or in the private sector, and yet we resist that imprecation ourselves.
I believe that the Modernisation Committee's recommendations are sensible and constructive. They do not go far enough, and they should be seen to be the beginning of a process, not the end of it, and they should address the causes as well as the symptoms of Parliament's problems. The measures proposed are eminently reasonable. Who would not support the carry-over motions, which increase the scope for scrutiny and the improvement of legislation, except those who wish to wreck the programme on which a Government have been elected?
I am all for scrutiny, I am all for criticism, I am all for amendment, I am all for improvement of legislation. That is the proper task of Parliament; it is not to frustrate the Government who are elected to promote their programme, not to wreck that legislation. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has been naked in his advice to his quiet man, the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the role of the Opposition is to wreck rather than oppose or improve. I think that we shall have to differ on what the role of the Opposition should be.
Who would oppose time limits, other than those who are always guaranteed to speak, not because of the quality of the contributions that they make to debate but because of a combination of good health, a fat majority and long service in this place? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) was quite right about the hierarchy that operates in this place. There is a two-tier membership of the House of Commons, as is too often revealed in the major set-piece debates. Many hon. Members have mentioned the debates on Iraq on 24 September. That was a classic example of the two-tier membership of the House of Commons, in which MPs from more recent intakes-1997 and 2001 in particular—are rendered second-class Members in the House of Commons, and by the same token their constituents are deprived of an equal right to
782
representation in the House of Commons. That should end. It is not a subject of the proposals tonight, but I hope that those who do take these decisions—
Ian Lucas: Why not?
Peter Bradley: I believe that it is a matter for the Speaker and I am sure that he has heard the strong views of many Members on both sides of the Chamber on this issue.
Much has been said about the length of speeches. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) railed that 10 or 12 minutes was not enough to allow him to make the points that he wanted to make. I believe that I could have condensed what he said into about 37 seconds—[Interruption.] I will be generous; perhaps 38.
However, I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He says that he is sent here to represent his constituents and that he has a right and a duty to them to speak for as long as he needs to speak in this place. I have to tell him that I was sent here by my constituents; every Member of the House was sent here by his or her constituents and every one of them should have an equal right to express their views and represent those of their constituents. The longer my right hon. Friend or I speak, the fewer of our colleagues can contribute to the debate, and it seems o me that the greater the number of voices that are heard in a debate, whether they agree with one another or not, the better the quality of that debate is likely to be and the better the representation that we give to the people who send us here.
Who could oppose better facilities for the public, whose Parliament this is? It is a shame and an embarrassment, if not a scandal, that when people visit Parliament—whether they are tourists or people with an interest in how our democracy works—we make them stand outside in the rain. This is their Parliament, but we stand them outside in all weathers. If they are fortunate enough to enter the building, we deny them the right to have a cup of tea, which is probably just as well because we also deny them the right to relieve themselves when nature calls. That is a contemptuous way in which to express our democracy and to deal with our constituents.
As for hours, I can see no problem with rearranging the hours in which we do business in the House. I have heard no hon. Member suggest that he or she wants to go home at 7 o'clock. No one has said, "I want to bunk off at 7", although I have to say that, like other human beings, I would like occasionally to walk over the bridge to the Royal Festival hall or to go to the theatre. That is the real life that Opposition Members talk about when they seek to defend the fat cheques that they get from their consultancies. I would like to do what my constituents do just once in a while, and it would be just once in a while because I have plenty to keep me busy and happy in my office and around the precincts of Westminster.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who said that, after 7 pm, a thousand blossoms can bloom in the House. Why should we not have debates—those that we rarely have—about Select Committee reports? Why not invite other people into the Chamber to debate with us after

783
7 o'clock? They do not have to be elected Members of the House of Commons. For that matter, why should we not be able to leave the precincts of Westminster and discover that we can have debates and political discourse, and enlighten ourselves, and perhaps other people, outside the village of Westminster? Would not that be a valuable contribution to a revitalised democracy in Westminster?
The argument today has been between those who recognise that they are paid as professional politicians—I make no apology for the fact that I am a professional politician, and I am very well paid for it in my view—and want to do a professional job, as they should, and those who are paid for full-time jobs, but want to work part time. The argument is between those who believe in public service and those who, frankly, believe in self-service.
Kevin Brennan: I have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend says and support much of it, but his last remark is very unfair to those of us who have genuine concerns about the hours. For example, because of the timetable of the Select Committee on which I serve—I did not support the decision, but it was what the majority of its members wanted—I can never get to questions in the House on Thursdays, and I regret that very much. I am not going out to do a second job.
Peter Bradley: There are many competing calls on our time, and we simply cannot do everything that we would like to do; we have to make choices. We will still have to make choices about whether we start at 9.30 or 11.30, or whether we continue to start at 2.30.
I suggest that some hon. Members overlook the changes that have already taken place in society and, indeed, in the make-up of Parliament. We have not heard much—apart from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West—about those who may not have the interests of Parliament uppermost in their minds. The hours and seasons of our sittings in the House derive from a time when the gentlemen who inherited the right to sit in Parliament and frame the nation's laws—they were men, they were usually gentlemen and they usually inherited the right—spent their mornings in the City, in the courts, in bed, not always their own beds; indeed, sometimes in the beds of fellow Members. In the summer, they spent long months on the grand tour or, indeed, on their estates.
The majority of Members no longer have those kinds of preoccupations, so it is time to change our arrangements, but a substantial majority still have; 24 per cent. of Members have remunerated outside interests. Some of them sit on the Labour Benches; a large majority on the Opposition Benches. I simply say that they should make a choice about whether their priority is serving their constituents in Parliament or collecting their pay cheques in the City. Whatever they decide, they should not have the right to dictate terms to the rest of us who are trying to do a proper job in the House.
I said earlier that these measures should be the beginning and not the end of a process. I have read all J. K. Rowling's novels, and every time I read about Hogwarts, I think of this place—it has the same mysteries, the same magic, and some of the malevolence.
784
In fact, as I was looking at the shadow Leader of the House earlier today, I thought that there was no one whom he resembled more than the master of potions, Mr. Snape. If he has not read the book, I suggest that he do so. This is a place of arcane and archaic rituals, which do not enhance but suppress the quality of the debate: they suppress the originality of thought that we should treasure and cherish; they curtail the freedom of debate; and they exclude both the members of the public whom we serve and, as we discussed earlier, too many hon. Members as well.
Those debates are perhaps for another day. I support the programme of the Leader of the House and the Modernisation Committee, which they have discussed long and hard. I hope, however, that we will be assured in the wind-up speeches that that is the beginning of a process—perhaps a long process—and not an end in itself.
9.26 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I have been a Member of the House for just over a year, and, by and large, I have been very impressed by it. It is undoubtedly a great privilege to be here. There is much to be said about the democratic tradition of which we are all part. There is a great sense of history in the House, the quality of debate is, by and large, of a high standard, and the Executive are held to account to a greater extent than in many other legislatures across Europe and the world.
Our scrutiny of legislation is thorough and comprehensive, and our business is conducted with a high degree of openness and transparency. I therefore conclude that there is not a case for fundamental change to our procedures. The essentials of our parliamentary democracy are sound. That is not to say, however, that there is no room for improvement. The House can be made more effective and more efficient, and the proposals of the Modernisation Committee show us the way forward. I want to focus briefly on some of the proposals.
In this evening's debate, the proposal to change the sitting hours of the House has been the most contentious. It is proposed that sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday should start at 11.30 in the morning and finish at seven in the evening. That is not a new suggestion—suggestions akin to it have been made many times in the past. I was reading in the Library that, in 1930, a Select Committee on the hours of meeting and rising of the House was specially convened, which examined the issue in some detail and concluded firmly:
"The great bulk of the evidence went definitely against such a proposal".
The reason was given that
"professional men would thereby be practically debarred from becoming Members of Parliament".
Members' priorities have changed somewhat since 1930, and many professional men and women are full-time Members of Parliament. The situation is very different.
There have been other attempts at change since 1930, and all have come to nothing. We now have a golden opportunity. Many arguments have been made today for change. I believe that some of the most convincing arguments have been those in favour of creating a more family friendly atmosphere in the House. I know that all Members have received a circular from the Equal

785
Opportunities Commission, which produced firm evidence to show that candidates from all parties—both men and women—have found that the hours of the House are an obstacle to allowing their names to go forward. If we want to create a modern democracy and an institution that represents the people of our country in this new century, we must have systems of work to facilitate the maximum number of people putting their names forward for election. I believe that we live in a representative democracy. The House is the pinnacle of that democracy. It should not be an old man's or gentleman's club. We want a modern institution.
I have heard Members say that it is all well and good having family friendly hours, but only if one lives in London or the south-east. I come from Wales and it would be impossible for me to go home on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening. However, the issue is not about personal self-interest; it is about creating a modern institution that is best for everyone and about opening it up to make it truly representative.
As many Members know, for a decade, I was a Member of the European Parliament. I am sure that they will agree that many things in that Parliament are wrong and need to be profoundly changed. However, one of the good things is the sensible working hours for Members that allow a businesslike, non-clubbish atmosphere to be created. That is positive for democracy. Another positive element of the European Parliament is that, in a revolutionary sense, it produces an annual calendar, so that Members know exactly when they have to be in their places of work. We should definitely agree to such a modest advance.
I am also glad that Members seem to have given majority approval to the idea of having a 10-minute limit on speaking time. That also happens in the European Parliament. Perhaps there will not be so many great flights of oratory or so many Members intoxicated with the exuberance of their own verbosity, but we will have far more Members of the House thinking that they can make a genuine contribution to a debate. Rather than sitting for hours on end hoping and praying to be called, many more Back Benchers will definitely be able to make a contribution. They will be able to tell their constituents that they are here to represent their interests and will be able to show them Hansard to show how they are doing that. That would be a huge and positive step forward.
I wish to make two further points. The development of Westminster Hall as a lively debating chamber should be welcomed. It has been a success. Its atmosphere is special, and is very different from the confrontational atmosphere in this House. It adds to the sense of democracy in this place.
Finally, I wish to refer to the need for parliamentarians to connect with our public. It is incredible that we have not yet got a visitor centre in the House. I am pleased that a study will consider that point, and I have no doubt what the conclusion will be. I am also surprised that groups of constituents do not receive financial support from the House when they have to travel long distances to visit Members. That point should be considered too.
786
I am also surprised that we have not learned as much as we could have done from the devolved institutions. For example, the Welsh Assembly, which was only established in 1999, already has a visitor centre, which has proved to be extremely popular. This place should be open on Saturdays, so that members of the public can, at least, look around to see what the mother of Parliaments looks like. We could do one thing that would, in many ways, be symbolic of the change. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has mentioned on many occasions the fact that visitors to this place are referred to as strangers. Let us drop that once and for all and call them visitors and our guests.
The recommendations before us are well thought out and well crafted. I sincerely hope that they will be adopted. They are not about making life easier for Members of Parliament, about reducing our work load or cutting back on our hours. They are about promoting democracy, enhancing accountability and ensuring that the House is seen as relevant by the people of this country. In short, they are about making the House a modern parliamentary institution.
9.34 pm
Mr. Forth: The debate has been informative and, by and large, good natured, given the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. I want to pick up a few of the key contributions that encapsulated some of the more crucial arguments. Before I do that, however, I want to add my praise for the work of the Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). It has offered us, on an all-party basis, a sensible and practical way to advance the ability of Members to question the Government in the House. Remarkably, however, one Committee member told us that although he had tabled the amendment in the name of the Committee, he did not feel able to vote for it. That is another approach, which perhaps we should consider.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an excellent speech. He said—I paraphrase him, and hope I do so accurately—that voters care about what we do here, not when we do it. That is a brief sense of his contribution, and I agree with him. If we could focus on that as a proposition it would be much more productive than getting bogged down, as we all too often have, in the arguments about the hours we work. We will come to our collective conclusion about the hours that we work and get on with it, whatever that may be. I hope, however, that Members will give far more consideration to how effective we are when we are here rather than worrying excessively about the hours that we work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) also reflected that sentiment and put it rather similarly. He said—again., I paraphrase—that it is what we do that matters. Although he favoured many of the proposals, he emphasised that thought and I hope we cling to it when we vote.
In a similar vein, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in a typically robust speech, said something that rang true with me. She explained that rarely in her experience have constituents questioned her or taxed her on our working hours or our

787
procedures in the House. She was right in saying that her constituents want to know how effective we have been in our different ways in the House, and in the different roles that we fulfil, in discharging our duties on their behalf and, ideally, for their benefit.
I am always intrigued when Members say, as many have today, that some constituents talk of little else than the hours we work. Apparently, some constituents are going to be watching closely what we do tonight and will judge us, individually and collectively, on the momentous decision that we reach on the hours we work. All that that illustrates is how very different our constituents and constituencies are, and I must admit that I am more at one with the hon. Member for Crewe arid Nantwich than I am with those who claim to have that remarkable dialogue with their constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) highlighted one of the more important considerations, which is to be voted on tonight. We have gone badly wrong with the systematic timetabling or programming of Bills. Many Members have argued that one of our prime duties is the scrutiny of legislation. The Conservatives contend—I think I speak for most, if not all, of my colleagues in this—that the Government's ruthless approach to restricting the time available for the scrutiny of Bills both in Standing Committee and on Report has diminished our effectiveness as a House of Commons and the opportunities that we as Members of Parliament have properly to scrutinise legislation. That is why I will ask my hon. Friends to vote against the motion to validate systematic timetabling of Bills. It has ill served the House as a legislature and we should reconsider it.
I appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who always has at the front of his mind the welfare of those who work with us in the House. I also appreciated his use of the term "with us" because that is the appropriate way to put it. He put his finger on a flaw in the procedure. We have got to this stage and are a few minutes away from making decisions on how we work and the hours that we work without having properly consulted the staff who work in the building with us. It would have been more appropriate for a Government who claim to care so much about working people to take more trouble to learn what the people who work with us in this building truly think about our way of working and our hours, and allow that to inform the debate. Apart from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, the matter has not been mentioned at all, which I very much regret.
I turn now to the contribution of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). If I may give him a little avuncular advice, I think that he should take a refresher course at his charm school because what he said did not reach out to us to gain our support. More importantly, almost his entire speech was preoccupied with the idea that there is now insufficient time in the Chamber for junior Members of the House to speak. All I say to him is that he is about, I assume, to support a further diminution in Friday sittings in the House, which are opportunities for Members to speak. I assume that he supported the reduction in sitting hours for the House, from the good old days, when we sometimes sat beyond 10 o'clock, to the time until 10 that is now available. I bet that he will vote against our proposal to start at 9.30 am, which would give Members more time to speak.
788
All in all, the hon. Gentleman complains about the lack of opportunities for Members to speak; yet at every turn he supports the measures that reduce the opportunities for Members to do so. He ought to make up his mind about his priorities. Our amendments offer more opportunities for the House to deliberate, but it seems that some Labour Members are reluctant to take those opportunities. I add in passing that the hon. Gentleman chose to use his full allocation of 12 minutes. May I suggest that he has a word with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), who, earlier in the debate, managed pithily to make her points in four minutes flat? There are many ways to deal with the problems facing the House, and it did not strike me that the hon. Member for The Wrekin offered us any solutions at all to the problem that he posed for himself and the House as a whole.
I shall conclude my comments well within the time allocated because I want the leader of the opposition to have ample opportunity to reply to the debate. The Leader of the House, as the Chairman of the Committee, is in by far the best position to explain to those who have taken part in the debate how he will react to some of the very pointed questions that have correctly been aimed in his direction.
All I say to my hon. Friends is that I hope that they will consider what I have said, both in my opening speech and in my few remarks now. I hope that not only my hon. Friends but Labour Members will seriously consider our amendments, in the spirit in which we have tabled them, in an attempt genuinely to improve the way in which the House works. I hope that, in the end, whatever solution the House comes to by the end of voting tonight, we will unite in a determination to make our proceedings as effective as possible in holding the Government to account.
9.43 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: We have had an honest and thoughtful debate. I am not one of those who subscribes to the theory that the House is at its best when it is at its least partisan. I have to confess to the House that I am an unreconstructed tribalist, and I think that the House is at its best when it embodies the clash of passion in the nation outside this place. Undoubtedly, however, one of the strengths of tonight's debate is that a number of cross-party points were made on both sides of the Chamber.
One of the most remarkable speeches, and certainly one of the most candid, was that by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who urged us to confront the fact that Parliament is not working, and the fact that we need to face up to the scale of change that is necessary if we are to have proceedings that are more topical and more to the point.
To answer one of the themes that ran through many of the contributions, one of the things we need to do to have debates that are more topical and to the point is to ensure that as many MPs as possible can speak in them, which means that we have to have limits on speeches. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter. Tapsell)— if I can catch his attention for a second argued that shorter speeches in debates would strengthen the Executive, but that argument is wholly misconceived. What time limits on speeches do is

789
strengthen the chances of other Back Benchers being able to speak in the debate. A Back Bencher who makes a 30-minute speech, deprives another two hon. Members of their opportunity to make a 10-minute speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an exemplary speech about time limits, and concluded well within the time limit for the day. He was especially concerned, as he said repeatedly, that such time limits might become mandatory. May I remove that anxiety from his mind and that of the House? The motion before us does nothing to change the discretion that is available to the Speaker as to when to apply time limits: that decision will remain with the Speaker.
As a matter of fact, the change in Standing Orders before us tonight will provide for slightly longer speeches when time limits apply: motion No. 13 will provide additional injury time for hon. Members to apply to up to two interventions. Having sat through the debate, I can say that one of its strengths has been the way in which hon. Members have taken interventions and replied to them. I believe that that opportunity will be greater as a result of the change to Standing Orders.
Sir Peter Tapsell: If the Leader of the House was present when his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made his excellent speech, he will know that he was repeatedly interrupted by his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman, in his usual skilful debating way, would have given way and replied to interventions and there would have been a proper debate, but, as he rightly said, under a 12-minute time limit he could not do so, so the interventions were never made and he was unable to reply to them.
Mr. Cook: It is a matter of regret to me that I was able to intervene only once during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), rather than the 15 times that I would have liked to intervene. I shall deal with his speech later in my reply.
Mr. Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until I get round to his speech.
I cannot commend to my hon. Friends the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although I was strongly tempted by the colleague who suggested that we should all vote for that amendment, if only to enjoy the looks of consternation on the faces of Conservative Members when they won.
I very much welcome the generous spirit in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) spoke and his recognition that the Government's response to his Committee's very interesting report was overwhelmingly positive. There is only one major difference between us—that the Government do not accept the recommendation for topical questions—but I believe that the recommendations we do accept and the changes that we will make tonight will result in a dramatic reduction in the notice for Question Time and
790
will make all Question Times more topical. In those circumstances, we are not persuaded of the case for introducing a new category of topical questions. However, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, the overall thrust of his Committee's report has been accepted.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked me in my winding-up speech to address carry-over and its impact on Bills that are before the House of Lords. He is right in the inference behind his question. This House, through the Standing Orders that we are adopting tonight, can provide carryover only for Bills that are solely before this House. Once Bills go to the Lords, we have no power, and we will have no power, under Standing Orders to decide for ourselves to carry them over to another Session. In other words, once a Bill has reached the Lords, or if we are involved in ping-pong with the Lords at the end of a Session, we cannot use carry-over to pull open the trapdoor and make the Bill disappear into the following Session. Those who want to retain that power in the Lords need have no anxiety about the Standing Order removing it.
Most of the debate has been about the sitting hours of the House. Many of those who spoke on hours were keen to express that they did not regard that as the most important issue. I agree with them. Indeed, I fully agree with what the right hon. Member for Bromley arid Chislehurst has just said. What we do is much more important than when we do it. Most of the debate has been about the question of sitting hours because that is the most divisive issue before the House. I hope that the debate and subsequent votes will enable us to put the issue behind us, one way or another, for the rest of this Parliament. At least in that event the debate will have been cathartic.
The debate has certainly been entertaining, and I found most entertaining of all the speech of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, who is a hardcore traditionalist. He gave a magnificent soaring parody of the case against change. I can assume only that he was put up to it by those who want us to sit earlier hours to discredit the case against it. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have no argument with those who want to work elsewhere in the mornings rather than come to the House. That is their choice and I would not dream of interfering with it. However, those who choose to do so surely cannot argue if those of us who are full time in our commitment to the House want to adopt hours that a re appropriate to a modern and effective Parliament.
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I thought that my hon. Friend made the best speech for earlier sittings. He stressed the value in terms of public attention of meeting in the morning rather than the afternoon. He stressed the gains to the Home Affairs Select Committee from meeting in the morning rather than the afternoon. I think that he rather lost the Chamber when he suggested that those gains should be confined to that Select Committee and not shared with the Chamber. If morning sittings are such an encouraging success for his Select Committee, surely he should not stop the Chamber sharing the same benefit.
Mr. Mullin: My only point, which I repeat, is that there is more to life than what goes on in the Chamber

791
in terms of calling the Executive to account. Although we are not whipped on the Government side of the Chamber—at least I do not think that we are—my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is handing out a bit of paper telling everybody how to vote. I see that it describes my amendment as wrecking amendment. In fact it is an honest attempt to allow a vote to take place on sitting hours on Wednesdays, about which there is honourable disagreement on both sides of the Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend explain how my amendment comes to be a wrecking amendment and why he is describing it as such.
Mr. Cook: This is a matter for a free vote on both sides of the Chamber, as I understand it. I would not think that my hon. Friend would resile from the simple fact that his amendment is devised to stop the House sitting earlier on Wednesdays. To that extent, those who want to see the House change its hours and sit earlier in the morning would be entitled to describe it as a wrecking amendment that is intended to prevent that from happening. I do not think that my hon. Friend is in any position to deny that that would be precisely the effect of his amendment.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us, while voting for the package, would not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? Indeed, many of us feel that the package does not go far enough. The various compromises that have had to be made may well be acceptable to those who feel like me. This may be the end of the issue after the votes have taken place tonight, but I hope that my right hon. Friend is not closing the book on further reforms emanating from his office and from the Modernisation and Procedure Committees, so that Members can once again discuss, debate and vote upon further reforms that are needed in this place.
Mr. Cook: We have only five minutes before the House divides on the proposed reforms. It might be unwise of me to embark on a programme of further reform that comes after tonight. Obviously what my hon. Friend says has some merit to it. Modernisation is necessarily a continuous process. It is not an episode and it will not stop tonight, but how much further we can go after tonight will entirely depend on the extent of support for the measures now before the House.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be an instance of contempt of the House if, while the Leader of the House says that this is to be a free vote for the Government, it turns out that Government Whips are issuing a note referring to a wrecking amendment and saying—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Cook: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman, because, perfectly understandably, I have wanted to keep in close contact and make sure that I know what the Government Whips are doing. With the authority of
792
that close interest, I can assure him that any paper from which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South was quoting did not come from the Government Whips.
It might be helpful for the House to remember when we talk about the 7 o'clock closures proposed in the Standing Orders for earlier sittings that that will not necessarily be the hour at which all business ends. Technically, what we are voting for in relation to the 7 o'clock closure is the moment of interruption that currently takes place at 10 o'clock. I cannot guarantee to the House that I will always be able in the forthcoming Session to avoid business after that moment of interruption. We have been able to avoid that for most of the past year because we have had a very long Session. The next Session will be shorter. I hope that when hon. Members come to vote, they will also bear in mind that, if they stick with 10 pm as the moment of interruption, it is possible that they will find on occasion in the next Session that they are present not until 10 o'clock, but until midnight.
I wholly agree with the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who said that most of us on the Labour Benches are at our desks and in our offices before 9 o'clock in the morning. All the Ministers on the Front Bench are in their offices by 8 o'clock in the morning. In those circumstances, I do not think that it is unreasonable for hon. Members to expect to be allowed to be free to go home and prepare for the next morning from 7.30 at night.
Mr. Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? As far as I understand it, motion 6 means that if we want to finish at 6 o'clock on Thursday, we must also vote for the hours that my right hon. Friend wants on Wednesday. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South would allow the House to vote separately in respect of Wednesdays and Thursdays. That would give the House a greater opportunity to make decisions about each of those days. How can that be described as a wrecking amendment?
Mr. Cook: I would not dispute the interpretation that my right hon. Friend puts on that amendment. It would have the effect of removing earlier sittings on Wednesdays. That is precisely why I would encourage my hon. Friends to resist it, so that we can achieve the gains for this Chamber that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South described in relation to the morning sittings of his Select Committee.
As hon. Member after hon. Member has said, we are fond of expressing our views on how the rest of Britain must accept change as a condition of remaining efficient and competitive. From the public services to the financial services, we call upon the rest of the work force to accept that continuous change is the natural order of the modern world.
Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I cannot give way now. If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, we are almost finished.
The rest of Britain would find it rather strange if we now refused to change ourselves. The reforms on which we are about to vote will give MPs more time for more

793
effective scrutiny, make Question Time more topical, make hon. Members' time in their constituencies more effective by enabling them to plan a year ahead, and yes, they will allow MPs to work hours that approximate more to what the rest of the nation would regard as normal. I believe that these changes will be good for the House. More important, I believe that they will be good for the nation, which will have a more effective, modern and normal Parliament. I urge the House to vote for reform.
It being 10 o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
Amendment proposed: (e) in line 8, leave out from `Chamber' to 'and' in line 9.—[Mr.Forth.]
Question put, That the amendment be made—
The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 394.

Division No. 332]

[10:00 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Francois, Mark

Arbuthnot, rh James

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Garnier, hon. Edward

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Barker, Gregory

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Barnes, Harry

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Baron, John (Billericay)

Goodman, Paul

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Grayling, Chris

Boswell, Tim

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hague, rh William

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Hammond, Philip

Hawkins, Nick

Brady, Graham

Heald, Oliver

Brazier, Julian

Hermon, Lady

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Burnside, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Burt, Alistair

Hogg, rh Douglas

Butterfill, John

Howard, rh Michael

Cameron, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cash, William

Hunter, Andrew

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Jack, rh Michael

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Chope, Christopher

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Clappison, James

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Collins, Tim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Curry, rh David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dalyell, Tam

Lansley, Andrew

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Lidington, David

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lilley, rh Peter

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Loughton, Tim

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Mackinlay, Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Maclean, rh David

Fabricant, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

McNulty, Tony

Flight, Howard

Malins, Humfrey

Flook, Adrian

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Forth, rh Eric

Fox, Dr. Liam

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

794

Mates, Michael

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Spring, Richard

May, Mrs Theresa

Stanley, rh Sir John

Mercer, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Swayne, Desmond

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Syms, Robert

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Olner, Bill

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Page, Richard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Paice, James

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Paterson, Owen

Trend, Michael

Pearson, Ian

Trimble, rh David

Pickles, Eric

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Portillo, rh Michael

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Viggers, Peter

Randall, John

Walter, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

Wareing, Robert N.

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Waterson, Nigel

Whittingdale, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wiggin, Bill

Rosindell, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Ruffley, David

Wilshire, David

Selous, Andrew

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Simmonds, Mark

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Soames, Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Spicer, Sir Michael

Joan Ryan

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Browne, Desmond

Alexander, Douglas

Bruce, Malcolm

Allan, Richard

Bryant, Chris

Allen, Graham

Buck, Ms Karen

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Burden, Richard

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Burgon, Colin

Burnett, John

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Burnham, Andy

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burstow, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Byers, rh Stephen

Bacon, Richard

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Baird, Vera

Caborn, rh Richard

Baker, Norman

Carton, Mrs Patsy

Barrett, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Battle, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beith, rh A. J.

Carmichael, Alistair

Bell, Stuart

Casale, Roger

Benn, Hilary

Caton, Martin

Bennett, Andrew

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Challen, Colin

Berry, Roger

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Best, Harold

Chaytor, David

Betts, Clive

Chidgey, David

Blackman, Liz

Clapham, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Blizzard, Bob

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blunkett, rh David

Blunt, Crispin

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Boateng, rh Paul

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Borrow, David

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clelland, David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Brennan, Kevin

Coaker, Vernon

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Coleman, Iain

Colman, Tony

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Connarty, Michael

Conway, Derek

795

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hancock, Mike

Cooper, Yvette

Hanson, David

Corston, Jean

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cousins, Jim

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Harvey, Nick

Crausby, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Healey, John

Cummings, John

Heath, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Hendrick, Mark

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Heppell, John

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hesford, Stephen

Darling, rh Alistair

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Heyes, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

David, Wayne

Hodge, Margaret

Davidson, Ian

Holmes, Paul

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Dawson, Hilton

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Horam, John (Orpington)

Denham, rh John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dismore, Andrew

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Dobson, rh Frank

Dodds, Nigel

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Doran, Frank

Humble, Mrs Joan

Doughty, Sue

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Hutton, rh John

Drown, Ms Julia

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Illsley, Eric

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ingram, rh Adam

Edwards, Huw

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Efford, Clive

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Etherington, Bill

Jamieson, David

Ewing, Annabelle

Jenkins, Brian

Farrelly, Paul

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Fisher, Mark

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Flint, Caroline

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Follett, Barbara

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Foster, rh Derek

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Khabra, Piara S.

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Kidney, David

Gapes, Mike (Illford S)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Gardiner, Barry

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Gilroy, Linda

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Goggins, Paul

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Lamb, Norman

Grieve, Dominic

Lammy, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Grogan, John

Leigh, Edward

Hain, rh Peter

Lepper, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Leslie, Christopher

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

796

Linton, Martin

Purchase, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Purnell, James

Llwyd, Elfyn

Quin, rh Joyce

Love, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McAvoy, Thomas

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

McCabe, Stephen

McCafferty, Chris

Rendel, David

MacDonald, Calum

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

McDonnell, John

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

MacDougall, John

McFall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

McIsaac, Shona

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

McKechin, Ann

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McKenna, Rosemary

Rooney, Terry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McWilliam, John

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Mahmood, Khalid

Ruane, Chris

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ruddock, Joan

Mallaber, Judy

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Maples, John

Salmond, Alex

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Salter, Martin

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Sanders, Adrian

Savidge, Malcolm

Martlew, Eric

Sawford, Phil

Merron, Gillian

Shaw, Jonathan

Michael, rh Alun

Sheerman, Barry

Milburn, rh Alan

Sheridan, Jim

Miliband, David

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Miller, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Skinner, Dennis

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mole, Chris

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Moore, Michael

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Moran, Margaret

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morley, Elliot

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

Mountford, Kali

Mudie, George

Soley, Clive

Munn, Ms Meg

Southworth, Helen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Spellar, rh John

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Squire, Rachel

Norman, Archie

Stevenson, George

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

O'Neill, Martin

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Öpik, Lembit

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Organ, Diana

Stringer, Graham

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Stunell, Andrew

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Perham, Linda

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Picking, Anne

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pollard, Kerry

Tipping, Paddy

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Pound, Stephen

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tredinnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Truswell, Paul

Prescott, rh John

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pugh, Dr. John

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

797

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Winnick, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Claire

Wishart, Pete

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Woodward, Shaun

Watts, David

Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Weir, Michael

White, Brian

Wright, David (Telford)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wicks, Malcolm

Young, rh Sir George

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

Willis, Phil

Mr. Nick Ainger

Question accordingly negatived.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been told by the Leader of the House that this is a free vote because it is a House matter. If it is a free vote, why did a Government Whip announce the result of the vote just now?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Amendment proposed: (d) in line 10, at end add
`but is of the opinion that the House should meet at half-past Two o'clock on Mondays, and half-past Nine o'clock on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, with a suspension of the sitting between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and the moment of interruption of business falling at Seven o'clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and Six o'clock on Thursdays.'.—[Mr Greg Knight.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 441.

Division No. 333]

[10:14 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Evans, Nigel

Ancram, rh Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Flight, Howard

Baker, Norman

Flook, Adrian

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, rh Eric

Bercow, John

Fox, Dr. Liam

Blunt, Crispin

Francois, Mark

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Grayling, Chris

Grieve, Dominic

Brady, Graham

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Brazier, Julian

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Harvey, Nick

Clappison, James

Hawkins, Nick

Collins, Tim

Heald, Oliver

Colman, Tony

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Conway, Derek

Howard, rh Michael

Cran, James (Beverley)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Davidson, Ian

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dawson, Hilton

Leigh, Edward

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Letwin, rh Oliver

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Lidington, David

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Loughton, Tim

798

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Robathan, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Roe, Mrs Marion

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

May, Mrs Theresa

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Mercer, Patrick

Swayne, Desmond

Moss, Malcolm

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Whittingdale, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Wiggin, Bill

Ottaway, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Paice, James

Wilshire, David

Pearson, Ian

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Pickles, Eric

Portillo, rh Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Joan Ryan

Randall, John

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Burgon, Colin

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Burnett, John

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Burnham, Andy

Alexander, Douglas

Burnside, David

Allan, Richard

Burstow, Paul

Allen, Graham

Burt, Alistair

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Butterfill, John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Byers, rh Stephen

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Arbuthnot, rh James

Caborn, rh Richard

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Atherton, Ms Candy

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baird, Vera

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Barker, Gregory

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Carmichael, Alistair

Barrett, John

Casale, Roger

Battle, John

Caton, Martin

Beard, Nigel

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Begg, Miss Anne

Challen, Colin

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Berth, rh A. J.

Chaytor, David

Bell, Stuart

Chidgey, David

Benn, Hilary

Chope, Christopher

Bennett, Andrew

Clapham, Michael

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Berry, Roger

Best, Harold

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Blackman, Liz

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Blizzard, Bob

Boateng, rh Paul

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Borrow, David

Clelland, David

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Coaker, Vernon

Bradshaw, Ben

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Coleman, Iain

Breed, Colin

Connarty, Michael

Brennan, Kevin

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Cooper, Yvette

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Corston, Jean

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Cotter, Brian

Cousins, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Browne, Desmond

Crausby, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Cruddas, Jon

Bruce, Malcolm

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bryant, Chris

Cummings, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Burden, Richard

799

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Curry, rh David

Healey, John

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Heath, David

Dalyell, Tam

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Darling, rh Alistair

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hendrick, Mark

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Heppell, John

David, Wayne

Hermon, Lady

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Hesford, Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Heyes, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Denham, rh John

Hodge, Margaret

Dhanda, Parmjit

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Dismore, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Djanogly, Jonathan

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Dobson, rh Frank

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dodds, Nigel

Horam, John (Orpington)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Doran, Frank

Hoyle, Lindsay

Doughty, Sue

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Drown, Ms Julia

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Humble, Mrs Joan

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Hutton, rh John

Edwards, Huw

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Efford, Clive

Illsley, Eric

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ingram, rh Adam

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Etherington, Bill

Jack, rh Michael

Ewing, Annabelle

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Farrelly, Paul

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Fisher, Mark

Jamieson, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jenkins, Brian

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Flint, Caroline

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Follett, Barbara

Foster, rh Derek

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Foulkes, rh George

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Gapes, Mike (Word S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Gardiner, Barry

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Gerrard, Neil

Kemp, Fraser

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gilroy, Linda

Khabra, Piara S.

Goggins, Paul

Kidney, David

Goodman, Paul

King, Andy (Rugby)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Kirkwood, Archy

Grogan, John

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Hague, rh William

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Hain, rh Peter

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Lamb, Norman

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Lammy, David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Hancock, Mike

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Hanson, David

Lazarowicz, Mark

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Lepper, David

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Leslie, Christopher

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

800

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Pound, Stephen

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lilley, rh Peter

Linton, Martin

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Prescott, rh John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Prosser, Gwyn

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Pugh, Dr. John

McAvoy, Thomas

Purchase, Ken

McCabe, Stephen

Purnell, James

McCafferty, Chris

Quin, rh Joyce

MacDonald, Calum

Quinn, Lawrie

McDonnell, John

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

MacDougall, John

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McFall, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

McIsaac, Shona

McKechin, Ann

Rendel, David

McKenna, Rosemary

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McNulty, Tony

Mactaggart, Fiona

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

McWalter, Tony

McWilliam, John

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Mahmood, Khalid

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Rooney, Terry

Mallaber, Judy

Rosindell, Andrew

Mandelson, rh Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Maples, John

Ruane, Chris

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Ruddock, Joan

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Salmond, Alex

Martlew, Eric

Salter, Martin

Merron, Gillian

Sanders, Adrian

Michael, rh Alun

Savidge, Malcolm

Milburn, rh Alan

Sawford, Phil

Miliband, David

Selous, Andrew

Miller, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Sheerman, Barry

Moffatt, Laura

Sheridan, Jim

Mole, Chris

Simmonds, Mark

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Moore, Michael

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Moran, Margaret

Skinner, Dennis

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mountford, Kali

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Munn, Ms Meg

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

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

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Soames, Nicholas

Norman, Archie

Soley, Clive

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Southworth, Helen

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Spellar, rh John

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Spring, Richard

Olner, Bill

Squire, Rachel

O'Neill, Martin

Steen, Anthony

Öpik, Lembit

Steinberg, Gerry

Organ, Diana

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Page, Richard

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Perham, Linda

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Picking, Anne

Stringer, Graham

Pickthall, Colin

Stunell, Andrew

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Syms, Robert

Plaskitt, James

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pollard, Kerry

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

801

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wareing, Robert N.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Watts, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Weir, Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

White, Brian

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Wicks, Malcolm

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Tredinnick, David

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Trend, Michael

Willis, Phil

Trickett, Jon

Wilson, Brian

Trimble, rh David

Winnick, David

Truswell, Paul

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wishart, Pete

Woodward, Shaun

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Woolas, Phil

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Worthington, Tony

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Wright, David (Telford)

Tyrie, Andrew

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Young, rh Sir George

Viggers, Peter

Younger-Ross, Richard

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Walley, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Noes:

Walter, Robert

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Nick Ainger

Ward, Claire

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
That this House approves the Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and endorses its proposals, in particular for more effective law making by more routine publication of bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, for consultation with Opposition parties on the broad shape of the legislative year and more flexibility in programming, for an annual House of Commons calendar which would allow honourable Members to plan work in their constituencies more effectively and provide sittings in September balanced by an earlier recess in July, for more effective use of the Chamber including more regular use of time limits on speeches, and a Parliament that is more accessible to the public that it serves.)—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
The House divided: Ayes 411, Noes 47.

Division No. 334]

[10:28 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Begg, Miss Anne

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Beith, rh A. J.

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart

Allan, Richard

Benn, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Bennett, Andrew

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Bercow, John

Berry, Roger

Arbuthnot, rh James

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Best, Harold

Atherton, Ms Candy

Betts, Clive

Atkins, Charlotte

Blackman, Liz

Bacon, Richard

Blears, Ms Hazel

Baird, Vera

Blizzard, Bob

Baker, Norman

Blunkett, rh David

Baron, John (Billericay)

Blunt, Crispin

Barrett, John

Boateng, rh Paul

Battle, John

Borrow, David

Beard, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

802

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dawson, Hilton

Breed, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brennan, Kevin

Denham, rh John

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Dobson, rh Frank

Dodds, Nigel

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Browne, Desmond

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bruce, Malcolm

Doran, Frank

Bryant, Chris

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Buck, Ms Karen

Doughty, Sue

Burden, Richard

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Burgon, Colin

Drew, David (Stroud)

Burnett, John

Drown, Ms Julia

Burnham, Andy

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Burnside, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Burstow, Paul

Edwards, Huw

Burt, Alistair

Efford, Clive

Byers, rh Stephen

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Etherington, Bill

Caborn, rh Richard

Ewing, Annabelle

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Farrelly, Paul

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Carmichael, Alistair

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Casale, Roger

Flint, Caroline

Caton, Martin

Flook, Adrian

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Challen, Colin

Follett, Barbara

Chaytor, David

Foster, rh Derek

Chidgey, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Clapham, Michael

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Foulkes, rh George

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Gapes, Mike (Illford S)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gardiner, Barry

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Coaker, Vernon

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Coffey, Ms Ann

Gilroy, Linda

Coleman, Iain

Goggins, Paul

Colman, Tony

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Connarty, Michael

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Conway, Derek

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cooper, Yvette

Grogan, John

Corston, Jean

Hain, rh Peter

Cotter, Brian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cousins, Jim

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Crausby, David

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cruddas, Jon

Hancock, Mike

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hanson, David

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Curry, rh David

Harvey, Nick

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Darling, rh Alistair

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Healey, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Heath, David

David, Wayne

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Davidson, Ian

Hendrick, Mark

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Heppell, John

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hermon, Lady

803

Hesford, Stephen

McFall, John

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Heyes, David

McIsaac, Shona

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Hodge, Margaret

McKechin, Ann

Hogg, rh Douglas

McKenna, Rosemary

Homes, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hopkins, Kelvin

McWalter, Tony

Horam, John (Orpington)

Mahmood, Khalid

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Mallaber, Judy

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Maples, John

Humble, Mrs Joan

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hutton, rh John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Illsley, Eric

Martlew, Eric

Ingram, rh Adam

Merron, Gillian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Michael, rh Alun

Jack, rh Michael

Milburn, rh Alan

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Jamieson, David

Moffatt, Laura

Jenkins, Brian

Mole, Chris

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Moore, Michael

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Moran, Margaret

Mountford, Kali

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Mullin, Chris

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Munn, Ms Meg

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Keeble, Ms Sally

Norman, Archie

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Kemp, Fraser

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

O'Neill, Martin

Öpik, Lembit

Khabra, Piara S.

Organ, Diana

Kidney, David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Kirkwood, Archy

Perham, Linda

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Picking, Anne

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Pickthall, Colin

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Lamb, Norman

Plaskitt, James

Lammy, David

Pollard, Kerry

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Portillo, rh Michael

Lazarowicz, Mark

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward

Prescott, rh John

Lepper, David

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Leslie, Christopher

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prosser, Gwyn

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Pugh, Dr. John

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Purchase, Ken

Linton, Martin

Purnell, James

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Quin, rh Joyce

Llwyd, Elfyn

Quinn, Lawrie

Love, Andrew

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Luke Iain (Dundee E)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

McCabe, Stephen

McCafferty, Chris

Rendel, David

MacDonald, Calum

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

McDonnell, John

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

MacDougall, John

804

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Tipping, Paddy

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Tredinnick, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Trickett, Jon

Rooney, Terry

Trimble, rh David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Truswell, Paul

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Salmond, Alex

Tyrie, Andrew

Salter, Martin

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Sanders, Adrian

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Savidge, Malcolm

Walley, Ms Joan

Sawford, Phil

Walter, Robert

Selous, Andrew

Ward, Claire

Shaw, Jonathan

Wareing, Robert N.

Sheerman, Barry

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sheridan, Jim

Watts, David

Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Skinner, Dennis

Weir, Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis, Phil

Soames, Nicholas

Wilson, Brian

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Southworth, Helen

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Squire, Rachel

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Wishart, Pete

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Woodward, Shaun

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Woolas, Phil

Stringer, Graham

Worthington, Tony

Stunell, Andrew

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wright, David (Telford)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, rh Sir George

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Joan Ryan

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

NOES

Amess, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hunter, Andrew

Barker, Gregory

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Boswell, Tim

Lilley, rh Peter

Butterfill, John

Malins, Humfrey

Chope, Christopher

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Clelland, David

Cummings, John

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rosindell, Andrew

Dalyell, Tam

Ruffley, David

Dismore, Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Djanogly, Jonathan

Spellar, rh John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Fallon, Michael

Steinberg, Gerry

Garnier, hon. Edward

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Hague, rh William

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

805

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Viggers, Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wiggin, Bill

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Nick Ainger

Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, House of Commons Paper No. 622, and the Government Response thereto, Cm 5628, and approves the proposals in both for a quota on named day questions, a reduction in the daily quota of questions per department, the introduction of electronic tabling subject to safeguards to ensure the authenticity of questions and the power of the Speaker to modify or halt the system if it appears it is being abused, and the timing and printing of answers to written questions and written ministerial statements.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Amendment proposed: (a), in line 8, leave out 'and written Ministerial statements'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 386.

Division No. 335]

[10:42 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Ancram, rh Michael

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Flight, Howard

Barker, Gregory

Flook, Adrian

Baron, John (Billericay)

Forth, rh Eric

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Bellingham, Henry

Francois, Mark

Bercow, John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Boswell, Tim

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Goodman, Paul

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Brady, Graham

Grayling, Chris

Brazier, Julian

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bumside, David

Greenway, John

Burt, Alistair

Grieve, Dominic

Cameron, David

Hague, rh William

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heald, Oliver

Hermon, Lady

Chope, Christopher

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Clappison, James

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Horam, John (Orpington)

Collins, Tim

Howard, rh Michael

Conway, Derek

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Dodds, Nigel

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Lansley, Andrew

Dorreli, rh Stephen

Leigh, Edward

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Evans, Nigel

Lidington, David

Ewing, Annabelle

Llwyd, Elfyn

Fabricant, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

806

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Selous, Andrew

MacKay, rh Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Maclean, rh David

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Mates, Michael

Spring, Richard

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Stanley, rh Sir John

May, Mrs Theresa

Steen, Anthony

Mercer, Patrick

Swayne, Desmond

Moss, Malcolm

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Syms, Robert

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Paterson, Owen

Trend, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Trimble, rh David

Portillo, rh Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Viggers, Peter

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Wareing, Robert N.

Weir, Michael

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Randall, John

Wiggin, Bill Wilkinson, John

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Wishart, Pete

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rosindell, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ruffley, David

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Joan Ryan

Salmond, Alex

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Browne, Desmond

Alexander, Douglas

Browning, Mrs Angela

Allan, Richard

Bruce, Malcolm

Allen, Graham

Bryant, Chris

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Buck, Ms Karen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Colin

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Burnett, John

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burnham, Andy

Atkins, Charlotte

Burstow, Paul

Baird, Vera

Butterfill, John

Baker, Norman

Byers, rh Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Barrett, John

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Battle, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Beith, rh A. J.

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bell, Stuart

Carmichael, Alistair

Benn, Hilary

Casale, Roger

Bennett, Andrew

Caton, Martin

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Berry, Roger

Challen, Colin

Best, Harold

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Betts, Clive

Chaytor, David

Blackman, Liz

Chidgey, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clapham, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Boateng, rh Paul

Borrow, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Breed, Colin

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Brennan, Kevin

Clelland, David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

807

Coleman, Iain

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Colman, Tony

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cormarty, Michael

Hancock, Mike

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hanson, David

Cooper, Yvette

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Corston, Jean

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Cotter, Brian

Cousins, Jim

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Harvey, Nick

Crausby, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Healey, John

Cummings, John

Heath, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Hendrick, Mark

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Heppell, John

Curry, rh David

Hesford, Stephen

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Dalyell, Tam

Heyes, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hodge, Margaret

David, Wayne

Holmes, Paul

Davidson, Ian

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dawson, Hilton

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Denham, rh John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dismore, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dobson, rh Frank

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Hutton, rh John

Doran, Frank

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Doughty, Sue

Illsley, Eric

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Ingram, rh Adam

Drew, David (Stroud)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Drown, Ms Julia

Jack, rh Michael

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Edwards, Huw

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Efford, Clive

Jamieson, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jenkins, Brian

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Etherington, Bill

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Farrelly, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Flint, Caroline

Jowell, rh Tessa

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Follett, Barbara

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Foster, rh Derek

Keeble, Ms Sally

Foster, Don (Bath)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

Kemp, Fraser

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Gapes, Mike (Illford S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Gardiner, Barry

Kidney, David

Garnier, hon. Edward

King, Andy (Rugby)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Gilroy, Linda

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Goggins, Paul

Lamb, Norman

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Lammy, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Grogan, John

Lazarowicz, Mark

Hain, rh Peter

Lepper, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Leslie, Christopher

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

808

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prosser, Gwyn

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Pugh, Dr. John

Lilley, rh Peter

Purchase, Ken

Linton, Martin

Purnell, James

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Quin, rh Joyce

Love, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McAvoy, Thomas

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

McCabe, Stephen

McCafferty, Chris

Rendel, David

MacDonald, Calum

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McDonnell, John

MacDougall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

McFall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McIsaac, Shona

Rooney, Terry

McKechin, Ann

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McKenna, Rosemary

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

McNulty, Tony

Ruddock, Joan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McWalter, Tony

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Mahmood, Khalid

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Salter, Martin

Mallaber, Judy

Sanders, Adrian

Mandelson, rh Peter

Savidge, Malcolm

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Sawford, Phil

Maples, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Sheerman, Barry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Sheridan, Jim

Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Skinner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Michael, rh Alun

Milburn, rh Alan

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moffatt, Laura

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

Mole, Chris

Moore, Michael

Soley, Clive

Moran, Margaret

Southworth, Helen

Morley, Elliot

Spellar, rh John

Mountford, Kali

Squire, Rachel

Mullin, Chris

Steinberg, Gerry

Munn, Ms Meg

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Norman, Archie

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Stringer, Graham

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stunell, Andrew

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Organ, Diana

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Pearson, Ian

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Perham, Linda

Tipping, Paddy

Picking, Anne

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Pickthall, Colin

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Trickett, Jon

Plaskitt, James

Truswell, Paul

Pollard, Kerry

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

809

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Walley, Ms Joan

Walter, Robert

Woodward, Shaun

Ward, Claire

Woolas, Phil

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Worthington, Tony

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wright, David (Telford)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Young, rh Sir George

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis, Phil

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilson, Brian

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Nick Ainger

Winnick, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (b) in line 8, at end add
';and approves the proposals in the Procedure Committee's report for the introduction of a 30-minute session of questions on a single topical subject on Tuesdays and Thursdays.'.—[Sir Nicholas Winterton.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 283.

Division No. 336]

[10.55 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Allen, Graham

Amess, David

Chaytor, David

Ancram, rh Michael

Chidgey, David

Arbuthnot, rh James

Chope, Christopher

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Clapham, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clappison, James

Bacon, Richard

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Norman

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Barker, Gregory

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Barnes, Harry

Collins, Tim

Baron, John (Billericay)

Conway, Derek

Barrett, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Cotter, Brian

Beith, rh A. J.

Cran, James (Beverley)

Bellingham, Henry

Curry, rh David

Bennett, Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bercow, John

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Blunt, Crispin

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Dismore, Andrew

Brady, Graham

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brazier, Julian

Dodds, Nigel

Breed, Colin

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Browning, Mrs Angela

Doughty, Sue

Bruce, Malcolm

Drown, Ms Julia

Buck, Ms Karen

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Burnett, John

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Burnside, David

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Burstow, Paul

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Burt, Alistair

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Butterfill, John

Evans, Nigel

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Ewing, Annabelle

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Fabricant, Michael

Cameron, David

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Carmichael, Alistair

Cash, William

Fisher, Mark

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Flight, Howard

Challen, Colin

Flook, Adrian

810

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Maples, John

Forth, rh Eric

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Francois, Mark

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Mates, Michael

Gapes, Mike (Word S)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Garnier, hon. Edward

May, Mrs Theresa

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Mercer, Patrick

Gerrard, Neil

Michael, rh Alun

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Moore, Michael

Goodman, Paul

Moss, Malcolm

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Grayling, Chris

Norman, Archie

Green, Damian (Ashford)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Greenway, John

Öpik, Lembit

Grieve, Dominic

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Hague, rh William

Ottaway, Richard

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Paice, James

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Paterson, Owen

Hammond, Philip

Pickles, Eric

Hancock, Mike

Plaskitt, James

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Portillo, rh Michael

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Harvey, Nick

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Hawkins, Nick

Heald, Oliver

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Heath, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Hendry, Charles

Purnell, James

Hermon, Lady

Randall, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Rendel, David

Hogg, rh Douglas

Robathan, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Howard, rh Michael

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hunter, Andrew

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Illsley, Eric

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jack, rh Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Ruffley, David

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Salmond, Alex

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Sanders, Adrian

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Selous, Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

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

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Kirkwood, Archy

Soames, Nicholas

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Lamb, Norman

Spring, Richard

Lansley, Andrew

Stanley, rh Sir John

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Steen, Anthony

Leigh, Edward

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Letwin, rh Oliver

Stunell, Andrew

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Swayne, Desmond

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Lidington, David

Syms, Robert

Lilley. rh Peter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

McDonnell, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Maclean, rh David

Tredinnick, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Trend, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Trimble, rh David

811

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Willis, Phil

Wilshire, David

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Winnick, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Walter, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Wishart, Pete

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Wright, David (Telford)

Weir, Michael

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

White, Brian

Young, rh Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Younger-Ross, Richard

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Wiggin, Bill

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Joan Ryan

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Connarty, Michael

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cooper, Yvette

Alexander, Douglas

Corston, Jean

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Crausby, David

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cruddas, Jon

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Atkins, Charlotte

Cummings, John

Baird, Vera

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Battle, John

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bell, Stuart

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Benn, Hilary

Dalyell, Tam

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Darling, rh Alistair

Berry, Roger

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Best, Harold

David, Wayne

Betts, Clive

Davidson, Ian

Blackman, Liz

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dawson, Hilton

Blizzard, Bob

Dean, Mrs Janet

Boateng, rh Paul

Denham, rh John

Borrow, David

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Doran, Frank

Bradshaw, Ben

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Brennan, Kevin

Drew, David (Stroud)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Edwards, Huw

Browne, Desmond

Efford, Clive

Bryant, Chris

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Burden, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Burgon, Colin

Farrelly, Paul

Burnham, Andy

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Byers, rh Stephen

Flint, Caroline

Caborn, rh Richard

Follett, Barbara

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, rh Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

Casale, Roger

Caton, Martin

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gardiner, Barry

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gilroy, Linda

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Grogan, John

Clelland, David

Hain, rh Peter

Coaker, Vernon

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Coleman, Iain

Hanson, David

Colman, Tony

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

812

Haris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mallaber, Judy

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Healey, John

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Merron, Gillian

Hendrick, Mark

Milburn, rh Alan

Heppell, John

Miliband, David

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Moffatt, Laura

Heyes, David

Mole, Chris

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moran, Margaret

Hodge, Margaret

Morley, Elliot

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Mountford, Kali

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Munn, Ms Meg

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Organ, Diana

Hutton, rh John

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Page, Richard

Ingram, rh Adam

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pearson, Ian

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Perham, Linda

Picking, Anne

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Prescott, rh John

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Prosser, Gwyn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Purchase, Ken

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Quin, rh Joyce

Khabra, Piara S.

Quinn, Lawrie

Kidney, David

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lammy, David

Rooney, Terry

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ruane, Chris

Lepper, David

Ruddock, Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Salter, Martin

Linton, Martin

Savidge, Malcolm

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sawford, Phil

Love, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Sheerman, Barry

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Sheridan, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

McCabe, Stephen

Skinner, Dennis

McCafferty, Chris

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

MacDonald, Calum

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

MacDougall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McIsaac, Shona

McKechin, Ann

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McKenna, Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McNulty, Tony

Soley, Clive

Mactaggart, Fiona

Southworth, Helen

McWalter, Tony

Spellar, rh John

Mahmood, Khalid

Squire, Rachel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Steinberg, Gerry

813

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Walley, Ms Joan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Claire

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Wareing, Robert N.

Stringer, Graham

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tipping, Paddy

Woodward, Shaun

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Woolas, Phil

Trickett, Jon

Worthington, Tony

Truswell, Paul

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Nick Ainger

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.

QUESTIONS (AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS)
Ordered,
That,
(1) the following Standing Order (Written statements by ministers) be made:
A Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, may give notice of his intention to make a ministerial statement in written form on a specified day not later than five sitting days after the day on which notice was given: and such statements shall be printed in the Official Report.
(2) with effect from 1st January 2003, the following amendments to Standing orders be made:

(a) Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions) be amended as follows:
Line 13, by leaving out the words 'on the order paper' and inserting the words 'in the Questions Book'.

(b) Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended as follows:

Line 2, at end insert 'in a form determined by the Speaker'

Line 17, leave out from 'that' to end of line 34 and insert—

(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may be given only for answer on the next day on which the Member to whom it is addressed is due to give oral answers; and in respect of each such day the Speaker shall specify the latest date and time at which notice may be given and how many questions are to be printed for each Member answering; and only that number of notices of questions (selected at random from those received in a manner to be prescribed by the Speaker) shall be treated as valid notices received on the day concerned;

Provided that the latest date and time specified by the Speaker shall be such as to enable the notices selected to be printed and circulated

(a) in the case of questions to the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales at least four clays (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered or

(b) in the case of questions to other Ministers, at least two days (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered'.

814

Line 38, leave out from 'paragraphs' to end of paragraph and add `(4) and (5) of this order and specifying the arrangements for tabling questions during the adjournment'.—[Mr. Woolas.]

NEW PROVISION FOR EARLIER SITTINGS ON WEDNESDAYS, AND FOR THURSDAYS AND FRIDAYS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, with effect from 1st January 2003 until the end of the Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the following modifications:
(1) Subject to paragraph (3) of this Order and to paragraph (14)(a) of Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), the House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past Eleven o'clock and—

(a) the moment of interruption shall be at Seven o'clock;

(b) in their application to such sittings, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours earlier, except that reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be read as reference to half-past Ten o'clock, and that references to One o'clock, a quarter past One o'clock and half-past Three o'clock in Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) shall be read as references to twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock and Two o'clock respectively; and

(c) divisions deferred under the provisions of the Order (Deferred Divisions) shall be held at half-past Twelve o'clock.

(2) On Wednesdays the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past Nine o'clock, shall be suspended from half-past Eleven o'clock until Two o'clock and may then continue for up to a further two and a half hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a Committee of the whole House).
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Order shall not apply to a Wednesday sitting which immediately follows a periodic adjournment of more than two days or is the first day of a session, and in the former case the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past Nine o'clock and conclude at Two o'clock.
(4) On Thursdays the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order shall apply (and the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply), except that the moment of interruption shall be at Six o'clock and—

(a) opposed private business under Standing Order No. 21) (Time for taking private business), urgent debates set down for the same day by direction of the Speaker under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), opposition half-day debates under paragraph (2)(c)(ii) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) and half-day Estimates debates under paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall begin at Three o'clock;

(b) opposition half-day debates under paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 and half-day Estimates debates under paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 54 shall lapse, or be interrupted, as the case may be, at Four o'clock; and

(c) references to Eleven o'clock and half-past Eleven o'clock in Standing Orders No. 15 (Exempted business) and No. 17 (Delegated Legislation (negative procedure)) shall be read as references to Seven o'clock and half-past Seven o'clock respectively.

(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, the House shall not sit on any Friday other than those on which private Members' bills have precedence and—

(a) when the House is not sitting on a Friday it shall, at its rising on the previous Thursday, stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise; and

815

(b) paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays) shall apply to any Friday on which the House does not sit by virtue of this Order, with the addition of notices of motions relating to proceedings on bills committed to a standing committee to the notices which may be received by the Public Bill Office under subparagraph (b) of that paragraph.—[Mr.Woolas.]

Amendment proposed: (a), in line 4, leave out paragraphs (1) to (3).—[Mr. Mullin.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 288.

Division No. 337]

[11.07 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Ainger, Nick

Amess, David

Dismore, Andrew

Ancram, rh Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Dodds, Nigel

Arbuthnot, rh James

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Barker, Gregory

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Doughty, Sue

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Bennett, Andrew

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Betts, Clive

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Blizzard, Bob

Efford, Clive

Borrow, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Boswell, Tim

Evans, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Ewing, Annabelle

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Brady, Graham

Flight Howard

Brazier, Julian

Forth, rh Eric

Brennan, Kevin

Foulkes, rh George

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fox, Dr. Liam

Burgon, Colin

Francois, Mark

Burnett, John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Burnside, David

Garnier, hon. Edward

Burt, Alistair

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Butterfill, John

Gerrard, Neil

Caplin, Ivor

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Cash, William

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Goodman, Paul

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Grayling, Chris

Chope, Christopher

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Clappison, James

Greenway, John

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Grieve, Dominic

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hague, rh William

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hammond, Philip

Clelland, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hawkins, Nick

Coleman, Iain

Heald, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Connarty, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hermon, Lady

Cran, James (Beverley)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Crausby, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Cummings, John

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Curry, rh David

Howard, rh Michael

Dalyell, Tam

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Hoyle, Lindsay

816

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prescott, rh John

Hunter, Andrew

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Illsley, Eric

Quinn, Lawrie

Ingram, rh Adam

Randall, John

Jack, rh Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Jenkins, Brian

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rooney, Terry

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Rosindell, Andrew

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Ruane, Chris

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Ruffley, David

Khabra, Piara S.

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Salmond, Alex

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Selous, Andrew

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Sheridan, Jim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Simmonds, Mark

Lansley, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Skinner, Dennis

Leslie, Christopher

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lidington, David

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

Lilley, rh Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Soames, Nicholas

Loughton, Tim

Spellar, rh John

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Spring, Richard

McAvoy, Thomas

Squire, Rachel

McCabe, Stephen

Stanley, rh Sir John

McFall, John

Steen, Anthony

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Maclean, rh David

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McNulty, Tony

Swayne, Desmond

McWilliam, John

Syms, Robert

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maples, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Martlew, Eric

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mates, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

May, Mrs Theresa

Trend, Michael

Mercer, Patrick

Trimble, rh David

Miller, Andrew

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moss, Malcolm

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Mountford, Kali

Mullin, Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Tyrie, Andrew

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Viggers, Peter

Olner, Bill

Ward, Claire

Öpik, Lembit

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Paterson, Owen

Watts, David

Pearson, Ian

Weir, Michael

Pickles, Eric

White, Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Whittingdale, John

Plaskitt, James

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Wiggin, Bill

Pound, Stephen

Wilkinson, John

817

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Wishart, Pete

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Willis, Phil

Wilshire, David

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Young, rh Sir George

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Charlotte Atkins and Mr. John Heppell

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Douglas

Coaker, Vernon

Allan, Richard

Coffey, Ms Ann

Allen, Graham

Colman, Tony

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Connarty, Michael

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Conway, Derek

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bacon, Richard

Cooper, Yvette

Baird, Vera

Corston, Jean

Baker, Norman

Cotter, Brian

Baron, John (Billericay)

Cousins, Jim

Barrett, John

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Battle, John

Cruddas, Jon

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Begg, Miss Anne

Beith, rh A. J.

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bell, Stuart

Darling, rh Alistair

Benn, Hilary

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Berry, Roger

David, Wayne

Best, Harold

Davidson, Ian

Blackman, Liz

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Blunt, Crispin

Dawson, Hilton

Boateng, rh Paul

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Denham, rh John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bradshaw, Ben

Dobson, rh Frank

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Doran, Frank

Breed, Colin

Drew, David (Stroud)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Drown, Ms Julia

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Edwards, Huw

Browne, Desmond

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bruce, Malcolm

Etherington, Bill

Bryant, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Burden, Richard

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Burnham, Andy

Fisher, Mark

Burstow, Paul

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Byers, rh Stephen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Flint, Caroline

Caborn, rh Richard

Flook, Adrian

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Cameron, David

Follett, Barbara

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, rh Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Carmichael, Alistair

Casale, Roger

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Caton, Martin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gardiner, Barry

Challen, Colin

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Chaytor, David

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Chidgey, David

Gilroy, Linda

Clapham, Michael

Goggins, Paul

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

818

Grogan, John

Mahmood, Khalid

Hain, rh Peter

Mallaber, Judy

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Hancock, Mike

Merron, Gillian

Hanson, David

Michael, rh Alun

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Milburn, rh Alan

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Miliband, David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Moffatt, Laura

Harvey, Nick

Mole, Chris

Healey, John

Moore, Michael

Heath, David

Moran, Margaret

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morley, Elliot

Hendrick, Mark

Munn, Ms Meg

Hesford, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

M unison, Dr. Andrew

Heyes, David

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Norman, Archie

Hodge, Margaret

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Holmes, Paul

O'Neill, Martin

Horam, John (Orpington)

Organ, Diana

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Hutton, rh John

Ottaway, Richard

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Page, Richard

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Perham, Linda

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Picking, Anne

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Portillo, rh Michael

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jowell, rh Tessa

Prosser, Gwyn

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pugh, Dr. John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Purchase, Ken

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Purnell, James

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Quin, rh Joyce

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kidney, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Kirkwood, Archy

Rendel, David

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lamb, Norman

Lammy, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Leigh, Edward

Ruddock, Joan

Lepper, David

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Salter, Martin

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Sanders, Adrian

Linton, Martin

Savidge, Malcolm

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sawford, Phil

Love, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Sheerman, Barry

McCafferty, Chris

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

MacDonald, Calum

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

McDonnell, John

MacDougall, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McIsaac, Shona

Soley, Clive

MacKay, rh Andrew

Southworth, Helen

McKechin, Ann

Steinberg, Gerry

McKenna, Rosemary

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stringer, Graham

McWalter, Tony

Stunell, Andrew

819

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Walter, Robert

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Wareing, Robert N.

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wicks, Malcolm

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Woodward, Shaun

Tredinnick, David

Woolas, Phil

Trickett, Jon

Worthington, Tony

Truswell, Paul

Wright, David (Telford)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Dan Norris and Derek Twigg

Walley, Ms Joan

Question accordingly negaived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 234.

Division No. 338]

[11:20 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Carmichael, Alistair

Alexander, Douglas

Casale, Roger

Allan, Richard

Caton, Martin

Allen, Graham

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Challen, Colin

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Chaytor, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chidgey, David

Bacon, Richard

Clapham, Michael

Baird, Vera

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Baker, Norman

Baron, John (Billericay)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Barrett, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Battle, John

Beard, Nigel

Coaker, Vernon

Begg, Miss Anne

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beith, rh A. J.

Colman, Tony

Bell, Stuart

Connarty, Michael

Benn, Hilary

Conway, Derek

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bercow, John

Cooper, Yvette

Berry, Roger

Corston, Jean

Best, Harold

Cotter, Brian

Blackman, Liz

Cousins, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Blunkett, rh David

Cruddas, Jon

Blunt, Crispin

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Boateng, rh Paul

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bradshaw, Ben

Darling, rh Alistair

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Breed, Colin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

David, Wayne

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Browne, Desmond

Dawson, Hilton

Bruce, Malcolm

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bryant, Chris

Denham, rh John

Buck, Ms Karen

Dhanda, Parmjit

Burden, Richard

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Burnham, Andy

Dobson, rh Frank

Burstow, Paul

Doran, Frank

Byers, rh Stephen

Drew, David (Stroud)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Drown, Ms Julia

Caborn, rh Richard

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Cameron, David

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Etherington, Bill

820

Farrelly, Paul

Kidney, David

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Kirkwood, Archy

Flint, Caroline

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Flook, Adrian

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Lamb, Norman

Foster, rh Derek

Lammy, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leigh, Edward

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Lepper, David

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Leslie, Christopher

Gardiner, Barry

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Gilroy, Linda

Linton, Martin

Goggins, Paul

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Love, Andrew

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCafferty, Chris

Grogan, John

MacDonald, Calum

Hain, rh Peter

McDonnell, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

MacDougall, John

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McIsaac, Shona

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mac Kay, rh Andrew

Hancock, Mike

McKechin, Ann

Hanson, David

McKenna, Rosemary

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

McWalter, Tony

Mahmood, Khalid

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mallaber, Judy

Harvey, Nick

Mandelson, rh Peter

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heath, David

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Hendrick, Mark

Mercer, Patrick

Hesford, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Michael, rh Alun

Heyes, David

Milburn, rh Alan

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Miliband, David

Hodge, Margaret

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Holmes, Paul

Moffatt, Laura

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Mole, Chris

Horam, John (Orpington)

Moore, Michael

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Moran, Margaret

Morley, Elliot

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Munn, Ms Meg

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hutton, rh John

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Norman, Archie

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Neill, Martin

Jamieson, David

Organ, Diana

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Ottaway, Richard

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Page, Richard

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Perham, Linda

Jowell, rh Tessa

Picking, Anne

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pollard, Kerry

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Kemp, Fraser

Portillo, rh Michael

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Khabra, Piara S.

Prosser, Gwyn

821

Pugh, Dr. John

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Purchase, Ken

Stringer, Graham

Purnell, James

Stunell, Andrew

Quin, rh Joyce

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rendel, David

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Tredinnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Truswell, Paul

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Ruane, Chris

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Ruddock, Joan

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Walley, Ms Joan

Walter, Robert

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Wareing, Robert N.

Salter, Martin

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sanders, Adrian

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Savidge, Malcolm

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Sawford, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Selous, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Shaw, Jonathan

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sheridan, Jim

Willis, Phil

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wright, David (Telford)

Soley, Clive

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Southworth, Helen

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Charlotte Atkins and Mr. John Heppell

NOES

Amess, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ancram, rh Michael

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Clelland, David

Arbuthnot, rh James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Barker, Gregory

Coleman, Iain

Barnes, Harry

Collins, Tim

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James (Beverley)

Bennett, Andrew

Crausby, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blizzard, Bob

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Borrow, David

Curry, rh David

Boswell, Tim

Dalyell, Tarn

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Brady, Graham

Dismore, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brennan, Kevin

Dodds, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Burgon, Colin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Burnett, John

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Burnside, David

Doughty, Sue

Burt, Alistair

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Butterfill, John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Cash, William

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Efford, Clive

Chope, Christopher

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Clappison, James

Evans, Nigel

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Ewing, Annabelle

822

Fabricant, Michael

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Fallon, Michael

Martlew, Eric

Flight, Howard

Mates, Michael

Forth, rh Eric

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Foulkes, rh George

Miller, Andrew

Fox, Dr. Liam

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Francois, Mark

Moss, Malcolm

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Mountford, Kali

Garnier, hon, Edward

Mudie, George

Gerrard, Neil

Mullin, Chris

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Goodman, Paul

M unison, Dr. Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Grayling, Chris

Olner, Bill

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Öpik, Lembit

Greenway, John

Paice, James

Grieve, Dominic

Paterson, Owen

Hague, rh William

Pearson, Ian

Hammond, Philip

Pickles, Eric

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Pickthall, Colin

Plaskitt, James

Hawkins, Nick

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Heald, Oliver

Pound, Stephen

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hendry, Charles

Hermon, Lady

Prescott, rh John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Randall, John

Hopkins, Kelvin

Robathan, Andrew

Howard, rh Michael

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Robinson, Mrs Ins (Strangford)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hoyle, Lindsay

Rooney, Terry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Rosindell, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Ruffley, David

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Illsley, Eric

Salmond, Alex

Ingram, rh Adam

Simmonds, Mark

Jack, rh Michael

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Jenkins, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Soames, Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spellar, rh John

Lansley, Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Spring, Richard

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Squire, Rachel

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Lidington, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, rh Peter

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Swayne, Desmond

McAvoy, Thomas

Syms, Robert

McCabe, Stephen

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McFall, John

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mcintosh, Miss Anne

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Maclean, rh David

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McNulty, Tony

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

McWilliam, John

Tipping, Paddy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Malins, Humfrey

Trend, Michael

Mallon, Seamus

Trimble, rh David

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Maples, John

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

823

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tyrie, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ward, Claire

Waterson, Nigel

Wishart, Pete

Watts, David

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Weir, Michael

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

White, Brian

Young, rh Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Younger-Ross, Richard

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Wilkinson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Dan Norris and Derek Twigg

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

NEW PROVISION FOR EARLIER SITTINGS ON TUESDAYS
Motion made, and Question put,
That, with effect from 1st January 2003 until the end of the Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the following modifications:

(1) Subject to paragraph (3) of this Order and to paragraph (14)(a) of Standing Order No. 113 (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), the House shall meet on Tuesdays at half-past Eleven o'clock and—

(a) the moment of interruption shall be at Seven o'clock; and

(b) in their application to such sittings, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours earlier, except that reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be read as reference to half-past Ten o'clock, and that references to One o'clock, a quarter past One o'clock and half-past Three o'clock in Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees)shall be read as references to twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock and Two o'clock respectively.

(2) On Tuesdays the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past Nine o'clock, shall be suspended from half-past Eleven o'clock until Two o'clock and may then continue for up to a further two and a half hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a Committee of the whole House).

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) Of this Order shall not apply to a Tuesday sitting which immediately follows a periodic adjournment of more than two days or is the first day of a session, and in the former case the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past Nine o'clock and conclude at Two O'clock.—[Mr. Woolas.]

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 267.

Division No. 339]

[11:33 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Begg, Miss Anne

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Beith, rh A. J.

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart

Allan, Richard

Benn, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Berry, Roger

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Blackman, Liz

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blears, Ms Hazel

Bacon, Richard

Blunt, Crispin

Baird, Vera

Boateng, rh Paul

Baker, Norman

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Bradshaw, Ben

Barrett, John

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Battle, John

Breed, Colin

Beard, Nigel

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

824

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Browne, Desmond

Gardiner, Barry

Bruce, Malcolm

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Bryant, Chris

Gilroy, Linda

Buck, Ms Karen

Goggins, Paul

Burden, Richard

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burnham, Andy

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Burstow, Paul

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Byers, rh Stephen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Grogan, John

Caborn, rh Richard

Hain, rh Peter

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hancock, Mike

Carmichael, Alistair

Hanson, David

Casale, Roger

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Caton, Martin

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Challen, Colin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Chaytor, David

Harvey, Nick

Chidgey, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clapham, Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hesford, Stephen

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Heyes, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Coaker, Vernon

Hodge, Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Holmes, Paul

Colman, Tony

Horam, John (Orpington)

Connarty, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hutton, rh John

Cooper, Yvette

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cruddas, Jon

Jamieson, David

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Darling, rh Alistair

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

David, Wayne

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Davidson, Ian

Jowell, rh Tessa

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dawson, Hilton

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kemp, Fraser

Denham, rh John

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Kidney, David

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Doran, Frank

Drew, David (Stroud)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Drown, Ms Julia

Kirkwood, Archy

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Lamb, Norman

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lammy, David

Etherington, Bill

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Farrelly, Paul

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Leigh, Edward

Lepper, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Flint, Caroline

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Flook, Adrian

Linton, Martin

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Follett, Barbara

Love, Andrew

Foster, rh Derek

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McCafferty, Chris

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

MacDonald, Calum

MacDougall, John

825

McIsaac, Shona

Ruddock, Joan

MacKay, rh Andrew

Ruffley, David

McKechin, Ann

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McKenna, Rosemary

Mactaggart, Fiona

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

McWalter, Tony

Salter, Martin

Mahmood, Khalid

Sanders, Adrian

Mallaber, Judy

Savidge, Malcolm

Mandelson, rh Peter

Sawford, Phil

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Selous, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Merron, Gillian

Sheerman, Barry

Milburn, rh Alan

Sheridan, Jim

Miliband, David

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Moffatt, Laura

Mole, Chris

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Moore, Michael

Soley, Clive

Moran, Margaret

Southworth, Helen

Munn, Ms Meg

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Stunell, Andrew

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Norman, Archie

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Organ, Diana

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Ottaway, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Trickett, Jon

Perham, Linda

Truswell, Paul

Picking, Anne

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Pollard, Kerry

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Portillo, rh Michael

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Walley, Ms Joan

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Walter, Robert

Prosser, Gwyn

Wareing, Robert N.

Pugh, Dr. John

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Purchase, Ken

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Purnell, James

Wicks, Malcolm

Quin, rh Joyce

Wiggin, Bill

Quinn, Lawrie

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Rendel, David

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Worthington, Tony

Wright, David (Telford)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Charlotte Atkins and Mr. John Heppell

Ruane, Chris

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Borrow, David

Ainger, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Ancram, rh Michael

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Brady, Graham

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brazier, Julian

Barker, Gregory

Brennan, Kevin

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bellingham, Henry

Burgon, Colin

Bennett, Andrew

Burnett, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Burnside, David

Best, Harold

Burt, Alistair

Betts, Clive

Butterfill, John

Blizzard, Bob

Cameron, David

826

Caplin, Ivor

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cash, William

Hendry, Charles

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hermon, Lady

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, rh Douglas

Clappison, James

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howard, rh Michael

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Clelland, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Collins, Tim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Conway, Derek

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cotter, Brian

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cran, James (Beverley)

Illsley, Eric

Crausby, David

Ingram, rh Adam

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jack, rh Michael

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Jenkins, Brian

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Curry, rh David

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dalyell, Tam

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Khabra, Piara S.

King, Andy (Rugby)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Dismore, Andrew

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dodds, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Leslie, Christopher

Donohoe, Brian H.

Letwin, rh Oliver

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Doughty, Sue

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lidington, David

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Lilley, rh Peter

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Loughton, Tim

Efford, Clive

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Evans, Nigel

McAvoy, Thomas

Ewing, Annabelle

McCabe, Stephen

Fabricant, Michael

McDonnell, John

Fallon, Michael

McFall, John

Flight, Howard

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Forth, rh Eric

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Foulkes, rh George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fox, Dr. Liam

Maclean, rh David

Francois, Mark

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

McNulty, Tony

Garnier, hon. Edward

Mahon, Mrs Alice

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Malins, Humfrey

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Gerrard, Neil

Maples, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Goodman, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Martlew, Eric

Grayling, Chris

Mates, Michael

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Greenway, John

May, Mrs Theresa

Grieve, Dominic

Mercer, Patrick

Hague, rh William

Michael, rh Alun

Hammond, Philip

Miller, Andrew

Hanson, David

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Morley, Elliot

Moss, Malcolm

Hawkins, Nick

Mountford, Kali

Heald, Oliver

Mudie, George

Healey, John

Mullin, Chris

Heath, David

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

827

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Olner, Bill

Stringer, Graham

Öpik, Lembit

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Paice, James

Swayne, Desmond

Paterson, Owen

Syms, Robert

Pearson, Ian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Prescott, rh John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Tipping, Paddy

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Trend, Michael

Randall, John

Trimble, rh David

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tyrie, Andrew

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Viggers, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion

Ward, Claire

Rooney, Terry

Waterson, Nigel

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Rosindell, Andrew

Watts, David

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Weir, Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

White, Brian

Salmond, Alex

Whittingdale, John

Simmonds, Mark

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wilkinson, John

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Willis, Phil

Wilshire, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Wishart, Pete

Spellar, rh John

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Spring, Richard

Young, rh Sir George

Squire, Rachel

Younger-Ross, Richard

Stanley, rh Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Noes:

Steinberg, Gerry

Dan Norris and Derek Twigg

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Question accordingly agreed to.

CARRY-OVER OF BILLS
Motion made, and Question put,
That in the current Parliament the following Order shall have effect:

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice of a motion (a "carry-over motion") that proceedings on a public bill not completed before the end of the session shall be resumed in the next session of Parliament; and the Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on such a motion—

(a) forthwith if the motion is made on the day the bill is read a second time: or

(b) not more than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion if the motion is made at any other time.

(2) A carry-over motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.

(3) A carry-over motion shall not be made in respect of more than one bill.

828

(4) A carry-over motion shall not be made in respect of a bill carried over from a previous session of Parliament.

(5) Paragraphs (6) to (9) of this order shall apply to any bill ordered to be carried over to the next session of Parliament in pursuance of a carry-over motion.

(6) If proceedings in Committee on the bill are begun but not completed before the end of the first session, the Chairman shall report the bill to the House as so far amended and the bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

(7) In any other case, proceedings on the bill shall be suspended at the conclusion of the session in which the bill was first introduced.

(8) If a bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the bill reported to the House under paragraph (6) or as it stood when proceedings were suspended under paragraph (7), the bill shall be read the first and second time without question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and—

(a) in the case of a bill reported from a standing committee under paragraph (6), shall stand committed in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the bill in the first session, to a standing committee of the same Members as the Members of the standing committee on the bill in the first session;

(b) in the case of a bill reported from a Committee of the whole House under paragraph (6), shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the bill in the first session;

(c) in the case of a bill committed to a Standing Committee but on which proceedings on the bill were not begun, shall again stand committed to a Standing Committee

(d) otherwise shall be set down as an order of the day for (as the case may be) committee, consideration, further consideration or third reading.

(9) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules given in respect of parts of a bill not disposed of in the first session shall be reprinted as notices in respect of the bill as presented and proceeded with under paragraph (8).

(10) Proceedings on a bill ordered to be carried over to the next session of Parliament shall lapse on the expiry of the period of twelve months from the date of its first reading in this House and the bill shall be laid aside unless the House shall order, in pursuance of a motion under paragraph (11), that proceedings on the bill be extended for a specified period.

(11) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to extend for a specified period proceedings on a bill which would otherwise lapse under paragraph (10), and any such motion

(a) may contain provisions amending or supplementing a programme order in respect of the bill;

(b) may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption;

and the Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on any such motion not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.—[Mr. Woolas.]

The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 147.

Division No. 340]

[11:46 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Battle, John

Ainger, Nick

Beard, Nigel

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Begg, Miss Anne

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart

Allan, Richard

Benn, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Bennett, Andrew

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Berry, Roger

Best, Harold

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Betts, Clive

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blackman, Liz

Baird, Vera

Blears, Ms Hazel

Baker, Norman

Blizzard, Bob

Barrett, John

Boateng, rh Paul

829

Borrow, David

Dobson, rh Frank

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Doran, Frank

Bradshaw, Ben

Doughty, Sue

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Breed, Colin

Drew, David (Stroud)

Brennan, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Efford, Clive

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Browne, Desmond

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bruce, Malcolm

Etherington, Bill

Bryant, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Burden, Richard

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Burgon, Colin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Burstow, Paul

Flint, Caroline

Byers, rh Stephen

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Follett, Barbara

Caborn, rh Richard

Foster, rh Derek

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Caplin, Ivor

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Carmichael, Alistair

Gardiner, Barry

Casale, Roger

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Caton, Martin

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gerrard, Neil

Challen, Colin

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Chaytor, David

Gilroy, Linda

Chidgey, David

Goggins, Paul

Clapham, Michael

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Jane (Beading E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Hain, rh Peter

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Clelland, David

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hancock, Mike

Coaker, Vernon

Hanson, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Coleman, Iain

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Colman, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Harvey, Nick

Cooper, Yvette

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Corston, Jean

Cotter, Brian

Healey, John

Cousins, Jim

Heath, David

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Crausby, David

Henderson, Ivan (Hanwich)

Cruddas, Jon

Hendrick, Mark

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hermon, Lady

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Hesford, Stephen

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Curry, rh David

Heyes, David

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Dalyell, Tam

Hodge, Margaret

Darling, rh Alistair

Holmes, Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

David, Wayne

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Davidson, Ian

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Dawson, Hilton

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Denham, rh John

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dismore, Andrew

Hutton, rh John

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

830

Ingram, rh Adam

Moffatt, Laura

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Mole, Chris

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Moore, Michael

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Moran, Margaret

Jamieson, David

Morley, Elliot

Jenkins, Brian

Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Mullin, Chris

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Munn, Ms Meg

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Norman, Archie

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Olner, Bill

Jowell, rh Tessa

Organ, Diana

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Pearson, Ian

Kemp, Fraser

Perham, Linda

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Picking, Anne

Pickthall, Colin

Khabra, Piara S.

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Kidney, David

Plaskitt, James

King, Andy (Rugby)

Pollard, Kerry

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Pound, Stephen

Kirkwood, Archy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Prescott, rh John

Lamb, Norman

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Lammy, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Pugh, Dr. John

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Purchase, Ken

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Purnell, James

Lazarowicz, Mark

Quin, rh Joyce

Lepper, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Leslie, Christopher

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rendel, David

Love, Andrew

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

McCafferty, Chris

Ruane, Chris

MacDonald, Calum

Ruddock, Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

MacDougall, John

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McFall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

McIsaac, Shona

Salter, Martin

McKechin, Ann

Sanders, Adrian

McKenna, Rosemary

Savidge, Malcolm

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sawford, Phil

McNulty, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sheerman, Barry

McWalter, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

McWilliam, John

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Mahmood, Khalid

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mallaber, Judy

Skinner, Dennis

Mandelson, rh Peter

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

Milburn, rh Alan

Miliband, David

Soley, Clive

Miller, Andrew

Southworth, Helen

831

Spellar, rh John

Tyrie, Andrew

Squire, Rachel

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Steinberg, Gerry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Walley, Ms Joan

Walter, Robert

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Claire

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Stringer, Graham

Watts, David

Stunell, Andrew

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

White, Brian

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Willis, Phil

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Winnick, David

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Woodward, Shaun

Tipping, Paddy

Woolas, Phil

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Worthington, Tony

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Tredinnick, David

Wright, David (Telford)

Trickett, Jon

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Truswell, Paul

Young, rh Sir George

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Charlotte Atkins and Mr. John Heppell

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

NOES

Amess, David

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Ancram, rh Michael

Evans, Nigel

Arbuthnot, rh James

Ewing, Annabelle

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fabricant, Michael

Bacon, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Barker, Gregory

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Barnes, Harry

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flight, Howard

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Flook, Adrian

Beith, rh A. J.

Forth, rh Eric

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Dr. Liam

Bercow, John

Francois, Mark

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Blunt, Crispin

Garnier, hon. Edward

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Goodman, Paul

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Grayling, Chris

Brady, Graham

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, John

Burnett, John

Grieve, Dominic

Burnside, David

Hague, rh William

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heald, Oliver

Hendry, Charles

Chope, Christopher

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Clappison, James

Hogg, rh Douglas

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howard, rh Michael

Collins, Tim

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Conway, Derek

Jack, rh Michael

Cran, James (Beverley)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dodds, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Leigh, Edward

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Letwin, rh Oliver

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

832

Lidington, David

Ruffley, David

Lilley, rh Peter

Salmond, Alex

Llwyd, Elfyn

Selous, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Simmonds, Mark

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McCabe, Stephen

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mcintosh, Miss Anne

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, rh David

Stanley, rh Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

May, Mrs Theresa

Syms, Robert

Mercer, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Trend, Michael

Öpik, Lembit

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Viggers, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Page, Richard

Weir, Michael

Paice, James

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Paterson, Owen

Wiggin, Bill

Portillo, rh Michael

Wilkinson, John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Wilshire, David

Randall, John

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Wishart, Pete

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Roe, Mrs Marion

Dan Norris and Derek Twigg

Rosindell, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

PERMANENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR WESTMINSTER HALL, THURSDAY SITTINGS AND STANDING COMMITTEES
Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament,

(1) Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings) be repealed;

(2) the following Standing Order (Sittings in Westminster Hall) be made;

(1) On days on which the House shall sit after an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's Speech there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

(a) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between half-past Nine o'clock and Two o'clock; and

(b) on Thursdays beginning at half-past Two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a Committee of the whole House).

(2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.

(3) Subject to paragraph (13) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint and may include oral answers to questions under arrangements to be made by him.

(4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.

(5) Any member of the Chairmen's Panel may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the duties and powers conferred on additional Deputy Speakers; and Members so appointed shall be addressed by name.

833

(6) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.

(7) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.

(8) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.

(9) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.

(10) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (7) above relating thereto shall be discharged.

(11) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.

(12) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c., to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.

(13) In each Session, the Speaker shall appoint not more than six Thursdays on which the business to be taken in Westminster Hall should be debates on select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.

and
(3) the following Amendments to Standing Orders be made: Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot)
Line 90, leave out 10 (Wednesday sittings)' and insert '9 (Sittings of the House)'
Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House)
Line 2, leave out 'and Thursdays at half-past two' and insert 'and Wednesdays at half-past two o'clock and Thursdays at half-past eleven'
Line 6, after 'Tuesday' insert 'Wednesday'
Line 15, after 'Tuesdays' insert 'and'
Line 16, after 'and' insert 'at seven o'clock on'
Line 16, after 'Thursdays', insert `(the "moment of interruption")'
Line 43, leave out 'ten o'clock' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Line 52, leave out 'ten o'clock in the evening' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings)
leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert -
`(b) the insertion of references to half-past two o'clock as the moment of interruption; and'
Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of Public Business)
Lines 20 and 23, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or four o'clock on Thursday'
Line 29, after 'o'clock' insert 'or four o'clock'
Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business)
834
Lines 4, 42, 93 and 96, leave out 'ten o'clock' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Line 24, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or eight o'clock on Thursday'
Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure))
Lines 3 and 5, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past eight o'clock on Thursday'
Line 18, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or eight o'clock on Thursday'
Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business)
Line 3, leave out `to three o'clock' and insert 'of an hour after the House sits'
Line 28, leave out 'Wednesday or Thursday' and insert 'or Wednesday or Four o'clock on any specified Thursday'
Line 38, after `o'clock' insert 'or four o'clock'
Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions)
Line 5, leave out 'after half-past three o'clock' and insert 'more than one hour after the House sits'
Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments)
Line 6, leave out 'after half past ten o'clock in the evening' and insert 'later than half an hour after the moment of interruption'.
Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
Line 24, at end insert 'if it is a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or four o'clock if it is a Thursday'.
Line 27, after 'o'clock' insert 'on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past Ten o'clock on a Thursday'
Line 52, after 'o'clock' insert 'or four o'clock'
Line 59, leave out 'seven o'clock' and insert 'the time when they were postponed'
Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates)
Lines 11 and 40, leave out 'ten o'clock' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Lines 18 and 22, after `o'clock' insert 'on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday or four o'clock on Thursday'
Line 25, after 'o'clock' insert 'or four o'clock'
Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)
Line 3, leave out 'ten o'clock' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees)
Line 8, leave out `(being days on which the House sits)' and insert 'and at such times'
Line 9, leave out from 'committee' to end of line 10
Line 11, after `sit' insert 'at Westminster, on a day on which the House sits,'
Line 13, after 'afternoon' insert 'on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays or between the hours of twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock in the morning and two o'clock in the afternoon on Thursdays'
Line 14, after 'committee' insert 'to which the proviso to paragraph (1) of this order applies'
Line 16, after 'o'clock' insert 'or twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock as the case may be'
Line 25, leave out 'until a quarter past one o'clock' and insert 'for a quarter of an hour'
Line 34, at end add—
'(3) Any standing committee may sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.'
Standing Order No. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment))
Line 34, leave out 'at or after half-past three o'clock' and insert 'five hours or more after the commencement of the sitting'
Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings))

835
Leave out line 9 and insert 'such hours as may be specified'
Line 45, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock on Thursdays'
Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))
Leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert 'such hours as may be specified'
Line 45, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock on Thursdays'
Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings))
Line 57, after 'o'clock' insert 'on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock on Thursdays'
Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs)
Line 37, leave out 'at ten o'clock'
Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee)
Line 10, leave out "Wednesdays" and insert "days"
Line 11, leave out '(4) of Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings)' and insert '(13) of Standing Order (Sittings in Westminster Hall)'
Standing Order No. 154 (Time and manner of presenting petitions)
Line 22, leave out 'ten o'clock or at half-past two o'clock respectively' and insert 'the moment of interruption'
Standing Order No. 155 (Petition as to present personal grievance)
Line 7, leave out 'shall not be interrupted at ten o'clock and'—[Mr. Woolas.]

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.—[Mr. Woolas.]
The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 153.

Division No. 341]

[12:00 am

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Breed, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Brennan, Kevin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Allan, Richard

Allen, Graham

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Browne, Desmond

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bruce, Malcolm

Baird, Vera

Bryant, Chris

Baker, Norman

Burden, Richard

Barrett, John

Burstow, Paul

Battle, John

Byers, rh Stephen

Beard, Nigel

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Begg, Miss Anne

Caborn, rh Richard

Berth, rh A. J.

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Hilary

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Best, Harold

Caplin, Ivor

Betts, Clive

Carmichael, Alistair

Blackman, Liz

Casale, Roger

Blears, Ms Hazel

Caton, Martin

Boateng, rh Paul

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Challen, Colin

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Chaytor, David

Bradshaw, Ben

Chidgey, David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Clapham, Michael

836

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heath, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hesford, Stephen

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Clelland, David

Heyes, David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Coaker, Vernon

Hodge, Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Holmes, Paul

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Cooper, Yvette

Corston, Jean

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cotter, Brian

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hutton, rh John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ingram, rh Adam

David, Wayne

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dawson, Hilton

Jamieson, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Denham, rh John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobson, rh Frank

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Doran, Frank

Jowell, rh Tessa

Doughty, Sue

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Drew, David (Stroud)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Drown, Ms Julia

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Khabra, Piara S.

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Kidney, David

Etherington, Bill

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Farrelly, Paul

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kirkwood, Archy

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Flint, Caroline

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Lamb, Norman

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lammy, David

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Lazarowicz, Mark

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Lepper, David

Gardiner, Barry

Leslie, Christopher

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Linton, Martin

Gilroy, Linda

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Goggins, Paul

Love, Andrew

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCabe, Stephen

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McCafferty, Chris

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

MacDonald, Calum

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McDonnell, John

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

MacDougall, John

Hancock, Mike

McFall, John

Hanson, David

McIsaac, Shona

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McKechin, Ann

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McKenna, Rosemary

Harvey, Nick

Mactaggart, Fiona

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

McWalter, Tony

Mahmood, Khalid

Healey, John

Mallaber, Judy

837

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Shaw, Jonathan

Manris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Sheerman, Barry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Sheridan, Jim

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Merron, Gillian

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Milburn, rh Alan

Miliband, David

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Miller, Andrew

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mole, Chris

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moore, Michael

Soley, Clive

Moran, Margaret

Southworth, Helen

Morley, Elliot

Spellar, rh John

Mullin, Chris

Steinberg, Gerry

Munn, Ms Meg

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Norman, Archie

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Stunell, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Organ, Diana

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Perham, Linda

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Picking, Anne

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Tipping, Paddy

Plaskitt, James

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Pollard, Kerry

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pound, Stephen

Tredinnick, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Trickett, Jon

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prescott, rh John

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Prosser, Gwyn

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Pugh, Dr. John

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Purchase, Ken

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Purnell, James

Walley, Ms Joan

Quin, rh Joyce

Ward, Claire

Quinn, Lawrie

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Watts, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

White, Brian

Rendel, David

Wicks, Malcolm

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Willis, Phil

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

Woodward, Shaun

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Woolas, Phil

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Wright, David (Telford)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Salter, Martin

Sanders, Adrian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Savidge, Malcolm

Dan Norris and Derek Twigg

Sawford, Phil

NOES

Amess, David

Blunt, Crispin

Ancram, rh Michael

Boswell, Tim

Arbuthnot, rh James

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Bacon, Richard

Barker, Gregory

Brady, Graham

Barnes, Harry

Brazier, Julian

Baron, John (Billericay)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burnett, John

Bellingham, Henry

Burnside, David

Bercow, John

Burt, Alistair

838

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Cameron, David

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Cash, William

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Mackinlay, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Maclean, rh David

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Mates, Michael

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

May, Mrs Theresa

Collins, Tim

Mercer, Patrick

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Moss, Malcolm

Cran, James (Beverley)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Dalyell, Tarn

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Öpik, Lembit

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Page, Richard

Paterson, Owen

Djanogly, Jonathan

Portillo, rh Michael

Dodds, Nigel

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Donohoe, Brian H.

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Randall, John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Robathan, Andrew

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Evans, Nigel

Ewing, Annabelle

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fabricant, Michael

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Rosindell, Andrew

Salmond, Alex

Flight, Howard

Selous, Andrew

Flook, Adrian

Simmonds, Mark

Forth, rh Eric

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

Fox, Dr. Liam

Francois, Mark

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Garnier, hon. Edward

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spring, Richard

Goodman Paul

Stanley, rh Sir John

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Steen, Anthony

Grayling, Chris

Swayne, Desmond

Greenway, John

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Grieve, Dominic

Syms, Robert

Hague, rh William

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hammond, Philip

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Heald, Oliver

Trend, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Hermon, Lady

Tyrie, Andrew

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Viggers, Peter

Hogg, rh Douglas

Waterson, Nigel

Horam, John (Orpington)

Weir, Michael

Howard, rh Michael

Whittingdale, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Jack, rh Michael

Wiggin, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Wilshire, David

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wishart, Pete

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Lansley, Andrew

Letwin, rh Oliver

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Young, rh Sir George

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Lidington, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Lilley, rh Peter

Charlotte Atkins and Mr. John Heppell

Llwyd, Elfyn

Question accordingly agreed to.

PROGRAMMING
Motion made, and Question put,
That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.—[Mr. Woolas.]
The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 153.

Division No. 342]

[12.11 am

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cruddas, Jon

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Alexander, Douglas

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Allan, Richard

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Allen, Graham

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Dalyell, Tam

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Atkins, Charlotte

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Baird, Vera

David, Wayne

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Battle, John

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Beard, Nigel

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Bell, Stuart

Dawson, Hilton

Benn, Hilary

Dean, Mrs Janet

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Denham, rh John

Berry, Roger

Dismore, Andrew

Best, Harold

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Betts, Clive

Dobson, rh Frank

Blackman, Liz

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blears, Ms Hazel

Doran, Frank

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Bradshaw, Ben

Drown, Ms Julia

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brennan, Kevin

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Efford, Clive

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Etherington, Bill

Browne, Desmond

Ewing, Annabelle

Bryant, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Burden, Richard

Flint, Caroline

Byers, rh Stephen

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Follett, Barbara

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

Carmichael, Alistair

Casale, Roger

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Caton, Martin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gardiner, Barry

Challen, Colin

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Chaytor, David

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Clapham, Michael

Gilroy, Linda

Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Goggins, Paul

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clelland, David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Coaker, Vernon

Hancock, Mike

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hanson, David

Coleman, Iain

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Colman, Tony

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Connarty, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Cooper, Yvette

Corston, Jean

Healey, John

Cousins, Jim

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hendrick, Mark

840

Heppell, John

Martlew, Eric

Hesford, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Michael, rh Alun

Heyes, David

Milburn, rh Alan

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Miliband, David

Hodge, Margaret

Miller, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Moore, Michael

Moran, Margaret

Hoyle, Lindsay

Morley, Elliot

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Humble, Mrs Joan

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hutton, rh John

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Organ, Diana

Ingram, rh Adam

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Pearson, Ian

Perham, Linda

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Picking, Anne

Jamieson, David

Pickthall, Colin

Jenkins, Brian

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pound, Stephen

Jowell, rh Tessa

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Pugh, Dr. John

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S.

Purnell, James

Kidney, David

Quin, rh Joyce

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Quinn, Lawrie

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kirkwood, Archy

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Rendel, David

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Lamb, Norman

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lammy, David

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ruane, Chris

Lepper, David

Ruddock, Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Linton, Martin

Salmond, Alex

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Salter, Martin

Love, Andrew

Sanders, Adrian

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Savidge, Malcolm

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Sawford, Phil

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Shaw, Jonathan

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

McCabe, Stephen

Sheridan, Jim

McCafferty, Chris

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

MacDonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

McFall, John

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McKechin, Ann

McKenna, Rosemary

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWalter, Tony

Soley, Clive

Mahmood, Khalid

Southworth, Helen

Mallaber, Judy

Spellar, rh John

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Squire, Rachel

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

841

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Claire

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Stunell, Andrew

Watts, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Weir, Michael

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

White, Brian

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Tipping, Paddy

Willis, Phil

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Wishart, Pete

Trickett, Jon

Woodward, Shaun

Truswell, Paul

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Ha/ton)

Wright, David (Telford)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Mr. Jim Murphy

Walley, Ms Joan

NOES

Amess, David

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Ancram, rh Michael

Doughty, Sue

Arbuthnot, rh James

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Bacon, Richard

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Baker, Norman

Evans, Nigel

Barker, Gregory

Fabricant, Michael

Baron, John (Billericay)

Fallon, Michael

Barrett, John

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Beith, rh A. J.

Flight, Howard

Bellingham, Henry

Flook, Adrian

Bercow, John

Forth, rh Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Dr. Liam

Blunt, Crispin

Francois, Mark

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Garnier, hon. Edward

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brady, Graham

Goodman, Paul

Brazier, Julian

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Breed, Colin

Grayling, Chris

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grieve, Dominic

Bruce, Malcolm

Hague, rh William

Burnett, John

Hammond, Philip

Burnside, David

Heald, Oliver

Burstow, Paul

Heath, David

Butterfill, John

Hendry, Charles

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hermon, Lady

Cameron, David

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Cash, William

Hogg, rh Douglas

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Howard, rh Michael

Chidgey, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Chope, Christopher

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clappison, James

Jack, rh Michael

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Collins, Tim

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Cotter, Brian

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & stamford)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Lansley, Andrew

Letwin, rh Oliver

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Dodds, Nigel

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Lidington, David

842

Lilley, rh Peter

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McDonnell, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, rh David

Stanley, rh Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

May, Mrs Theresa

Syms, Robert

Mercer, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Norman, Archie

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tredinnick, David

ôpik, Lembit

Trend, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Ottaway, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Paterson, Owen

Viggers, Peter

Portillo, rh Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Randall, John

Wiggin, Bill

Robathan, Andrew

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Rosindell, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Tellers for the Noes:

Selous, Andrew

Mr. Nick Ainger and Jim Fitzpatrick

Simmonds, Mark

Question accordingly agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR THE SPEAKER
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker) be amended as follows—
Line 7, after 'Speaker' insert 'or where paragraph (2A) of this order applies'
Line 19, at end add
`(2A) For the purpose of paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall have leave of absence, if he thinks fit, on any Friday on which the House sits.'—[Mr. Woolas.]

SHORT SPEECHES
Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 47 (Short speeches) be amended as follows:
Line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall, subject to paragraph (2)'.
Leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert -
`(2) In relation to any speech, the Speaker shall add to any period specified in paragraph (1) of this order—

(a) one minute if one intervention is accepted, plus the time taken by that intervention;

(b) two minutes if two or more interventions are accepted, plus the time taken by the first two such interventions.'.—[Mr. Woolas.]

JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:
In the Table
Item 7, column 2, leave out from `Office;' to end of entry;
After Item 8 insert—

'Justice and Constitutional Affairs

Lord Chancellor's 11'.Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)—[Mr. Woolas.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ordered,
That—

(i) at the sittings on Wednesday 30th October, Thursday 31st October, Monday 4th November, Tuesday 5th November, Wednesday 6th November and Thursday 7th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received;

(ii) at the sittings on Monday 4th November, Tuesday 5th November, Wednesday 6th November and Thursday 7th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and

(iii) at the sitting on Thursday 7th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until a Message is received from the Lords Commissioners.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Long-stay Patients
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
12.23 am
Mr. Bob Laxton rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members please leave quickly and quietly so that we can proceed with the Adjournment debate?
Mr. Laxton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. Long-stay in-patient benefits affect a cross-section of society, from the youngest invalid to the oldest pensioner. Last year, 10,000 pensioners, 13,000 incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance recipients and 3,000 income support recipients had their benefit reduced after being in hospital for more than 52 weeks. I shall focus on the effect of that reduction in benefit on just one group: those who suffer from mental illness. I do that partly in the interest of time; it is not to say that any other group suffers less. Indeed, many of the groups overlap. I need only to explain that some of the long-stay hospital patients with mental health problems are pensioners or on disability allowance benefit.
At Kingsway hospital, a mental health hospital in my constituency, 70 patients have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks. The trust is the appointee for the benefits of 46 of them, with 39 receiving in-patient benefit of £15.10 only. The remaining seven patients also receive disability living allowance low-rate mobility allowance of £14.10 a week.
I wish to pay tribute to the excellent and ongoing campaigning work by the Derbyshire patients council, which represents mental health patients in my constituency and across a wider area of Derbyshire. I should also like to thank it for its help with the preparation for this debate. I owe a debt of gratitude to Derbyshire mental health services staff, in particular its chief executive. They were obliging enough to dig into their records and gave me some very useful information.
The plight of mental health patients was brought to my attention by Derbyshire patients council. In May this year, the patients council and a huge busload of Derby mental health services users came down to the House of Commons and presented me with their petition bearing more than 3,700 signatures. They had the opportunity to meet a few MPs. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet them and to listen to the very valid case that they put to him. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) who, in her role as chair of the all-party mental health group, tabled an early-day motion on the matter that received cross-party support and the signatures of just under 100 MPs.
It is clear from the draft mental health Bill that the Government are trying to change their thinking on mental health. Mental health organisations have already expressed many criticisms and I shall not dwell on them, but if the £15.10 of in-patient benefit reflects Government policy on mental health I question our commitment to help those with mental illness. At present, after six weeks in hospital a long-stay mental health patient with no dependants loses all of his or her

845
premium paid with their benefits. The main benefit is reduced to a pocket-money rate of £18.90. After a year, that pocket money is further reduced to £15.10, formally known as the personal allowance benefit or personal requirements allowance. A similar situation applies to those who receive the basic state pension because after 52 weeks they, too, are on £15.10 a week. That works out to 20 per cent. of the standard rate of basic retirement pension or, to put it more plainly, £2.16 a day.
So what is the principle behind the downrating of in-patient benefit? A 1949 report on the rules by the national insurance advisory committee said:
"The broad purpose of insurance benefits is to provide a basic contribution towards the ordinary needs, including maintenance, at times when earnings are interrupted or, as in the case of retirement pensions, cease. Where another public social service, the national health service, is at such times providing maintenance, in addition to treatment, we consider it right that the insurance benefits should be reduced on account of the maintenance of the beneficiary provided under the other service."
In response to a written parliamentary question that I put to the Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions reiterated that point. He wrote that the principle behind the hospital downrating rules is to prevent double provision from public funds, as well as from the publicly funded national health service, and that it is a "key cornerstone" of the system of national insurance introduced 50 years ago.
I doubt that we should be talking about double provision when single provision itself is called into question. In addition, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the principle of downrating was introduced nearly half a century ago. Fifty years ago, or perhaps even 25 years ago, hospital patients could rely on their immediate and extended families for financial support. Sadly, that is not the case any more.
Patients nowadays, especially those with mental health problems, have less contact with their families, making them more reliant on the NHS to look after them and making this weekly allowance more important than before. Even for those mental health patients lucky enough to have contact with their family, there are still financial problems. For example, one patient, who has two grandchildren, would, like any other grandparent, like to treat them during their weekend visits together, but, unlike most grandparents, she cannot afford to do so.
At this point, I want to raise one particular point. I am puzzled as to how the weekly figure of £15.10 was reached. It is not enough to say that it is 20 per cent. of the basic pension. Why 20 per cent.? Why not 40 per cent. or more? On what basis is the sum calculated? My own estimate, which takes account of the barest of necessities and in their cheapest forms, is that a sum between £21 and £30 would be much more realistic.
Yes, patients' accommodation and food are covered by the hospital, but the list of day-to-day items that are expected to come out of that money is still staggering. From that meagre sum, patients have to buy toothpaste, toothbrush and other toiletries, newspapers and magazines, stamps and stationery, the occasional haircut and paperback novel, and often cigarettes. I have to admit that as a notorious smoking fascist,
846
I would on almost any other occasion urge someone to use this opportunity to give up the noxious and foul weed. However, the fact remains that even those who do not smoke have a problem meeting all other costs with £15.10 a week. It is grossly inadequate and demeaning for people whose home is a hospital.
Apart from the items that I have mentioned, patients are also expected to buy clothes and shoes out of their weekly allowance. In his response to a letter that I wrote on behalf of Michael Walsh, chairman of Derbyshire patients council, the Minister said:
"The Personal Requirements Allowance is regarded as a reasonable sum to cover small personal items not already provided by the hospital. However it is not expected to cover the more expensive items, such as clothing, which the Health Authority is expected to provide where necessary.'
The reality is that such provision proves to be lacking. The patients council brought up that point with the Minister back in May, and he expressed sympathy. The fact remains that many mental health patients in Derby have resorted to scouring charity shops for second-hand clothing.
The mental health services trust in Derby did not allocate any finance specifically for clothing in the financial year 2001–02 and made a one-off payment of £250 to help patients with the purchase of clothing. The trust said that younger patients sometimes apply for a community care grant from the Department for Work and Pensions to provide additional funds for items such as clothing. If they receive a grant, they have an amount deducted from their weekly in-patient benefit to repay the loan over a period set by the social fund. The period is typically 18 months, and the average deduction from the weekly benefit is £3.16 per week, leaving the patient with just £11.94 to spend. To avoid losing a proportion of their benefit, a number of patients in Derby have recently applied for funds from various charities, which are held locally as they do not have to repay that amount and so can retain their weekly benefit.
There are, I suspect, differences across the country. In an early-day motion on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak noted that the chief executive of South Birmingham mental health NHS trust commented that the trust regularly supplements the in-patient benefit allowance from care budgets to ensure that basic needs such as clothing, haircuts and other personal items are met, and furthermore that it is a drain on NHS resources.
The Derbyshire mental health services trust said that it allocated £11,000 to patients' therapeutic programmes during the financial year 2001–02. That money, which is intended to finance certain therapeutic activities such as yoga, becomes instead an essential top-up to patients' weekly benefit. Similarly, the trust provides money so that patients can treat themselves and go on occasional trips, but the money is limited and patients are unable to participate in social functions as much as they would like and as much as would benefit them.
Many mental health in-patients are not a danger to other people. At the meeting I had with them in May, many said that they would relish the opportunity to reintegrate into the ordinary community, to find some useful role to play in their local area. They said that there is always an unwarranted stigma surrounding mental illness.

847
However, what makes things more difficult and increases that stigma even more is when patients have to go about, slovenly dressed in tattered clothes—clothes that are often recycled from those who have died in the hospital. One of the people whom I spoke to said, "I don't want to talk about reintegrating into the community when my clothes immediately make me stand out for the wrong reasons, and when I can't even afford a cup of coffee in the local café"
If the amount of in-patient benefit increased, it would mean that patients had more and better opportunities to interact with the world outside the confines of a hospital, and money given to them by the mental health services trust that was intended for their therapeutic needs would actually be used towards that end. Perhaps, in the long run, it would mean getting a group of people who are currently reliant on benefits back into work—we would break the cycle of social and economic exclusion. The Government are rightly proud of their record in that respect, but there is still so much more to be done.
I have already asked the Minister about how the weekly sum of £15.10 is reached, but is it not simply the amount of money that a patient receives after 52 weeks that I question. I also question whether it is actually worth lowering it. Someone receiving income support gets £18.90 in week 52, then £15.10 in week 53 of their stay in hospital. Getting £3.80 a week less than before might not make much difference to many people, but to a person who is on £18.90 every last penny counts. I note that the Benefits Agency estimates that administering the 52-week rule costs £500,000 million, and that £58 million is saved from the 52-week downrating rule. Can that saving can be balanced against the impossibility and misery of trying to get by on £2.16 a day?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will heed these concerns, which are very real but often overlooked, and that he will act accordingly.
12.36 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The House of Commons has just voted for substantial parliamentary reform and modernisation to make the House fit for its purpose in the 21st century, so although I stand, and others sit, here at just past half-past midnight, we do so knowing that our nocturnal manoeuvrings will shortly be placed in the dustbin of our nation's parliamentary history, the lid shut tight.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on bringing this important issue to the House's attention, and on the way in which he introduced a subject that is especially significant to those of our citizens who suffer mental illness, often over a long period. The contention that the level of benefit is insufficient to meet the needs of long-term hospital inpatients is not new—indeed, my hon. Friend and others have been pursuing a substantial increase in the rate of the allowance for some time, and I commend them for doing so. As he said, last May he brought representatives of Derbyshire patients council to meet me. I promised at that meeting that my officials would discuss these matters with officials from the Department of Health. Such discussions have now been undertaken, and I hope that they have resolved some of the issues of concern to him.
848
We are dealing with two distinct issues: first, the rules on benefits paid by my Department and, secondly, the maintenance support that long-term patients require. The personal allowance for long-term in-patients must be seen in the context of the overall benefit rules for people going into hospital. The principle behind the reduction in benefit is, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, not a new one—indeed, it has been a basic feature of the benefits system since the introduction of the national insurance scheme in 1949. The principle is a simple one: while the national health service provides free maintenance as well as free treatment, maintenance benefits, which are also paid out of state funds, should not be paid in full indefinitely. To do otherwise would be to provide twice for the same items. The rules have been applied, albeit with minor modifications, for more than 50 years.
Adjustments for periods spent in hospital are applied to most social security benefits. Currently, there is no reduction during the first six weeks in hospital, then an initial reduction is made—for example, a benefit such as the basic state pension would be reduced to £46.80 for a person without a dependant. After 52 weeks in hospital, benefit is further reduced to 20 per cent. of the prevailing rate of the basic state pension. As my hon. Friend says, that is currently £15.10 a week. In addition, the rules also protect a person's housing costs. It is important to acknowledge that.
Provided that the absence from home is expected to be less than a year, people in hospital who have low incomes and who retain a liability to pay rent for their homes can get housing benefit as long as they intend to return home and their home has not been let or sub-let.
We believe that these rules strike a fair balance between what the state should provide financially and the provision that individuals should make for themselves. However, we recognise that the rules are not immutable, and we have already committed ourselves to modernising them. To coincide with the introduction of the state pension credit next October, we plan to extend the period before the initial reduction in benefit from six weeks to 13 weeks. This change is a recognition of the fact that in today's society—my hon. Friend was urging us not to look back 50 years but to consider today's circumstances—people have more ongoing fixed commitments, such as housing costs and utility bills while they are in hospital. So people will be able to keep their full benefit for a full quarter before any downrating takes place. This will give them more time to plan their budget for when downrating does take place.
I shall put the matter in context numerically. More than 97 per cent of people are discharged from hospital within 13 weeks. The vast majority will not have their benefits, which are designed with the cost of everyday living in mind, touched during their stay in hospital. Those whose stay is longer than 13 weeks will also gain, I believe, from having a longer period where their benefits remain unchanged, as they too will have time to plan for their future circumstances. I hope that that shows our commitment to improve benefits for people who go into hospital, and perhaps puts the numbers in context. I hope that it shows also that we have been listening to my hon. Friend, his colleagues and his constituents.

849
Nevertheless, I recognise that my hon. Friend is predominantly concerned with a specific group of patients—those long-stay patients who are in hospital for longer than a year, and sometimes years, such as those suffering from long-term psychiatric conditions. As I have already explained, such people receive the lowest rate of benefit entitlement, which is £15.10 a week. That is because the national health service has assumed the responsibility for maintaining those patients who have spent more than 52 weeks in hospital.
This rate is, in effect, a personal allowance—it is just that. It is designed to meet a patient's personal day-to-day requirements such as newspapers, magazines and toiletry items, and other things of their choosing. The allowance has historically increased year on year in line with prices and so has maintained its relative value.
The Social Security Advisory Committee considered the level of the hospital personal allowance rate in 1987. To quote from the committee's conclusions,
"some patients, particularly those who are more active, may find"
the allowance
"is not sufficient for their needs, but we have no research to convince us the level … should be raised".
Nevertheless, in the past two years we have increased the allowance by more than prices in line with the above-inflation increases in the basic state pension.
It is important to recognise that the allowance does not, and was never designed to, cover the purchase of more expensive items, such as clothing. These are the statutory responsibility of the local NHS trust to provide where necessary. Where there are abnormal needs because of a patient's condition or illness, and the patient or relatives are unable to afford the extra cost, the hospital also has discretion to top up the allowance to meet such needs.
I know that each individual's financial circumstances vary, particularly in cases where in-patients are more physically active. However, it has been broadly accepted that it is impracticable to require the benefit system to have regard to the detailed circumstances of each individual before the appropriate reduction of benefit can be assessed. That is why general rules have been adopted and common rates of benefit are payable.
I know that my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members and organisations such as MIND and his local organisations, have campaigned for the dignity of long-
850
term patients in hospital, particularly those suffering from mental health problems. His points about clothing and the dignity of having new clothes rather than second-hand ones would have a resonance in any century, as they certainly do in the 21st century. I listened very carefully to what he said in that regard.
We consider that the current rates of benefit for people in hospital are fair and that the allowance is adequate to meet the day-to-day requirements of a person in hospital. Obviously, where there are local issues, they should be dealt with at a local level through contact with the chairman or chief executive of the national health service trust concerned. Nevertheless, we recognise that, for the system to work properly, we need to ensure that the highest standards of care, including the provision of items such as clothing, is maintained for patients requiring long-term care in hospital. That is why the Department of Health intends to ensure that best practice is shared throughout our national health service. Its officials will be happy to discuss the best way forward with relevant stakeholders at both national and local levels, including in my hon. Friend's constituency.
To sum up, the current arrangements for hospital downrating have been in place for many years and are designed to give the appropriate level of help, depending on the length of time spent in hospital. We are committed to improving those rules by allowing inpatients to keep their full benefit for 13 weeks rather than six weeks, as at present. For long-term patients, social security meets a limited range of needs in a personal allowance and the national health service has a statutory duty to meet other maintenance costs. As I said, the Department of Health will ensure that best practice in the care of long-term patients is shared throughout the national health service.
I trust that that deals at least in part with the proper concerns of my hon. Friend. We are considering the issue seriously and work is in progress to improve the arrangements for long-term patients, and not least those with often debilitating psychiatric conditions. I am grateful to him for bringing this vital matter to the attention of the House. It is an important matter to discuss at any hour of the day, although we will perhaps discuss it one day at a more civilised hour.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Regional Air Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Stewart: I welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of regional air services. I thank the many right hon. and hon. Members here for attending today. I also thank the many Members who attended the debate that I organised in July in Portcullis House to consider the subject, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke at it.
I shall touch on several issues. I shall define what I mean by regional air services and consider current issues and problems and the report of the former Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I intend to analyse the role of government, not only here but in the United States and France, and the prospects for government intervention. I should like to summarise briefly the points that I made almost a year ago to the day in this Chamber on a similar Adjournment debate, and analyse the south-east and east of England regional air service study—SERAS—
which is crucially important to the debate.
What do I mean by regional air services? They could be defined as routes from London in its broadest sense—from Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, London City and Stansted to domestic UK airports such as my constituency of Inverness, Aberdeen, Newquay, Belfast, Plymouth, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and, let us not forget, the Channel Islands, for which regional air services play an important role. Of course, the two primary hubs in London are Gatwick and Heathrow. Journeys tend to be of two types: point to point or interlined, by which I mean domestic flights that continue to international destinations. Heathrow is undoubtedly top of the interlining league, Gatwick is mid-table, and Stansted and City, to continue the football analogy, are unfortunately very much in the relegation zone.
What current trends and problems are evident in United Kingdom regional services? Mr. Laurie Price, from Aviation and Travel Consultancy Ltd., analysed daily flights from Heathrow to regional airports between 1986 and 2001. In 1986, 19 regional UK airports had direct flights to Heathrow, with an average of 106 flights daily. However, in the summer of last year only eight regional airports had direct flights to Heathrow, and the daily average of flights had fallen to 88. In 1986, 15 airports had direct flights to Gatwick, and by 2001 that figure had fallen to 11. To be fair, Gatwick's daily flight average is now slightly higher, in part because of the transfer of domestic flights from Heathrow, including my own route.
184WH
Which airports have lost out? Heathrow services were slashed from Inverness and from Plymouth—where the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister lies—in 1997, from Dundee and Carlisle in 1987, from Liverpool and East Midlands in 1992, from Birmingham in 1993, and from Norwich in 1990. Why do such cuts occur? Services in the UK are a free market and in simplistic terms the profit per mile per passenger is better for intermediate and long-haul flights than for domestic UK routes. In effect, commercially viable daytime slots at Heathrow and Gatwick are full.
I have asked some questions on the subject. Last summer there was 20 per cent. excess demand for slots at Gatwick. On a typical summer's day in August 2001, demand exceeded capacity by as much as 22 per cent. every minute between 6 am and 8 pm. That, of course, is fully reflected at Heathrow as well.
Aviation was badly affected by the tragic events of 11 September. Airline costs rose and initially growth and traffic were reduced. The traffic in question, however, has fully returned. As the Minister well knows, his Department has predicted a 4.25 per cent. growth rate in passenger numbers every year. In London, there is no new capacity to take that growth. The last substantial runway built in the UK was in Manchester more than a decade ago. In the competition for slots, therefore, regional air services will always lose out to their older and bigger brothers: international and transatlantic flights.
In 1998, the then Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs undertook a comprehensive inquiry into regional air services. The Committee made several recommendations to the Government, which I fully endorse. It argued for different categories of slots—domestic, intermediate and long haul—so that swapping of slots could be controlled, as in the United States. It also suggested that, in the allocation of slots at domestic airports, priority be given to airlines bidding to operate domestic regional services. That would be similar to the US essential air services programme. The Committee recommended an end to airlines' own companies allocating slots at airports, as they do at Heathrow and Gatwick. It also argued for the development of public service obligations—PSOs—at Heathrow for a specified minimum level of air services.
The current European slot allocation rules—governed by European regulation EC 95/93—have been due for revision for some time, although I understand that we will not have a complete spring clean until 2003. In my view, they must be adapted to allow greater protection for vulnerable regional air routes, otherwise there will always be a trade-off between domestic routes and more lucrative international destinations.
What role can the Government play? What examples of best practice have there been throughout the world? In simple terms, under the EU regulations member states can reserve slots in two ways: first, on a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region, if that route is considered vital for the economic development of that region; secondly, on routes on which the Government have imposed PSOs to make sure that a service is maintained that would otherwise not be.

185WH
There are demanding regulations for the first option: the slots concerned must have been used on that route when the regulations came into force in 1993; only one carrier must operate that route; and, it must not be possible for the route to be covered substantially by any other mode of transport. The reservation ceases once a second carrier covers the service with the same frequency.
Only in France has the first option been used, at Paris, Orly airport. It is now using the second option of imposing PSOs and I believe that some 30 per cent. of services at that airport now have PSOs. At present, there are no English PSOs. In Scotland there is a long track record of them, particularly in the island services, such as the Western Isles. They are all exclusively subsidy PSOs, however. I am certainly not calling for subsidy PSOs today, which are not needed on routes that are commercially viable.
In the United States, the essential air services programme has operated since deregulation in 1978. That was the price that Congress demanded for passing legislation. Congress now spends $50 million per year on that important programme, which serves 75 cities in the US. Most are in remote areas, such as Alaska. At very congested airports though, the United States Department of Transportation can demand that EAS status be given to certain routes. The Government have a strong power of intervention, in a country that is arguably the most unregulated in the industrial world. We should examine that closely—if it fits, why not copy it?
Lembit öpik: On that point, I know the Welsh air service opportunities best. America also seems to have accepted the idea of having a large number of hubs, with the regional airports acting as spokes. What does the hon. Gentleman think of the idea that we cannot sustain the increasing pressure for international flights through London, so we should use places such as Cardiff, Birmingham and Manchester to ease that pressure? Should we have spokes going into those hubs?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is important that we develop alternative hubs and I note that Manchester is doing so. That does not put an end to the argument that many of our tourists and business people want to get to London and that therefore we need the capacity in London. However, developing alternative hubs and super-hubs, as they have in the rest of Europe, is vitally important.
What are the prospects of a Government intervention in this case? The bulk of witnesses before the Select Committee inquiry to which I referred argued that there was a case for public sector intervention to protect key vulnerable regional air services. In my constituency, the Highland council, the enterprise agency, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the local chamber of commerce and more than 90 per cent. of local businesses argued that we should have a public service obligation on the Inverness to Gatwick route. The Minister may wish to comment on a letter that proposed a draft PSO, which his Department received from Sarah Boyack, a former Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Parliament.
186WH
In paragraph 93 of the evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister's Department stated that the United Kingdom would have a chance to suggest amendments during the revision of the European slot allocation regulations. It stated:
"Particularly if the Commission does seek the ability to restrict the ability to ring-fence slots, one possibility might be to propose balancing that by giving greater priority to regional services in the…allocation of available slots."
British Midland criticised the new entrant rule in slot allocation and used the example of Heathrow, which has had 53 new entrants since 1991. There have been too many low-frequency long-haul services, which have frustrated prospects for domestic air services. Effectively, they have been squeezed out by low-frequency long-haul services.
It is often said—and it may be a cliché—that politics is the art of the possible. However, it is also the art of the practical, within a range of competing priorities.
Angus Robertson:On the art of the possible, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the case has been convincingly made for a PSO between Inverness and London Gatwick? What possible explanation can he suggest for the Government delay in acceding to such a reasonable request from the Scottish Executive?
Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. My track record on this matter is well known, because I argued for the PSO for many years before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament. It is important that, if we meet the criteria, we get that PSO. However, before that decision is made, we need to persuade Europe to open up the regulations, so that it is much easier for routes such as Inverness-Gatwick to qualify. There are legal arguments, too, but as I am not a lawyer I shall not take them up. I am sure that the Minister will want to comment on them in his reply.
A simple solution to the problem is to build more runway capacity at Gatwick and Heathrow. However, this may not be a suggestion that wins me much favour with my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent London seats. Judging by the experience of Manchester airport and Heathrow terminal 5, one must allow 10 years for the lead-in time for planning, because of the large number of likely objections. However, technical solutions may be found. For example, the Cranford agreement that covers Heathrow and governs the speed and direction of take-off and landing times could be varied to create more slots for regional air services.
There may also be creative solutions. Laurie Price, the aviation consultant to whom I referred earlier, argues that 70 per cent. of aircraft using Heathrow and Gatwick use a 1,800 m runway. RAF Northolt has such a runway and could be adapted as an overflow airport for Heathrow. Redhill aerodrome, which is not too far from Gatwick, could perhaps be adapted for the same purpose.
What future is there for regional air services? I welcome the Government commitment to the new White Paper and I commend the effort that is going into

187WH
the consultation process. However, I and many other hon. Members from peripheral regions want immediate solutions. We need the bread of new runways at Gatwick and Heathrow today—or at least in the next five years—rather than the jam of possible new runways and protection in 10 to 15 years.
I also welcome the commitment and key objectives set out on page 277 of the Scottish regional consultation document, which refers to allowing
"a days business to be transacted in a wide range of UK and European cities from all parts of Scotland".
The achievement of such objectives will in large part depend on maintaining links with London Heathrow and London Gatwick, the UK's leading network hub airports. On the Government's admission, however, in the SERAS consultation mentioned earlier, both Heathrow and Gatwick are full today. The viability of additional slots at those airports is limited, particularly at peak times. In such circumstances, there is no prospect of improving schedules or frequencies to peripheral regions. According to the SERAS consultation, the earliest time that additional landing capacity is envisaged is 2011. Realistically, the date is more likely to be 2015 if bold initiatives like the new runway at Sipson at Heathrow are to be developed.
Against that historical background, it is difficult to accept assertions that a proportion of any new capacity would be kept for regional air services. It cannot be in the best commercial interests of commercial airlines to do so. Some would argue that that would be failing in their duty to shareholders. In 10 to 15 years, capacity will be an even more difficult problem and new capacity will just be taken up through expansion of short-haul and long-haul services. The regions will still be left in limbo. The only practical way forward is to include immediate capacity solutions in the White Paper.
I commend the Government for recognising the importance and contribution of the air transport industry. Its contribution to the economy is £10.2 billion. It accounts for 1.4 per cent. of gross domestic product and, directly, 200,000 transport jobs. Heathrow and Gatwick are leading international network airports, with more services to more places than competing continental airports. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said,
"doing nothing is not an option."—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 847.]
We now have a comprehensive process of researching, identifying and consulting on airport and runway options. I welcome the Government's commitment to a new aviation White Paper by spring 2003—the first for almost 20 years. However, there are some negative points to be made.
Seventy per cent. of demand is in the south-east. That will always take precedence over the needs of the regions. As I mentioned, Heathrow and Gatwick airports are full. Stansted will be full by 2005. There will be no new runway in the south-east until 2011 and 17 regional routes have lost London services since 1986. No new runways for 10 years will mean that airlines will gradually trade slots used for regional services for use by higher revenue long-haul services. For example, British Airways dropped Belfast-Heathrow after 54 years last year. There is no prospect of additional regional or domestic routes or of reinstatement of lost services such as the route that Norwich lost in 1990.
188WH
Increased reliance on low-cost, point-to-point services from regions to secondary airports will leave many regions off the international development radar. The no-frills carriers provide excellent low-cost links to some peripheral regions, to the benefit of passengers and regions, but those areas must have full service network links to London hubs, with worldwide interline access to services, as a key to economic development. That means maintaining access to Heathrow or Gatwick via the services of a full service network carrier such as British Airways, British Midland or British European.
I spoke to representatives of the largest employer in my constituency a few weeks ago. It is called Inverness Medical and is owned by Johnson and Johnson. The American who runs the company, which has 1,400 employees, made it clear that he would not be in Inverness if there were not direct links to London Heathrow and Gatwick. I am sure that many hon. Members could echo that experience with reference to their constituencies.
As Amanda Francis, the UK representative of the States of Guernsey, told me yesterday,
"Guernsey believes that in the short to medium term slots into Heathrow and Gatwick should be ring fenced for regional access for air services to…all parts of the United Kingdom and the Crown dependences of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man."
The SERAS proposals include a new runway at Sipson, Stansted or Cliffe. Gatwick, which is of course London's second largest network airport, has been left out, for unsupported reasons based on the 2019 agreement, a planning agreement with the local authority that there can be no new runway before 2019. None of the options is deliverable in less than 10 years, possibly longer. Only the Heathrow option takes account of where market demand is greatest, and Gatwick has largely been ignored as a major regional UK focus by the SERAS study.
What is the solution? The Government must now accept the crucial importance of specific regional air links to specified London airports and work with the EU to secure designation and protection of the slots for those links, just as has happened in France and in the Republic of Ireland, where the Irish Government have secured a PSO designated link between Londonderry and Dublin. The Government must afford the same protection to air links from peripheral regions to London. Concurrently, we need to develop Northolt at Heathrow and Redhill at Gatwick to provide specific capacity for regional and short-haul services for those airports with runways up to 2000 m long.
In paragraph 14.17 of the SERAS document, the Government called for maximum use to be made of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports. However, without more runways, many of their proposals will remain undeliverable. We must develop Northolt now and Redhill within four years. That could increase the capacity of the London system, where demand is greatest, by 60 million passengers. Developing Northolt and Redhill may require concurrent ring-fencing of slots through PSO or similar designation.
Some people may ask why capacity must be provided at Heathrow and Gatwick. What about other airports? I answered that question in a reply to an earlier intervention. Heathrow and Gatwick offer a range of

189WH
destinations and connections to the worldwide network of air services that is unrivalled by any other UK airport and, arguably, by any airport in Europe. We must encourage airlines that want to run domestic links to bid for more local services. We need to divide slots into domestic, intermediate and long haul, to stop the trade-off between Belfast and Bonn, Aberdeen and Athens and Plymouth and Paris. We need to create a regional policy for aviation, which recognises the legitimate need of regional airports to have access to at least one of the two key hubs in London, Heathrow and Gatwick.
We need to protect peripheral routes by ring-fencing slots and routes. We need published route development plans for Gatwick and Heathrow, which take account of the need for regional travel and national priorities for airports. We need more London hub capacity and more 1,800 m runways. Then, we can truly say that we have a UK-wide regional policy, which develops the regions and builds social inclusion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not all right hon. and hon. Members indicated beforehand that they wished to speak, so I have only just formed an impression of how many would like to contribute to the debate. As it is customary for the Front-Bench spokesmen to commence their speeches at 10.30 am, I hope that hon. Members will exercise some self-restraint so that the maximum number of voices can be heard.
9.52 am
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate and to support my neighbouring colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). I congratulate him on securing this morning's debate and on his parliamentary and political persistence over many years on the issue. I shall focus in my remarks on our collective concern, the Inverness-London link, and issues that arise from that.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that, after the 1997 election, we both contributed to a debate in the House, which I initiated, with the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport who was responsible for these issues. With some amusement, I noticed some oral exchanges in Hansard between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister earlier this year. At column 134 of Hansard for 23 April 2002, the Minister noted that his hon. Friend had cheekily introduced the subject of Plymouth. I say "cheekily" because, during party campaigning before the 1997 election in that neck of the woods, I remember seeing prominent regional newspaper coverage of the then Labour Opposition transport spokesman pledging a Labour Government to a public service obligation for the Plymouth-London link. The Government have form in opposition; I can provide the Minister with chapter and verse as I have a voluminous file on the matter. All that we seek is the consistency to which the Government have long since pledged themselves. It will have full support from all quarters of the House.
190WH
The current highlands campaign is broad based. It represents the whole business community and traverses the Highland council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Inverness and district chamber of commerce. They have set themselves five key policy objectives in making the case for the public service obligation order for the continuing guaranteed link between Dalcross Inverness airport and London. The first is secured guaranteed regional air services, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted the bulk of his speech, and the second the need to secure the public service order. The third is to establish a minimum level of guaranteed air service from London to the regions. I underscore what the hon. Gentleman said. This is not just a selfish argument about one link; it is part of a UK-wide recognition of the importance for regional economies of regional links into and out of the metropolis.
Fourthly, there is the thorny issue of capacity in the south-east, to which the hon. Gentleman fairly alluded. Again, that is part of a much bigger consideration. Finally and importantly, there is the ability of the regional interests involved effectively to own their air slots, which would give them a greater degree of locus where decision making is involved.
I hope that the Minister can update us further vis-à-vis the European Union and the lengthy ongoing discussions—discussions are always lengthy where the EU is concerned. We have made the case so many times that I do not need to rehearse the excellent points made by the hon. Gentleman, which I completely endorse. However, I would like to stress that the Scottish Executive fully support it. Lewis Macdonald, one of the transport and planning Ministers involved, wrote to me some time ago and stated:
"The current Slots Regulation is being revised and I shall ensure that the UK's negotiating position on the revised Slots Regulation adequately reflects Scottish concerns. My officials are keeping in touch with colleagues at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on this issue."
I hope that that support can be reciprocated by Whitehall. Equally, the previous Secretary of State for Transport wrote to me on the same issue. He said:
"I understand your concern that direct air links between Inverness and London should be maintained and genuinely appreciate the economic importance of this route for the Highlands and Islands."
He went on to say—this was just over a year ago—that
"The DTLR has now received a request for the imposition of a PSO on the Inverness to London Gatwick route from the Scottish Executive and this is being considered along with a range of policy options including those mentioned in your letter."
We have more recent, speculative press reports about the possible downgrading of what is publicly acknowledged by the commercial interests concerned to be a profitable route. That can be damaging. Some of us remember commuting between the Highlands and London almost 20 years ago using the old Dan-Air service. In the 1980s, a huge battle had to be fought to secure Dan-Air's access to Heathrow. Then commercial matters took a turn for the worse due to European routes, and Dan-Air went bust. British Airways moved in again, having given up the franchise before Dan-Air took it on in the 1970s, and made a commercial success of it. Then came the battle to retain the Heathrow link, which was lost, and we moved to Gatwick, where we are at present, but there is now further speculation about Gatwick.

191WH
Businesses, community and public representatives and many other interested groups from across the political spectrum are saying, "Use it or lose it", and they have put that message over successfully. However, it is undermined by continuing speculation and uncertainty. The sooner public and commercial opinion can be reassured, the better. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to go at least several steps in that direction.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. The House will have heard the remarks of Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that five Back-Bench Members wish to speak during the next half-hour. I ask them to confine their remarks to that time scale, so that I can call them all. First, I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
10 am
Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I congratulate you on acquiring your position. I am not sure whether this is the first time that you have overseen debates in Westminster Hall, but it is certainly the first debate that I have attended when you have been in the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate—I think that I was here a year ago for a similar debate. I have the utmost sympathy for and understanding of the need for communities to have access to quality air services—not only for social reasons but, as my hon. Friend ably outlined, for economic reasons. However, I come to the debate from a rather different angle.
I hope that a regional airport will be developed in my constituency at Finningley, the former Royal Air Force base. It is a huge brownfield site, although it is now in the hands of a Government Department. Today is a good opportunity to flag up why a regional air service in Yorkshire is important and, in a roundabout way, to consider whether airports outside London would be sustainable and whether they could offer the sort of long-haul flights that I believe Finningley is capable of providing. If so, it would mean that three out of four people who now have to leave Yorkshire and Humberside to fly with the service of their choice could choose to stay there. That might make a small contribution to alleviating the impact on Heathrow and the south-east. It could also allow us to consider more imaginative and creative proposals, as well as additional runway capacity, to ease the situation and allow more slots to other United Kingdom airports.
I take the opportunity today to place on record—a number of Members have heard this many times before, but it is worth flagging it up again—that in July 2000 I presented a petition to Parliament with 21,000 signatures in favour of the former RAF base at Finningley becoming a commercial regional airport and against the holding of a public inquiry. That was an historic first for a Member of Parliament. Today, we have a petition from 150,000 people from Doncaster and the immediate surrounding areas who would be affected by the development of an airport at Finningley who would support such a proposal. Against that stand 505 individual representations against the development.
192WH
As I said before, three out of four people from Doncaster, Sheffield, south Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside currently leave the region to fly with the service that they need, whether for social, economic or business reasons. The truth is that existing airports at Humberside and Leeds have not proved themselves capable of developing the air services that Yorkshire people want—so why Finningley? The former RAF base is entirely a brownfield site, and hundreds of millions of pounds of public money has already been invested in it. It has a 1.7 mile runway and. without a hole being dug, it is capable of taking practically all major aircraft used by charter and scheduled airlines. They could fly direct to the west coast of America, or to the far east, without refuelling.
Despite the weekend's gales, which affected people throughout the country, and despite its position on the eastern side of the United Kingdom, Finningley has favourable weather conditions, which is important to commercial airlines looking for sites for new services. This is also about the north-south divide, about giving communities the opportunity not only to regenerate and rebuild their economies, but to rebuild their social structure, and giving people the opportunity to go to work and have access to the variety of jobs and skills that airports can help to bring to a community.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said that if the major employer in his constituency did not have access to major routes around the world, that would have a huge impact on that employer's decision to stay in the area. For those of us who represent deprived parts of the United Kingdom, there is also the question of attracting investment. The issue is huge. Doncaster—considered not on its own, but in the family of south Yorkshire—is a coalfields area, so people are looking for opportunities to develop a new future through infrastructure.
This is also about consumer choice and people having the opportunity to decide that they want to live in an area that has access to services. That point is as valid for my hon. Friend as it is for me in Doncaster in south Yorkshire. The issue is about flying from local airports and the environmental impact of people having to make long journeys, often by car, because local airports do not provide the services that they need. So, consumer choice is involved, as well as environmental impacts. We have to consider the consultation on airport development in its widest sense. Different parts of the jigsaw affect all four corners of the United Kingdom. In my hon. Friend's case, there is the issue of direct access to areas around the world for business and social reasons.
It is also important not to look a gift horse in the mouth. When I hear many of my colleagues say, "Yes, we need more airport capacity, but I don't want it in my backyard," I say, "Please, don't look at Finningley in that regard." Here is an opportunity. We have the brownfield site and there is local support. Local opinion is not divided: there is support from Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, and the business community. Some £100 million of taxpayers' money has been put towards the site. All that we need to do is build a terminal building and we can fly. Let us do that.
10.7 am
Angus Robertson: I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate. He is clearly passionate about improving air links and, although we may have our disagreements, I say that most warmly.
Other hon. Members are much better placed to talk about the needs of their areas, so I will concentrate my comments on the need for improved air links to the north of Scotland. Responsibility for air links is now shared between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Executive make decisions about land use, planning, surface access and the management of publicly-owned airports, but sadly we are still dependent on the good will of London Ministers for licensing safety, security and environmental policy, international agreements, economic regulation and slot policy.
This is the third debate on air services in which I have taken part since my election last year. Unfortunately, there has been little positive progress on what is an important matter for the north of Scotland. The issue is crucial to the region's economy. This week, the annual regional trend survey showed that the lowest level of pay in Scotland is not in urban, central-belt Scotland, but in the constituency that I represent, Moray.
Many of my constituents who live in fishing communities are worrying about their future this week—there have been warnings of thousands of potential job losses. So, air links are not just about jetting off on holiday, they are an economic lifeline. The current underdeveloped links to the north of Scotland are an impediment to social and economic progress. When one compares Scotland's economic position with that of our better-connected neighbours in northern Europe, it is hardly surprising that our country is in an economic recession.
I commend Scotland's shadow Minister for Tourism, Transport and Telecommunications, Kenny MacAskill, and the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, Fergus Ewing, for their innovative work on a route development fund, an idea that is supported by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. That is a concrete example of how the debate in Scotland has been led by the Scottish National party and it stands in stark contrast with the farce that we witnessed earlier this year—so far unmentioned—when Ryanair's efforts to secure regular links with the north of Scotland were all but rebuffed by the intransigence of the Scottish Executive and their publicly owned agency, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Despite the imperative for rapid action, the Government and the Scottish Executive spend more time reviewing than delivering. Aviation is worth £0.6 billion to the Scottish economy and 15,000 jobs, with perhaps the same amount again indirectly employed.
Future levels of traffic are set to increase. Will the Minister explain why Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. is forecasting that 1.8 million passengers a year will use Inverness airport by 2030? The Department for Transport estimates that the figure will be only 800,000. Why does the Department estimate 1 million fewer
194WH
passengers than HIAL? I am assuming that the Department and the Scottish Executive work as closely as they say.
Mr. Kennedy: It must be a decimal point mistake.
Angus Robertson: The leader of the Liberal Democrats says it is a decimal point mistake. Perhaps it is. The Minister will have the opportunity to comment on that later.
People in Moray and the rest of north Scotland are asking themselves what a local Labour Member, a Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive and the Labour Government all have in common, when none of them has delivered a PSO guaranteeing the Inverness to Gatwick link. We have heard the Secretary of State for Transport say in the House in February, March, April, and May that he would make an announcement on his decision on the PSO "soon". I do not know how soon "soon" is. Perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on that. Unfortunately, the new Labour Government have been ducking and diving on the issue for more than a year, constantly saying that a decision on the PSO for the Inverness to Gatwick service will be made "soon".
In July, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Scottish Executive published a consultation paper on air services, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom and Scotland: A National Consultation". There is no mention in the document of a PSO being considered for the Inverness to Gatwick link. Despite letters from Scottish Executive Ministers saying that it is an important issue, and despite the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber confirming that it is an important priority, there seems to be no progress whatever. The SNP has repeatedly demanded that the Government should announce a PSO for the Inverness to Gatwick service, and the Minister has an opportunity to do so today.
Inverness has already lost the link to London Heathrow and it is inexcusable that the Government should let north Scotland down by not delivering a PSO for the service that we have left. At present, Inverness has among the highest landing charges in the whole of Europe, which undermines the entire economy of north Scotland, particularly tourism. Scotland's economy, tourism industry and its people have long been seriously disadvantaged compared to nations such as Ireland, which has far better, cheaper and more direct air services. Scotland must become a premier league nation for aviation services, not continue to endure second-rate options.
10.13 am
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this important debate and for laying out in such a clear and cogent way the arguments and challenges that lie before us on behalf of all of us from constituencies with peripheral airports.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Plymouth faces similar challenges. We should really refer to Plymouth and Newquay because our two airports go hand in hand, and rely on each other. Newquay is central to Cornwall's objective 1 status. My remarks on

195WH
the importance of Plymouth airport to our economy and Plymouth are even more the case as far as the future regeneration of the Cornish economy is concerned.
Plymouth airport has a wider catchment area of 1.2 million people, and a working population of 558,000. A recent survey of 40 companies in Plymouth, which was part of a wider study of Devon and Cornwall, found that 32 companies, employing 20,000 people, had overseas parentage. Another 33 companies, which export to 49 countries, employ 7,000 people, so that is 27,000 in the catchment area of Plymouth airport. There is about five times that number if we take into account Devon and Cornwall, so people will understand that Plymouth is greatly appreciated as a city airport. It takes 113,000 passengers from Plymouth each year, and there has been a growth of 3.2 per cent. per annum., which I understand is about half the national growth between 1991 and 2000.
Two issues concern the business community, however. There is uncertainty about the slots, to which other hon. Members referred, and the loss of the Heathrow slots, which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber outlined was part of a national trend in loss of links to Heathrow. Apart from the general convenience and the fact that they keep Plymouth on the map, those air routes are vital to maintaining and developing inward investment.
American and Japanese businesses in particular, such as Toshiba, Kawasaki, Wrigley's and Gleason Corporation, are now joined by a number of new and small but growing science businesses built around Derriford hospital and the science park. It is becoming a medi-science park. New developments are also being built on our area's rich legacy of marine science and technology. All those businesses are the sort that need quick and easy access to worldwide destinations.
Typical comments in the recent survey of businesses carried out for Sutton Harbour Holdings plc, which operates the airport, include:
"Economic progress for the city of Plymouth will be severely hampered without access to a city rated airport"
and
"difficult connections cause great problems with trying to be taken seriously as a major player site within our organisation".
That was from one of the bigger companies. Another comment was that
"reinstating the Plymouth-Heathrow route would help our business enormously".
In other words, some certainty that businesses can have access to international destinations that are important to them is vital.
Let us consider the people who do not fly because of the loss of the Heathrow service from Plymouth, but who travel by road and rail. The Civil Aviation Authority 2000 estimates show that about three times the number who currently fly from Plymouth airport—more than 300,000—travelled to Heathrow by road and rail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, that travel has environmental implications.
Let us also consider the sort of destinations that people were looking for by travelling to Heathrow: 17,000 flew to Brussels, 32,000 to Frankfurt, 17,000 to Dubai, 10,000 to John F. Kennedy airport New York
196WH
and 9,000 to Bahrain. Other destinations that are not available from Gatwick, but that are important to the local business community in Plymouth include Boston, Hong Kong and Tokyo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) received well over 120 submissions, including some from Plymouth, for the 1998 report on regional air services by the Select Committee that she chairs. That report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned, advocated feeder reliever airports, such as Northolt for Heathrow and Redhill for Gatwick, as fast-track solutions while greater capacity was developed. There is certainly great interest from our end of the country—as was mentioned by those at the northern end—in developing that proposal as it could address the problem in the medium term.
Alongside the desire for better access to destinations of importance to them, businesses are desperate for some security of knowing that the present services can continue. In fact, I am talking not just about businesses, but about those who have responsibility for the economic infrastructure. A 1997 Plymouth city council study, carried out by KPMG, suggested that 3,000 jobs depended directly or indirectly on the availability of our city airport. I am aware that other lower values have been put on that—the thin routes study attached a lower figure—but as paragraphs 5, 6 and 6.4.4 of the current consultation report, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South West" notes:
"increasing the availability of routes and frequency of services from airports in the region may encourage more firms to invest in the South West. Conversely if they are not frequent or available, firms may withhold investment in the region or even relocate to a region with better connections … Crucially it is the 'perception' that businesses have of the importance of air services which is significant, even if there may be alternative, less direct ways of undertaking the travel to meet customers and suppliers."
I greatly appreciate the courtesy that my hon. Friend the Minister extended in receiving representations from local MPs led by Glyn Ford, MEP, Sutton Harbour Holdings and the chairman of our regional development agency in July this year. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm his commitment to helping us all find a way through the complexities of what can be done in a way that puts our city, our community and the other regions on a more secure footing, whether through slot protection or overcoming the barriers through configuration of access to airports, including certain airports in London that, as I said, connect us to those parts of the world that matter. I look forward to his observations, which, we can be sure, will be made with the benefit of his experience as a constituency MP with a long track record of understanding and championing the interests of the important subject of this debate.
10.21 am
Mr. John Horam: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for instigating the debate. Undoubtedly, airports are an important topic for many Members. This is also a crucial time in the development of airport policy.
As hon. Members know, Biggin Hill in my constituency is famous as the front-line fighter station in the battle of Britain. With regard to today's news, it is

197WH
mentioned in the south-east and east of England regional air services study as a bottom-tier airport. The top-tier airports in the London area are Heathrow and Gatwick, and the second-tier airports are the City of London, Southampton and Norwich. The bottom-tier airports are Biggin Hill, Cambridge, Farnborough, Lydd, Manston, Shoreham and Southend, about which the SERAS reports says:
"It is clear from our analysis that, taken as a group, the overall contribution of these airports to meeting demand in the South East would be very small, and even smaller if more runway capacity were provided at the main airports."
Of course, the last part of that statement is likely.
On Biggin Hill, the document says that
"poor surface access links and noise impacts on nearby residential properties".
and provide, "very serious constraints." They do indeed. I would add that the airborne approach to Biggin Hill is over densely populated residential suburbs in which more than 200,000 people live. Their quality of life would obviously be adversely affected. Access by air is overly complicated by proximity to flight paths in and out of Heathrow. The beacon over which the incoming and outgoing Heathrow and Gatwick planes circle and are often stacked, is above Biggin Hill. There are therefore three levels of aeroplanes—those from Heathrow, Gatwick, and Biggin Hill on the bottom level—over my constituency. Access by road is extremely poor, and there are no close rail links. Bromley's new general hospital has been built under the flight path only two miles away from the airport runway, and the major part of the airport lies in the London area green belt. For all those reasons, as the Minister may imagine, most of my constituents are strongly opposed to any significant development of Biggin Hill airport.
I would like the Minister to reply to my final point. There is, as he will be aware, a lease between Bromley council and the Biggin Hill airport company. This stipulates the numbers and types of aircraft that can use the airport to comply with specific noise levels. That lease is not mentioned in the SERAS document, whereas other leases, such as those relating to Farnborough airport, are. The Farnborough report says that because of the lease there will be no further development at Farnborough airport. The lease restricts business at Biggin Hill airport to training, business aviation and private flying and the company does this very successfully. Could the Minister make a formal reference to the lease in the White Paper and correct the passenger forecasts accordingly?
10.25 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I join the line of right hon. and hon. Members congratulating the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate? I also endorse his comments about the need for a public service obligation on the Inverness-Gatwick route and commend him for a long and hard-fought parliamentary campaign. I am pleased to see that it continues in as much that I recall that in July he was told by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that we
198WH
should not worry too much because she has spoken to British Airways and it said that it had no intention of going off the route. I found her faith in British Airways particularly touching but it is a faith that I suspect my constituents might find it difficult to share, given their recent experience. If we are to continue to have a Scotland Office, which exists to promote Scotland's interests in the UK Government, there is an awful lot more that it could do.
I add my words of welcome to the Minister's joint consultation with the Scottish Executive on "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Scotland". It is a worthy tome. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said that at present the regulation of the air services market is left at the mercy of market forces. That is true. It seems to me, listening to the contributions from various parts of the country today, that it produces a most unsatisfactory situation. On the one hand, people in south-east England quite justifiably express concern at the impact on their environment of more airports, more runways and more traffic, while at the other end of the country in my constituency, we are desperate for more runways and a better infrastructure. In this age of joined-up government, there should be scope for a light-touch regulation of air traffic and for using it as a tool for economic development and regeneration in some of the most vulnerable and peripheral communities.
Like other hon. Members, I have been to other PSO debates. The most recent was on 8 May. The Minister may recall that on that occasion he said:
"I understand the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman about high fares, but costs are inevitably higher per passenger on low-volume routes than on highly packed traffic routes."
That is a statement of the obvious. He continued:
"However, for the Government to impose a PSO on a commercially viable service would mean overriding the long-standing policy of non-intervention other than when the market fails."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 134WH.]
If the market can only provide a return fare to Shetland in excess of £250, in my definition that is a market that has failed. When he responds to the ongoing consultation, will he give some serious consideration to the definition of some of the terms, in particular what is considered to be a commercially viable route? Will that simply be left to the accounting practices of British Airways or will there be coherent Government guidance on the point?
Subsidy has already been mentioned. The routes are already subsidised through the public purse in many indirect ways. My fare to Westminster, which is about £580 return from Orkney or Shetland, is paid every week and every time I board a plane to or from Orkney someone from the council is there. There are many ways in which subsidies are given at present. What is needed is an open and transparent system, the first part of which would be a public service obligation order.
10.30 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate, which is one of a number that he has secured on the subject. The debate's importance is underlined by

199WH
the presence of many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). It is a topical debate, as the 30 November deadline for responses to the consultation is approaching. The subject has often been debated in this place. In the past three years, the Select Committee has produced a couple of reports on the matter and the Government have responded.
Massive expansion is planned in the provision of airports and runways and reasonable air services should not be neglected in the Government's dash for airport expansion. It would be sad if the Government insisted on pushing ahead with predict and provide, making as many airports and runways available as possible, but with only international travellers being allowed to take advantage of increased slots at key airports, while those living near those airports and runways and below the flight paths, suffer the environmental consequences and those living in the peripheral regions derive no economic benefits.
In an ideal world, a network of fast rail links would do away with the need for many regional air services. Indeed, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee said in its eighth report:
"Rail services may be able to provide a substitute for air services for places under three hours away from central London or from Heathrow by rail".
Unfortunately, we do not inhabit such an ideal world, and even if we did, regional air services would still be a necessity for the remotest part of the United Kingdom.
The Select Committee report of 27 July 1998 made several important points. For example:
"It should be the objective of Government policy actively to maximise the contribution regional hubs make to meeting the demand for scheduled European and intercontinental services."
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what mechanism will be used to ensure that whatever decisions are taken in response to the consultation that is being conducted, the outcome will maximise the contribution regional hubs make to meeting the demand for those services. If a wider range of European and intercontinental services were available from the regional hubs, it would reduce the demand for regional air services flying into Heathrow.
The report also called on the Government to advocate changes to the European slot regulation, a matter to which the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber referred, and to give priority to airlines bidding to operate domestic regional services rather than to new entrants in the allocation of new slots at congested airports. The Government's response stated:
"The UK has already made proposals to the Commission that priority in the allocation of slots not claimed under historic precedence should be given to airlines that wish to use the slots for services to regional airports".
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made on that matter.
Another interesting point in the Government press release that was issued at the time of the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report on regional air services was a programme of surface access studies by DETR, as it then was, and Opraf—Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—considering the potential for developing long-distance rail links to London and the south-east
200WH
and improving connections between the London airports. This may be an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the progress of those studies.
The most recent Select Committee report on the air transport industry was published on 4 July. I do not believe that we have yet had the Government's response to it. The Government, in their evidence, said that the current availability of slots was sufficient to preclude the need to intervene to ensure the protection of regional air services. As other hon. Members have pointed out, British Airways withdrew the important Heathrow to Belfast route immediately after that. Will the Minister comment on whether any other services have been withdrawn? Will he also comment on the public service obligations, the number of services withdrawn, and whether he expects that number to increase or decrease within the next five years?
The future of regional and other air services depends on safety and the reliability of National Air Traffic Services. Hon. Members will be aware of the concerns expressed about those systems and, in particular, about the character sizes of the displays on the screens that are used. I take this opportunity to ask the Health and Safety Executive to review its assessments of the screens' fitness for purpose, because its report was based on information supplied by NATS that was incorrect with regard to the screen character sizes. I hope that NATS will set out its timetable for addressing the HSE's concerns. NATS must guarantee that all the HSE's requests for action are fulfilled.
It would be ironic if the future of regional air services were put at risk at the same time as the Government are producing their plans for airport expansion for the next 30 years. I hope that the Minister will use the debate to set out how, in the absence of a fast rail alternative, he will ensure the survival of regional air services.
10.37 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: May I say, Mr. Taylor, that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I hope that it will be one of many such occasions. I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this very timely debate.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members of my interest in the airline industry. My husband works for Delta Airlines. I personally have an interest in the form of personal equity plans with British Airways and the British Airports Authority. For 10 years, I was the Member of the European Parliament for North-East Essex and South Suffolk, and at one stage I had both Stansted and Southend airports in my constituency.
When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, left the Chamber, I thought that he might have received a timely telephone call from the BBC to rejoin the programme "Have I Got News For You?", which is his, and my, favourite programme. I gather that its presenter is undergoing personal difficulties. I am delighted, therefore, to see the right hon. Gentleman resume his seat here with us.
The number of direct flights from regional airports to London, and particularly to Heathrow, has been reduced. The Select Committee investigated that. The airlines are redeploying their resources to more lucrative international routes.

201WH
It would help if we could agree, at the outset, a definition of a regional airport. There is no statutory or legislative definition. The original definition was in the 1978 White Paper on airports policy, in which category B airports were described as
"regional airports which provide a network of short-haul scheduled international services, offering a significant range of charter services and domestic services including links with gateway airports."
Outside the south-east of England, Manchester was designated as a category A international gateway airport. Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford, however—the latter subject to the extension of its runway—were classified as category B regional airports. Local airports were described as including Teesside, but I do not know whether that particular definition has been revised. In a White Paper of June 1985, the Conservative Government used the term more loosely than in the original, suggesting that regional airports were merely those not in or near London.
In its inquiry into regional air services of 1997, the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee described regional airports as including UK airports other than the five London airports, including airports on Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. In the past 10 or 15 years, or even longer, considerable looseness has clearly applied to descriptions of regional airports.
Perhaps the most vexed question that the Minister must address—several right hon. and hon. Members have already commented on it this morning—is the allocation of slots. Will they be treated like milk quotas and recognised as an economic commodity? In fact, only a scheduling committee allocates them and no price attaches to the allocation in the first instance. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still pressing for slot auctions? On the Government's first attempt, I understand that slot auctions had little support among other member states. If they are to succeed and become the way forward, what support is there among other member states now?
When the deadline was initially set on a system for allocating slots in December 1992, I welcomed the allocation of priority to new entrants. It is regrettable that the deadline for review of January 1996 has slipped. Can the Minister predict—perhaps we could have a sweepstake—when that review will take place?
I support the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber in asking what criteria must be met before the Government will intervene to create a public service obligation. What specific resources will the Government allocate to the creation of a PSO and from which part of the budget would such an allocation be taken? I am unclear about that and it would help all of us if we knew.
The hon. Gentleman selected regional air services—from regional airports to Heathrow and Gatwick and other lesser London airports—as a priority. My alternative view is to boost services from regional airports to the UK and other European cities. The Library helped me by preparing a selection of such routes. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and Members with neighbouring constituencies have only ever enjoyed one international route from Inverness—to
202WH
Amsterdam—and only for a short time. Otherwise, its routes have been only to London airports. I come from Scotland, so I understand the importance of opening up the economy through London routes.
Let us consider Glasgow airport as another example. What is available is impressive, but there are few scheduled international routes. Otherwise, it has a healthy smattering of charter routes. In that regard, Manchester has led the way. In the 1980s, it was regarded mainly as a charter airport. Twenty years later, it is now regarded as a leading international airport. The hon. Gentleman could be mistaken in persisting entirely with all routes accessed to London, though I understand the prize placed on a London route for that particular corner of Scotland.
As the Member representing Vale of York and North Yorkshire, I would prefer direct routes from Leeds-Bradford, Manchester, Teesside or Newcastle—here and on other issues I part company with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) —to bypass London whenever possible. Alternatively, I would welcome international routes to other regional airports. Manchester, which would be closer for me than Finningley, now has two flights a day to US airports. I leave the Government with that thought.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber so eloquently argued this morning, Heathrow and Gatwick have unrivalled international access. However, with investment—most of it private rather than public—and improved public transport links to airports such as Manchester, direct routes from Scottish and northern English airports to European and transatlantic airports would emerge.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether, if limited funds are available, it would not be better to use them to develop new routes from existing airports than to create an entirely new airport.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Taylor. I echo a number of hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on having secured the debate. He set out the arguments with his usual clarity, charm and forcefulness. Tomorrow, it will be a year since we had a similar debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) clearly outlined the importance to their local economies of securing the future of flights in and out of those areas. I note that Plymouth was mentioned a number of times. I do not know why it is important to so many hon. Members, especially those from north of the border, but perhaps that will be revealed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber made some important points. I shall deal with those after I outline our general thinking on regional air services. We are making progress, partly thanks to the light shed on the issue by the many debates that we have had about it in the House. I read with interest the notes from a regional air services seminar held by my hon. Friend, which some of my officials attended.
Since the last discussion on the matter, the Government have issued the consultation documents on the future development of air transport in the United

203WH
Kingdom, in which hon. Members will have seen the high profile given to regional services—they are a key issue—and a number of policy options suggested for their protection. My officials are now exploring those and I should like to set them out as a basis for debate.
The first is to discuss with airlines ways in which they can involve the Government at an early stage when they are considering withdrawing from a regional route. That has been of particular concern to my hon. Friend in his area. That could mean developing an informal agreement with airlines whereby they have to give certain notice if they are considering discontinuing a regional service. Such a notice period would allow the Government and regional bodies to consider options and possibly to apply for the imposition of a public service obligation on a specific route.
I think that I gleaned from the words of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the Conservative party is in favour of the public service obligation. She is now shaking her head. Certainly the Conservatives did not favour it when they were in government. In fact, when I lobbied Ministers, it was specifically ruled out. The hon. Lady may want to give some clarification.
Miss McIntosh: I recall putting a number of questions in response to points raised by right hon. Members and hon. Members this morning. I asked whether the Government would make good the pledge that they made when they were in opposition. Will they push for a PSO, and what resources will they make available?
Mr. Jamieson: That was not an answer to the question whether the Conservative party is now in favour of PSOs. I am sure that those in the regions affected will have noted the hon. Lady's comments.
Secondly, we are examining ways in which regional bodies or stakeholders could provide additional financing for an airline if it should consider pulling out of a route. The hon. Lady raised that important matter, too. Thirdly, we are examining whether the United Kingdom could propose amendments to the relevant European regulations that would provide member states with a more appropriate means of protecting regional air services. United Kingdom officials have already proposed alternative wording to the Commission's proposal to amend the slot allocation regulation 95/93 so as to preserve the option to ring-fence slots and loosen the existing criteria.
My hon. Friend rightly said that Heathrow is full to overflowing and that Gatwick is under enormous pressure. At one stage he said something like, "We need new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick today." In a debate last week, a rather different view was expressed by hon. Members representing constituencies around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. That difference in views highlights one of the difficulties. If we are to allow the expansion of air travel for leisure and business purposes, we must tackle the important question of where those flights should depart from.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made some interesting points. He seemed to suggest that rail services should take over some routes. Perhaps it is his party's policy to accept that there is an extra demand
204WH
for flying and that it should be met—we might ask his leader about that. If the answer is that the demand should be met, we must deal with how it should be met.
I fully understand the anxiety of those who live in the south-east, especially around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. People living in all regions of the country should consider the development document for the south-east because it is key to what is happening in the country. but they should also consider the documents and consultation for their own area. They should consider what facilities there are in their areas to create sub-hubs that could provide services. Scotland is a good example of the difficulties of that situation. There is the question whether both the Glasgow and Edinburgh airports can survive as sub-hubs, but it is up to Scotland to decide what will serve the Scottish economy best.
There has been much discussion about PSOs. We differ from the Conservative party in that, when it was in government, it entirely ruled out PSOs, whereas we have said that we shall use them when the circumstances are appropriate. However, additional information can be helpful, and my view on the matter has changed somewhat. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) alluded to views that we held previously. I still hold the views that I held before, but one must consider what might happen in the event of a PSO.
A PSO would not be route specific or designed for a particular airport. It would be specific to London, which means that it could apply to any London airport—possibly, including Luton. That may not be an option wanted in Inverness, or in Plymouth or Newquay. The PSO is intended to create exemption from state-aid regulations and it is not designed for profitable routes; it is designed for loss-making routes on which operators have threatened to pull out.
I am not aware of any threat at present to the routes that have been mentioned today. One limitation is that if a PSO were imposed, we would need to find an airline to fly the route and it would need to obtain slots at the appropriate airport, so that the route could be flown. That presents considerable difficulties. Merely imposing a PSO does not secure particular slots into particular airports at particular times. It is not especially helpful to an area if an airline is given a slot at 4 am instead of 8 am. That does not guarantee the survival of the service, although it may guarantee a commitment, which does not currently exist, to securing the service through the use of public funds.
Mr. Kennedy: The Minister mentions some cautionary notes about the implications of imposing a PSO but, at the same time, he prefaces his remarks by saying that he still holds to the views on a PSO that he held in opposition. There seems to be a contradiction there—or is he obeying orders?
Mr. Jamieson: Not at all. I am saying that where a route is threatened because an airline is about to pull out, where there is no alternative public transport into an area and where it is vital for inward investment and economic development, we would consider imposing a PSO. We carefully considered the Scottish Executive's request regarding Inverness and we are still discussing the matter with them. The fact that it has taken so long

205WH
shows the merit of our discussions. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would have been right to criticise us if we had made the decision rapidly without proper consideration, but we are still in correspondence with the Scottish Executive on the matter.
Angus Robertson: The Minister will appreciate that many people in the north of Scotland have waited a long time to hear the Government's decision on a PSO application. Instead of saying "soon", will the Minister tell us when we can expect an announcement on a PSO for the Inverness-Gatwick route?
Mr. Jamieson: I can only repeat what I have said before. I hope that there will be a decision in good time, but discussions are still taking place. I have set out the limitations to the PSO and the hon. Gentleman may want to consider whether that obligation would provide what he wants for the Inverness-Gatwick service. My discussions with people in the south-west have caused them to reflect further on their requests regarding a PSO, once they have realised that it will not provide all that they want. It is easy for the hon. Member for Moray, who is in opposition and has no prospect of being in government, to make bald statements about what should happen, but I have to consider the issue in a hard, realistic way and ask whether a PSO would genuinely benefit the people in a certain area. Unlike the hon. Gentleman's decisions, any decisions that we make will have an effect on an area.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No. I want to cover some more points. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned Finningley. The consultation documents on the north of England and other regions set out options and requested responses and possible solutions. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the petition, which, I hope, will form a valuable part of the consultation.
The hon. Member for Moray mentioned the difference between the highlands and islands prediction and our prediction. I think that the two were formed from different bases, using different information. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to write to him on that, I shall be happy to do so as an explanation is needed.
I do not want to go into detail on Biggin Hill, so I would like to jot a line to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) about it.
I thought that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was proposing that we build a railway line from Skye to London. Frankly, he did not say anything to illuminate our debate on regional air services or any other subject.
I shall certainly write to hon. Members about the many questions that I have not covered.

Overstretch (Armed Forces)
11 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am pleased to open the debate on overstretch in the armed forces, and particularly pleased that I am not doing so on the first day of a firemen's strike, or to be more accurate the first day of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. It seems strange that the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Gilchrist have apparently reached some understanding or agreement in advance of the Bain report, and we want to see what it is. For the main part, however, we must be thankful that our armed forces have not had to deploy this morning.
I met my chief fire officer in Devon, Paul Young, and his senior colleagues on Friday. Although we are in a better position than some areas—Devon has 55 fire stations, of which 46 are retained—he was extremely concerned that the whole county had an allocation of only 12 Green Goddesses. Devon is the third-largest non-metropolitan county, and covers approximately 2,500 sq miles. That includes the 600 sq miles of Dartmoor national park, 200 miles of coastline, 30 miles of motorway and several main arterial routes, such as the A380 to Torbay and the A38 expressway to Plymouth and Cornwall. No doubt during their summer holidays hon. Members have grown to know and love such routes.
Devon has a resident population of 1,082,000, which rises considerably with the influx of tourists and holidaymakers. The Devon fire and rescue service needs to be equipped to deal not only with all categories of risk, from the "A" risk of Devonport dockyard, to the large areas of sparsely populated land categorised as "remote rural". The 12 Green Goddesses, manned predominantly by the Royal Marines and Royal Navy, and trained by the Defence Fire Service, would be located in Plymouth, Torbay, Exeter, Exmouth, Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. Those who know Devon well will realise how thinly spread that cover would be.
The Minister will be aware that up to 13,000 service men and women have been trained to respond to 999 calls, drive Green Goddesses and use specialist equipment. The 827 Green Goddess crews, 331 special breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 equipment support teams, in addition to 6,500 personnel from all three services who will be engaged in administrative, security and command and control duties, mean that 20,000 service men and women are involved in some way.
In a poll conducted by YouGov and published in The Sunday Times last weekend, 47 per cent. of those questioned said that they had "not very much confidence" in the Army being able to provide effective emergency cover. When asked whether the Army should
"be instructed to cross Fire Brigades Union picket lines to gain access to modern fire-fighting equipment",
74 per cent. responded that they should.
That is no criticism of our armed forces. Of course they would carry out their duties professionally if called on to do so. However, it reflects a general concern that yet again we are asking too much of them. Are we certain that their equipment is good enough to do the job? I doubt it. Even when I joined the Army in 1979,

207WH
Green Goddesses appeared antediluvian, and one half-expected to see Corporal Jones behind the wheel. That was more than 20 years ago. They have no radios, lighting gear, foam-making kit or seat belts. Yet again we are asking our armed forces to do a job and use equipment that no professional, unionised organisation would agree to.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend think why, in the long time that has passed since Green Goddesses were used during the last firemen's strike, the armed forces have not been allowed to train on other, more modern equipment, as it has gone out of service? Presumably that equipment has been scrapped while the Green Goddesses have been left for the Army to use in such an emergency.
Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can only imagine that the Green Goddesses are being saved as a job lot for sale to the motor museum at Beaulieu. I go further than my hon. Friend in believing that the armed forces should have access to the most up-to-date equipment, whomever it belongs to and wherever it is located.
Perhaps all that I have been discussing is hypothetical—let us hope that that remains so. Still, perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he believes that, in the event of a strike, the armed services should have proper access to all the most up-to-date and safest equipment.
What pressure is being put on the services by what is happening at present? The Minister of State for Defence has already said that nearly 1,000 personnel who recently returned from the Balkans have had some or all of their post-operational leave delayed, although he went on to say that they, and any additional relevant troops, would have their leave as soon as possible. However, the knock-on effects of the threatened action do not stop there. In a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister admitted that the use of RAF personnel would reduce flying time and delay repairs to aircraft. No Navy ships had been recalled from sea operations, but activities had been changed to allow for training on board.
It is no wonder that there is concern at the highest level in the armed forces that overstretch is the main problem. It is also understandable that there is worry at the prospect of British forces being committed to a war against Iraq at the same time that there is industrial action at home.
I want to talk about recruitment, training and retention. The Government's strategic defence review contains plenty of acknowledgement that overstretch is a problem. Paragraph 76 states:
"We need to solve the problems of undermanning and additional overstretch which comes from over-commitment."
Lord Gilbert, the then Minister of State with responsibility for defence procurement, said on 24 February 1999:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to take on more commitments than we can handle."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 February 1999; Vol. 597, c.1229.]
However, yet again the rhetoric does not match the reality: there are 1,000 fewer service men and women this year than last year and 6,000 fewer people in the
208WH
armed forces than in 1997; the Army as a whole increased its strength from its 2001 total and has 1,300 more personnel than it did in1997, but its trained strength is 1,300 below what it was in 1997. The figure has remained roughly static since 1998, despite Labour's pledge to enlarge the Army by 3,300 men. The Territorial Army is 2,000 men short of its post-strategic defence review strength of 41,200.
More service men left the forces than joined them last year. Ten per cent. of the Army's rank and file left the service last year. So this morning let us deal with fact rather than aspiration. What are the Government doing, or planning to do? In 2000–01, the armed forces met 90 per cent. of their recruitment target, compared with 96 per cent. in the preceding year. The combined effect of not meeting those targets and of having more people leaving than joining is self-evident. However, while lack of manpower is one thing, lack of proper training is another. In the past 24 months, 84 exercises have been cancelled, often because those involved were already committed to other operations. Five were cancelled because of lack of funding and 36 were cancelled because of operational commitments. The Defence Secretary actually wanted to cancel Britain's biggest post-cold war exercise—Saif Sareea 2—to save £93 million. but was overruled by the Prime Minister, on the advice of military chiefs. One can only hope that the stories that he then attempted to get Sultan Qaboos of Oman to pick up the bill are erroneous.
Retention must be the key. It must make sense to concentrate on those who are already trained, rather than to start from scratch. The problem is the competitive job market. Evidence of that is the fact that we are losing highly qualified pilots from the RAF to commercial airlines. The Government's response must be to look after service men and women much better. The pressures on service families caused by overstretch are leading to many people leaving the services altogether.
A comparison with the situation six years ago underlines the challenge that the forces now face. In 1995, the Army had 33,178 personnel deployed abroad. In 2001. the figure stood only slightly lower at 30,800, despite the repatriation of units from Germany and an Army that was reduced in size.
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of conflict with Iraq. If that happens, how does he suppose that we could stay as a peacekeeping force—as we would presumably have to—given the problems of overstretch elsewhere that the British Army faces day in, day out, and on which I totally concur with him?
Mr. Swire: Indeed, that is a worry shared by some very senior generals, admirals and air marshals. The question does not solely concern Iraq—it is a question of other commitments that might increase over the coming months, in Northern Ireland and nearer too.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I draw the hon. Gentleman back to his point about pilots and how to retain them in the RAF. That is not a new issue—it has been around for some time. Can he explain how he would retain those pilots? For pilots, the issue is not only about money. They want an all-round package. I have

209WH
yet to hear anyone come up with a satisfactory alternative to the private sector, which offers nearly 50 per cent. more than they now receive.
Mr. Swire: Indeed. I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's point. There must be a balance between pilots entering into a contract with the RAF and the service that they render. It is up to the RAF and the Ministry of Defence to work out ways of making the overall package, as the hon. Gentleman described it, as competitive as a commercial package. That might not be achieved in financial terms, but in overall career development terms. Those are questions for the Minister.
I understand that the Army had an agreed level for tour intervals of 24 months, but the Defence Select Committee was told in 2000 that because of current commitments, there were no sections of the Army in fact getting 24-month intervals. Some were badly affected by operational deployments during peak commitments in Kosovo in 1999; for example, the Royal Engineers' and the Royal Signallers' tour intervals were only seven months and six months respectively. That puts huge pressure on service families, as does the condition in which they are forced to live.
Following the sale of married quarters by the Ministry of Defence to Annington Homes in 1996, the last Conservative Government made a commitment to service families that their quarters would be upgraded to grade one condition by the autumn of 2003. Some £470 million, out of the £1.6 billion proceeds of the sale, were allocated for that purpose. Yet pressure on the defence budget has forced the Ministry of Defence to delay the upgrade programme by two years, until 2005. In the meantime, the Army Families Federation has reported that some soldiers have been driven to leave the services by intolerable living conditions, including leaking roofs, damp walls and faulty heating.
I do not wish to paint an entirely bleak picture. Whatever our country's shortcomings, it is still blessed with the most professional and dedicated fighting force in the world. However, we should not take our service men and women for granted. Not for them the luxury of a work to rule; they will always do what they are called upon to do. It was the Secretary of State himself who promised in June 1997 that the problem of overstretch would be seriously addressed. As the situation in Northern Ireland becomes more uncertain following the suspension of Stormont, as the international situation becomes more dangerous, and as the threat of the firemen's strike still hangs over us, I ask Ministers to acknowledge that they have failed to do so and to let us know, as a matter of priority, what action they intend to take.
11.15 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on raising this important subject and on the powerful way in which he addressed it. I want to concentrate my remarks on our ground forces.
The figures that my hon. Friend presented speak for themselves. The trained manpower of the Regular Army has shrunk since the Government took office. We have
210WH
fewer trained soldiers today than at any time since the 19th century. The manpower of the Territorial Army has fallen by more than a quarter. We have fewer volunteer reserves today than at any time since the 16th century—and perhaps even before then. Today, we have the largest proportion of soldiers medically unfit for military service since modern medical record-taking began.
It is worth stepping back from this sorry sight for a moment to remind ourselves what service in uniform is about. Although I am concerned today principally with the Army, joining any of our armed forces is not a job: it is a calling. As the possibility of war in Iraq gets closer, it is worth remembering that we ask things of our service men and women that we do not ask of people in other walks of life. On those occasions when they are called upon to use their skills, we ask them to put their lives on the line. What we ask of them in peacetime and in conflicts of low intensity, put strains on their family life that, to say the least, are unusual in a civilian context.
It is worth remembering that the most important thing in the armed forces is not the equipment, nor even their level of professional training. Scipio said it all in his famous address to the Roman militia from his field hospital, after being wounded at the battle of Canae. Before the gates of Rome, when Hannibal's army, the best army by far, was fresh from its victories at Lake Trasmene and Canae, Scipio inspired the men, most of whom had never seen action, with the following message:
"Of all the factors which make for victory, the spirit of the warrior is the greatest."
Nurturing that spirit must be a two-way process. With that in mind, I find a letter from the British Legion particularly horrifying. The Minister will recently have received a letter from me on the subject, although I do not ask him to comment on that case. A letter that I sent to the British Legion elicited this comment:
"I am afraid that the Legion's experience is that across the board, the medical support available to the armed forces is definitely not what is was and we are regularly consulted by members of all three Services who are being discharged with existing medical conditions that are treatable but whom the MOD medical services discharge and refer on to the NHS for treatment. This situation is particularly worrying for those who are discharged knowing that they require further surgery but are placed on a waiting list by the NHS and they are also worried that even if they find employment, it is a very understanding employer indeed who will permit them time off for surgery and perhaps months of rehabilitation … it is not unusual for people to be discharged within weeks of surgery, when the MOD must know that the individual faces a period unable to work and perhaps, unable to support their family."
The letter continues:
"discharge with a medical condition is a real problem for trainees … Often injuries occur only days into their initial training but because they are untrained … the MOD has no 'realisable' investment in them, they are discharged … Many of them would have resigned and sacrificed jobs or college places only weeks earlier in order to enlist but they quickly find themselves at home with no job, an injury of varying severity and few prospects."
That reflects to a large extent the overstretch in our medical services.
A wider measure of the way in which overstretch is a creeping cancer in our forces was elicited by a question from Lord Vivian. His question related only to the Army, but I am sure that the picture would be the same

211WH
in the other two services. Since 1997, the divorce rate among military personnel has risen from 2.16 per cent. to 3.12 per cent. That is significant increase.
The truth is that we face a desperate overstretch, and my local unit, the Royal Irish Regiment, is a case in point. During the past three years. it has had three major deployments outside mainland Britain: to Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone. In this country, the national focus for professional training, and the focus that we should all expect for members of 5th Airborne Brigade, is the possibility—some say probability—of a major operation in Iraq. In fact, 400 of its number are away, training as firemen. That is creating a hole in their training, even if no Green Goddesses are actually called out. At the same time, the unit is being called on to provide substantial training teams for other units going to Northern Ireland. The questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon about the impact on professional training seem very apt in that context.
Mr. Hancock: I am slightly confused as to where the hon. Gentleman's argument is taking us. I thought that it was part of the role of regiments to help other units in the Army to familiarise themselves with what to expect in Northern Ireland. That is not new; it has been going on since 1970.
Mr. Brazier: Indeed. I support that role. It is an important one for the Army. Obviously, there must be training teams for one unit when another unit is training. My point is that if a regiment has come back from three different deployments, all of a low intensity, and it desperately needs to prepare for high-intensity war—a subject on which there would inevitably be a degree of rustiness—to have most of its soldiers away on firefighting training, and others away training another unit for another low-intensity operation, would not leave much scope for exercising for its main role. I am afraid that is an inevitable effect of overstretch.
I cannot help contrasting our situation with that of America. We are talking the same tough language as the Americans. The Prime Minister, with the support of the Conservative party, is shoulder to shoulder with President Bush. The President and the United States Congress have voted an extra $40 billion for defence. I thought that our shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), was right to say that we should fund the essential commitments of the armed forces.
It is worth remembering the other side of the equation. I do not accept that all the matters that the armed forces are involved in at the moment are actually necessary. When he was shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) pointed to the fact that the equivalent of a whole battalion's worth of expensive civilians are involved mostly in budgeting or monitoring the various forms of legislation that have resulted from the European convention on human rights. We have already made a commitment to review that in the case of the military.
Bullying is featuring prominently in the media. It is a particularly important issue at a time of overstretch, when we are considering recruitment and retention. There is not time for me to do justice to the subject, but
212WH
I will make one observation: the best way to deal with bullying in a military unit, or, indeed, in a school, is by strong leadership. Strong leadership involves officers and senior non-commissioned officers getting to know the soldiers who are under them, rather than spending long hours burning the midnight oil filling in forms.
To return to the school analogy, it is no wonder the headmaster of Downside has just resigned. He pointed out that the school in his area that is most notorious for bullying is also the one that has the best reputation for getting all its forms filled in and having the most detailed anti-bullying policy. The truth is that we need less paperwork in the armed forces and fewer people involved in that paperwork. That is a whole activity area where resources could be saved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the many occasions on which the Defence Committee criticised us for not keeping enough records of what armed forces personnel were up to. That is quite the reverse of what he is stating.
Mr. Brazier: The Defence Committee, of which I was a member for four years, commented repeatedly—at one point it was almost an annual comment—on the extent to which the MOD was spending large sums of money tracing very small financial transactions. One example was the cost of tracing the movement of military shirts. It was shown that it cost four or five times as much as the price of the shirts to discover what had happened to them. There has to be an 80:20 rule. As a person who has a background in management consultancy and corporate finance, I think that we are spending too much money on monitoring minutiae and as a result we are losing sight of the big picture.
There are others waiting to speak, so I shall return to the main thread of my argument. I want to make two final points. Our armed forces are manifestly too small for the tasks that they are set. It is essential that some of the deficiencies to which I have pointed in the Regular Army—the under-recruiting, the lack of medical fitness—are put right, but we are going to need a larger reserve to expand, whether or not people like it.
There is something bizarre about the MOD thinking that this reserve should be used only in logistic areas. If the worst comes to the worst, personnel for logistic areas can always be found from civilian life and can be trained very quickly. It is weird to claim that it is appropriate to use special forces from the Territorial Army in formed units, although we never discuss their detailed deployments; that it is appropriate to use Royal Marine reservists, commando infantry, in up to company strength, as they have been used; and that it is appropriate for 131 Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers to send formed troops around the world; while claiming that it is inappropriate to use ordinary infantry, engineers and yeomanry, the three areas that were most heavily cut in the Government's defence review, in formed units.
When we took the shameful decision to withdraw fighter cover from London, nobody asked how it was that every single air defence unit responsible for continental air defence in America comes from the Air Guard, who are volunteer reservists. Nobody even considered an option for that.

213WH
I stepped down from the last Conservative Government because I was unhappy about defence cuts. I was one of a small group of people who protested for two or three years, with limited effect, against what was going on. I was concerned that we did not sufficiently appreciate the dangers of the world as it was five or six years ago, and had failed to realise that the forces that we were providing were inadequate to meet them. Since then, no one would deny that the terrorist threat has grown enormously. The challenges that we require our armed forces to face have greatly increased, and yet the forces are still shrinking.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon on securing this vital debate. As the Government take us towards the brink on Iraq, and as the next terrorist strike may be on this building, I urge them to think and to ask themselves whether they have got the balance right
11.30 am
Mr. Eric Joyce: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate. I will comment first on his speech, and then on the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
On troops and firefighting, I understand that the Green Goddesses, and the training that the troops receive, are designed for what, in the parlance, is called "defensive firefighting". That means that they get to the location, douse it with water, get people out of the building if they possibly can, and then try to minimise the damage. In essence, they can stand outside, but do not go inside the building.
Trained firefighters with proper equipment, on the other hand, go inside the building and try to minimise damage. That is a much more sophisticated business, which is why they require all sorts of additional equipment, including air equipment. That is not to say that soldiers could not be trained to serve that function, but there would be several implications if they were. Should the need come to pass—I hope it will not—the troops' primary role will be to fight fires defensively. We should stress the importance of human life and accept the fact that more property may be damaged leading to more insurance costs in due course.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggests training troops to use complex equipment. I do not deny that they could be trained—we certainly have troops of sufficient quality—but they would need to be trained for far longer. To have the same number of troops firefighting would mean that more troops would need to be in training for longer. That would contribute to overstretch, which is the subject of the debate. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that when he suggests having longer training time so that troops can use more complicated vehicles and equipment, while at the same time he laments the existing overstretch.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making a gallant attempt to shield the Government from the fact that if a firemen's strike occurs, the troops will have to go forth with inadequate equipment. Surely, a balance can be struck between not overburdening the armed
214WH
forces with such a role. and at the same time updating, at least steadily, the equipment that is held in reserve for them when they have to discharge that function of support for the civil power, which surely is a normal function for armed forces in this country?
Mr. Joyce: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I do not know the technical answer, although the Minister may be able to tell us at the end of the debate. I suspect that it has something to do with how regularly equipment is updated. The training programme is designed around training troops in an emergency to use Green Goddesses and standard equipment. However, fire engines are regularly updated every couple of years, so it would be much more complicated to organise a training programme that fitted any circumstance.
Patrick Mercer: Speaking as someone who had the dubious honour of being involved in the 1977 fire strike, I can tell hon. Members that the Green Goddesses are wholly inadequate. They have no proper pumping equipment or radios for communicating with each other. I respect the point being made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), but he is stretching it.
Mr. Joyce: Of course I recognise the hon. Gentleman's experience, but the outcome of the 1977 strike, and the effect of the troops using Green Goddesses, was a minimal increase in loss of human life and a significant increase in damage to buildings. Insurance claims doubled. That reflects the function of the Government's present position, which is to prioritise human life and to accept that there will be an increase in insurance claims. The outcome of the troops' efforts was entirely sound and consistent with Government policy then and now.
Mr. Drew: Can we get it clear that the problem is not firefighting, but the rescue element? Firefighters provide a fire and rescue service. With the best will in the world, troops using Green Goddesses will not able to cope with that. It is a much more complicated issue than simply telling the troops to go in and fight fires. It is not just about fires, but about how people are rescued in all sorts of other ways.
Mr. Joyce: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but should like to move on. The hon. Member for East Devon referred to targets. I counsel him against using figures that are couched as targets. Targets are simply what the Army projects as feasible, given its recruitment constraints. A target is different from a requirement. If the Army says that it hit 96 per cent. of its target two years ago, and only 90 per cent. of its target this year, that does not mean that it recruited fewer people. It does not mean anything in terms of its requirements. The reference to targets is not just a semantic device, but it means something different in the way that the hon. Gentleman uses it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to housing. I recall that when the sale of Ministry of Defence housing to Annington went through, a substantial chunk—about £100 million of the £1.1 billion sale price—was hypothetically reserved for the upgrading of military accommodation or for additional expenditure at a rate

215WH
of about £13 million or £14 million a year. The then Opposition Defence team challenged the Secretary of State on whether he would guarantee that the level of expenditure already committed to upgrades and to maintenance would be maintained. They wanted to be sure that the Conservative Government would not simply reduce the maintenance budget to add in that extra chunk. Time and again the then Secretary of State refused to give a commitment to increasing expenditure a nd upgrading housing. That is a matter of record. I am sure that we could find the appropriate references in Hansard.
Mr. Brazier: It is no secret that I led the rebellion opposing the sale of married quarters, so I have no vested interest in defending the Conservative Government's record in that area. The only positive thing to come out of that whole sorry episode was that there was a clear-cut, ring-fenced commitment to allocate the extra money for housing which my hon. Friend outlined.
Mr. Joyce: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The clear-cut ring-fencing took place. The Government said, "Here is a receipt for £1.1 billion. We will commit a chunk of that to spend on housing." However, they refused to commit the current level of expenditure on maintenance. In other words, they could scoop money out of the maintenance budget and add it to the money committed to housing, but no extra money would be spent on housing. The Secretary of State was repeatedly challenged on that fundamental point. The hon. Gentleman will remember that.
Mr. Hancock: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to fall into the trap that has been set for him by suggesting that that ring-fencing took place. It manifestly did not. If one looks closely at what the Conservative Government were saying at that time, it is clear that they said nothing about protecting that money. It certainly did not happen.
Mr. Joyce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I defer to his greater expertise and memory of that.
Dr. Moonie: Just in case I forget to mention this when I reply to the debate, may I point out that although £100 million is a large sum, it is nowhere near enough to do up all our accommodation to the standard that we would like?
Mr. Joyce: Of course, and I thank my hon. Friend for that.
My final point is that recruitment and retention has as much to do with economic policy as it has with defence policy. It is in the wider domain of employment and economics and the other opportunities that people have. It is an old sore but it is a fact, nonetheless, that during periods of high employment when there are other opportunities it is much harder to get people to join the armed services. It is not, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, simply a function of pay; all sorts of other things go into a person's decision whether to join the armed services. The more opportunities there are, the harder it is to get numbers into all three services.
216WH
Hon. Members may call for radical increases in recruiting—notwithstanding what I have just said, recruitment is affected by the lever of pay to a certain degree— but that would require a substantial increase in defence expenditure. The services have had their current problem for at least 10 years, although there were previous problems, but it can be solved from a financial point of view only if we are prepared to spend an enormous amount of money on pay and conditions, for example. However, just as the Opposition never say which commitments they would reduce because the armed services are overstretched, they never commit themselves to an enormous increase in defence expenditure. I would welcome a statement from any Opposition Member that there would be a gigantic increase under a Conservative Government.
11.41 am
Patrick Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I am full of admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for introducing the debate.
I want to respond to one or two points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). Everything he said makes a great deal of sense until one looks at the patchy way of recruiting and at certain regiments in the British Army that are constantly over-recruited. They use wholly different methods from those laid down by the usual Army guidelines and manage, even in the areas of sparse population and full employment from which they recruit, to be over strength to the tune of about a company. Those achievements are remarkable and I will not bang on about them any more than usual as the poor Minister has heard quite enough of me on that matter. However, it drives a coach and horses through the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall return to it in a moment.
It might be useful to illustrate exactly what overstretch means at unit level. The word is bandied around an awful amount and I wonder whether people really understand what it means. It is not so much the line infantry or the Royal Artillery or the Royal Armoured Corps, but units like the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Royal Engineers and even the Royal Corps of Signals whose soldiers are not protected by a regimental cap badge or a battalion but whose expertise is paramount. Those soldiers are constantly being called upon for operations in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, for example; you name it, they are there.
The so-called "enablers" is a ghastly modern Army term to which I could never subscribe, but none the less the enablers are under huge pressure. It is those people, often doing the least glamorous and well-rewarded jobs, who suffer, not because they are bad soldiers or because they are unwilling, but because generally technicians have stayed in the Army longer than combat soldiers and have probably married and had more children than their equivalents in the Royal Armoured Corps or the infantry. They are under appalling pressure at home; their wives, rightly, resent not seeing their husbands and their children resent not seeing their dads, who are never available for the school run in the morning or to take them out to the cinema. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned divorce, a matter to which I shall return. Divorce in the British Army is running at an all-time high. It is an evil that erodes

217WH
combat effectiveness, morale and not just retention, but recruitment. If a unit returns its men to a small town such as Newark at the weekend or during leave periods, the word soon gets round that the Army. Navy or Air Force may be attractive on the surface, but conditions of service are highly unattractive. Therefore recruitment can be affected just as much as retention.
I ask the Minister to address a specific point: many families lose deposits that they have paid for holidays as a result of operational commitments coming up at short notice. I do not know the answer to that, but I shall illustrate the point. A company of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers went to Belize for six weeks' jungle training but, because of other commitments, was brought back after 10 days. It was brought back by scheduled flight, not trooping flight. The expense to the Government and the nation of that redeployment was considerable, but what was the personal impact on the soldiers? How many of their families lost holidays? What compensation was paid? I know from personal experience that that is a grave source of discontent.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think that my hon. Friend was away last week when I wrote to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the Welsh Guards. After six months' absence from their families in Bosnia, they were told a week before they were due to return to the United Kingdom that all post-operational leave had been cancelled. I am told that up to 40 families lost deposits for their holidays, and the Ministry of Defence will not reimburse them. That sort of behaviour is seriously testing the loyalty of our armed forces, on which we rely.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that intervention.
Recruiting Group, which is part of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, must be congratulated on its recent level of recruitment success. That has been a distinct change and is a wonderful achievement. Perhaps the recent change of leadership on the recruiting side has had an effect. In any case, the Minister will know what I am going to ask next: why are there no bed spaces for those extra recruits in the training establishments? Why, with the so-called bow wave, are we unable to cope with these young men and women who wish to serve their nation?
I have made the point before, albeit only about infantry recruits. We now have the problem right across the services that failure is being snatched from the jaws of success. That strikes me as the most cack-handed piece of planning. I hope that the Minister will forgive my using that phrase, but we are eroding the will of those young men and women to serve their nation.
The treatment of regular Army reservists must also be considered. Again, these men and women are without the protection of a regular unit or even a Territorial unit. I beg the Minister to consider those regular Army reservists who are constantly called back for operational duty, yet who receive no promotion. I beg him to consider the Golden Jubilee medal for these men and women who serve the nation so well. These soldiers are plugging the gaps in the regular Army and are doing a damn fine job. I ask the Minister to consider rewarding
218WH
them properly and treating them in a wholly equable fashion. They help to relieve overstretch. They are not part of the mainstream organisation, but their treatment must be examined in more detail.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the Fijian soldiers serving in the Army. More than a company of the first regiment of the Royal Scots now comes from Fiji. I shall let the Minister explain the logic of that. How comfortable these gentlemen are in tartan trews and with "white feet", I do not know, but there we are. I ask the Minister to consider the fact that when they return from Bosnia to Dreghorn barracks, they have huge difficulty in travelling on the passports that they have. Their only way of getting out of the British Isles in order to enjoy their well-earned leave is to go through the difficult process of applying for visas. That applies whether they are abroad on operations or back in this country. Could not some waiver, or perhaps a temporary passport, be found? I do not have a carefully thought through solution, but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to that matter.
Could we also reflect on expanding the utility of the Gurkhas? We have already lost one Gurkha company, we shall lose another next year and another the year after that. I understand the tripartite agreement between ourselves, India and Nepal, but it could be made more flexible. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's views.
I expect no answer—it will become clear why not—on my final point. This week our special forces are to receive recognition from Her Majesty the Queen for their enormous gallantry in Afghanistan. I want to put on record my undying admiration for these men, one of whom is to be rewarded by Her Majesty for despatching the Queen's enemies with a knife. That is wonderful. I regret the circumstances in which it occurred, but such gallantry should be recognised.
These gentlemen, however, face the same level of overstretch as the rest of the Army. For obvious reasons, that does not appear in official reports and documents. If we visited Bulmers in Hereford—the people who make the cider—we would find that 80 per cent. of the work force were female. Of those 80 per cent., a huge number are Special Air Services divorcees. The price that these men pay for their gallantry and dedication is reflected in their home lives. It is an old sore and an old adage, but unless things are right at home, the soldier is unlikely to fight effectively.
I am grateful for the Minister's attention and I ask him to pay close and detailed attention to the points that I have raised.
11.51 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: May I also congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing this important debate? I congratulate Members who have participated in it this morning, though many of the points raised by Conservative Members require a proper response. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) excuse bullying by claiming that it was the result of the amount of paperwork forced on senior NCOs and others. That might be an excuse for him, but—
Mr. Brazier: I certainly did not excuse bullying, which is always inexcusable. Many soldiers at different levels

219WH
have told me that whereas in the old days, senior NCOs and some officers had time to spend with soldiers training under them so that they could discover what was going on off duty, they are now increasingly so caught up in paperwork that that vital steam valve no longer operates, increasing the scope for bullying.
Mr. Hancock: That may be the hon. Gentleman's point of view. However, speaking as a member of the Defence Committee and someone who has met members of our armed forces throughout the world, whether on deployment or on station, that view has never been put to me. Nor has it been put to members of the Defence Committee in the four and a half years of my service on it. Bullying in the armed forces takes place for other reasons. I was pleased to hear a brigadier on this morning's "Today" programme make it clear how seriously the armed forces were dealing with bullying. One hopes that that is true, but it clearly remains a significant problem for some young recruits, and females in the forces often suffer from sexual abuse in one form or another.
The hon. Member for East Devon referred to the fire service. We should all be grateful that we are not today in the first stages of that dispute. One hopes for a solution that will not require the use of the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made an important distinction between firefighting and the fire and rescue service. Anyone who has spent time with the fire service knows all too well how much training and conditioning goes into the process of encouraging people to enter a building at great danger to themselves to rescue others. That calls for real skill and an effective means of training has developed over the years. I was amazed to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest at Prime Minister's questions last week that such training could be accomplished in just a few days. It is ludicrous to believe that people can be trained to tackle a blaze and rescue others from inside a building in just a few weeks. That beggars belief. Training people to hold a hose and fight a fire from outside a burning building is not the same as producing dedicated rescuers capable of saving others in intensely dangerous circumstances.
The use of firefighting equipment is another issue. Training someone to use the most up-to-date fire equipment—I have taken advice from the fire service in Hampshire, which I was once, as leader of the county council, proud to lead—takes a long time. Training soldiers properly to use the latest equipment would take a minimum of six to eight weeks. That would be required to make someone capable of taking the vehicle from the station to a fire and to set about the task of fighting it—emphatically not to rescue people.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I fear that his memory is at fault and that he is gilding the lily on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. I recall that he had been advised by the Retained Firefighters Union that troops already familiar with the Green Goddesses could train up in a fairly limited time to use more modern
220WH
equipment. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend said anything about them desperately plunging into buildings, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hancock: I listened carefully and gained the impression that that was effectively what the Leader of the Opposition said.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my fellow Hampshire Member for giving way. I also discussed the matter with the Hampshire fire rescue people, who told me that troops could be trained up to a competent level within a couple of weeks. That entirely mirrors the advice given by retained firefighters to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are clearly talking not about the standards of a professional firefighter, but the ability competently to man modern equipment, which would otherwise lie idle.
Mr. Hancock: The other issue is how to accomplish the training. It would mean taking out hundreds of fire appliances currently in use—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the same point—which would not be easy to achieve.
I was also surprised to hear Members speak so critically of the Green Goddesses. The last fire dispute took place 25 years ago in 1977. One wonders what happened in the 17 years of the 20 between 1977 and 1997 when the Conservatives were in control? I do not recall any enthusiastic rush on their part to re-vamp or replace the Green Goddesses, or to train service personnel to a higher competence.
Dr. Moonie: The idea that we are sending people out to deal with fires on ramshackle vehicles that do not work is quite wrong. The Green Goddess is old and can be unreliable, but it remains an effective instrument for doing what it is supposed to do—acting as a civil defence last line of equipment.
Mr. Hancock: I accept the Minister's point. None of us should knock efforts to train our troops properly to serve the communities where they are based, but one hopes that we shall not need to use them.
I want to respond to the Minister's riposte about paperwork. The Ministry of Defence owes it to our armed forces to ensure that, in particular, proper medical records are kept. It faces many criticisms in that respect. There have been suggestions that there is inadequate medical evidence to support claims of Gulf war syndrome; there is no proof as to what soldiers and others were given at the time. If proper records had been kept during the Gulf war, many service men and their families would be in a better position to fight their corner. We can only regret that that was not done and I hope that the lesson has been learned.
The armed forces suffer a vicious circle. Failure to address the problems of recruitment and retention results in unsustainable levels of service for those who remain and a consequential drop in morale, as those of us who represent constituencies with a service interest know only too well. The circle must be broken, but I am unclear as to how. No solutions are readily available to the MOD—it has attempted to find them, but has not been successful, and none of us has found any quick fixes for retention.

221WH
On 1 July, the Royal Navy was under strength by 1,420, the RAF by 770 and the Army by 5,440. We have two options. We can either up the ante and produce a package of pay and conditions that will attract, recruit and retain or we must seriously consider reducing the deployment capability of our nation. In 1997 we had 47,000 troops deployed overseas; today we have 44,500—a small reduction—but there is a significantly smaller pool from which to draw. There are some 23,000 reserves compared with a wanted strength of close to 40,000—we are nearly 50 per cent. short. We should ask why that is the case. I do not believe that there are soft answers; these are serious issues and, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) said, we are competing in a changed world with a new economic climate. In many instances, the competitive opportunities for many of the men and women whom we would like to recruit to the armed forces far outweigh what we can offer. I do not know how it is possible to retain 32-year-old pilots—they can earn 50 per cent. more and achieve a substantially higher pension by leaving the RAF while they still have 20 years' flying for a private airline in front of them. What sort of package must we come up with to make staying in the Royal Air Force until his mid-forties an attractive proposition for a pilot?
Patrick Mercer rose—
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that I want to call the official Opposition spokesman at 12.4 pm.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful, Mr. Taylor, for your allowing me to intervene. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said is correct, yet there are regiments and units that are constantly over strength and have no difficulty in recruiting and retaining. How does he explain that?
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman did not explain it to us. I was going to listen with great interest to the comments that he promised, but did not deliver. I was eager to hear what he had to say and I regret that he did not come back to that point. Perhaps on another occasion he will do us that honour.
The conditions are crucial. The issues of housing, lost holiday deposits and temporary passports for foreign nationals serving in our armed forces have to be taken into account. If we are going to ask people to serve us, we must make it clear that Parliament is committed to serving them. Now, many feel badly let down.
12.4 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): The short answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is the return of the Conservative Government. That is how we shall resolve the shortage of pilots in the Royal Air Force.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire)—indeed, he is my hon. and gallant Friend—for making such a remarkably good and wide-ranging speech. Although lack of
222WH
retention has been a problem in the armed forces, the House and the country have sometimes been the beneficiaries. For instance, my hon. and gallant Friends the hon. Members for East Devon and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) added enormously to the authority and the wisdom of this place when they gave up their careers in the services to join us.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) are here; nor do I forget my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who served with distinction in the Parachute Regiment, and the hon. and gallant Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), a former Royal Marine. They illustrate the wisdom that Parliament does have Members with real experience.
The debate is important. It is a good example of the fact that we can have constructive and informed debates on defence in the House. Indeed, we shall be having another on Thursday; then, should the Minister be deficient in his answers today, we shall be able to take up matters again. I say that because many issues have been covered today, and I am not sure that he will have time to respond to them all.
The strategic defence review of 1998 defined overstretch as
"trying to do too much with too little manpower … additional pressures from persistent overstretch contribute to higher exit rates from the Armed Forces."
That was how the Government defined overstretch. It is quite reasonable, four years on, to see how they conducted their stewardship of our armed forces in light of the undertakings that they gave then.
It is clear that overstretch is creating enormous problems. The time needed to train for operations, for the operations themselves and for recovering from those operations is taken from time that would otherwise be used in training for assigned tasks. Paradoxically, most operations, especially peacekeeping operations, degrade capability. Patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland does not prepare soldiers for anti-tank warfare or infantry fighting, and monotonously patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq does not prepare our pilots for air-to-air combat.
The disruption of training and the increased disruption of family life caused by overstretch has a severe effect on the quality of life our armed forces; and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark made absolutely clear what effect that can have on family unhappiness and divorce rates.
In that respect, I hope that the Minister will respond to my letter to the Defence Secretary about the Welsh Guards. The Welsh Guards at Aldershot are deeply disappointed that post-operational leave has been cancelled and that they had to return to accommodation that they find disgusting. They were then told that the MOD would not pay their deposits for holidays that were cancelled as a result of leave being stopped. The prime cause of the retention crisis is that men with families have simply had enough; and it feeds back into further problems with overstretch.

223WH
I shall speak about each of the services, and I shall start with the Army. Lord Robertson, then Secretary of State for Defence, said in the strategic defence review:
"All three services have been overstretched because of the demanding pattern of our operations, and I am determined to put that right."
That was four years ago. Have the Government put it right? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon explained so graphically, the Army's trained strength is 1,300 men lower than it was in 1997, and it has remained roughly static since 1998, despite the Government's pledge to increase the size of the Army by 3,300 men. We have seen a modest increase lately; but even by September 2002, when there was some improvement, the deficit was 5,300 compared with April 1998. Now we are told that the Army is not forecast to reach its full manning level until 2008 and, as the Adjutant-General told the Select Committee, that target has surreptitiously moved from 108,500 to 107,900, yet demands have increased since 1998 and are still increasing.
If we consider the Royal Navy, under the strategic defence review, the number of destroyers and frigates was reduced from 35 to 32, and the number of minehunters was reduced from 25 to 22. Flexible deployment was supposed to fill the resulting gaps. As the Defence Committee commented at the time:
"We remain unconvinced by the proposed new flexible deployment of the frigate and destroyer fleet and are not persuaded that this new flexibility has been devised for operational rather than cost-cutting reasons."
The operational impact of those cuts in the number of destroyers and frigates is clear. In 1999–2000, the time spent by the Atlantic Patrol Task (North), often known as the West Indies Guard Ship, on station in the Caribbean, was cut from 365 to 244 days, so it is a case of all clear on the days when the task force will not be active but steer clear when it is. With a reduced patrol in the Caribbean, are the Government still committed to protecting British interests from drug trafficking? Now we are told that we can make do with 31 frigates, rather than 32, through the more efficient use of assets.
It was smuggled out that HMS Sheffield was to be sold prematurely, and we know the problem regarding HMS Nottingham—Notts on the rocks. HMS St. Albans encountered a ferry in last Sunday's storms. Those ships will be taken out of action. A memo from Commodore Laurence suggested that the announcement of the premature disposal of HMS Sheffield would be made by way of an inspired parliamentary question. His memo continued:
"A decision to dispose of the ship is likely to initiate further questioning over the ability of the fleet to meet its current and future commitments."
He can say that again. It is a shame that the Government did not have the guts to announce their decision in the House, rather than relying on the matter to be leaked through a memo from Commodore Laurence.
Again, we read in The Daily Telegraph on 8 October that the Royal Navy is to lose up to six of its 32 destroyers and four minehunters in order to pay for the two new aircraft carriers and the new joint strike fighter. Ministers have denied it, but their track record is not good. We welcome the Government's plans for six new type-45 destroyers. That is good news, but we need
224WH
numbers. With all the sophisticated kit in the world, we will not be able to deploy ships that we do not have. That sounds simplistic, but it is true. If the Government continue to decide that we can make more efficient use of fewer ships, we will eventually be making effective use of only 10 ships, but we will not be able to deploy them where we need them.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about Sea Harriers.
Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend has contrasted peacetime overstretch with the ability to deploy numbers in war. That is why Jackie Fisher, arguably the greatest sealord of all time, adopted the policy of maintaining a substantial reserve of naval vessels, which could be brought rapidly back into use during war.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have a very limited naval reserve. I shall not go into the issue of Royal Air Force reserves, but the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has mentioned how decimated our Territorial Army reserves are. On the F35, the joint strike fighter, it was admitted in a written answer last November that the Fleet Air Arm was at only two-thirds strength, with only 44 Sea Harrier pilots compared with the required 64. Has the position improved? How do the Government propose to man the joint strike fighter in 2012, assuming that it comes into use at that time, when it cannot maintain the strength of the Fleet Air Arm? Of course, we know the position with the RAF. The 5 Squadron has been cut, which is especially ironic as it was the stand-by squadron to prepare for an intercept if it became necessary to intercept aircraft coming into London.
On all three services, there is a problem with cuts in capability. Hon. Members do not have to take only my word for that. As recently as May 2002, in another place, distinguished former serving officers who have recently retired have been unstinting in their criticism of the Government's stewardship of our armed forces. The noble and gallant Field Marshall Lord Inge said,
"The fundamental problem is that our Armed Forces are too small for the many operational tasks placed upon them."
The noble and gallant Lord Guthrie, who recently retired as Chief of Defence Staff, said,
"Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. So far as defence is concerned, there has been, in effect, disinvestment. All this, I remind noble Lords, has been happening at a time when to many of us it appears that the threats to our security are becoming ever greaten"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2002; c. 311–19.]
Ministers cannot lightly dismiss the words of a gentleman who was, until recently, the Chief of our armed forces. I hope that the Minister will respond when he replies to the debate.
Other additional burdens include the war against terrorism and the enhanced homeland security requirements, to which General Sir Michael Rose recently referred in an excellent article in the Daily Mail. There is increased tension in Northern Ireland; four battalions are patrolling the streets of Belfast, when a few years ago there were none. Troop numbers have risen there from some 11,000 to 13,000. There is the

225WH
possibility of further conflict in the middle east. There is also the firemen's strike, whose impact on the armed forces has been described by my hon. Friends.
The Government have provided no allowance for the unexpected. There is no slack in our armed forces to meet emergencies. It takes time to train experienced and competent service personnel and, if all these new conditions are imposed on them, they will, as one service man put it to me, "leg it."
The armed forces have always managed to make do, but if their concerns about over-commitment are not heeded, their ability to respond to ministerial demands could suddenly snap. In that case, we could not meet the requirements of Ministers to fulfil our commitments at home and abroad. We must not take the armed forces, or their professionalism, for granted.
I finish by quoting from the SDR, from which I quoted at the beginning of my speech, when I mentioned overstretch. The SDR promised
"to improve recruitment and retention so that our units are properly manned … That era of decline is behind us."
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I want to give the Minister some time to reply.
Mr. Howarth: May I just finish my point, Mr. Benton?
The debate has proved that the era of decline is not behind us.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I dislike the use of the term overstretch, as it is trite and clichéd. It should be replaced with another word but, in the absence of a substitute, I think that we should use the terms stretch, which is obviously part of the task of the armed forces, and excessive stretch. As the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, excessive stretch affects individuals rather than units. We must remember that we are talking about individual men and women when we discuss overstretch, not some abstract concept affecting the armed forces as a whole.
However, we should be clear on the matter. The armed forces and our service chiefs have not declined any operational commitments because of excessive stretch. As the House knows, when we deploy forces we do so with the full support of our senior military advisers. Their advice is based on the collective expertise and best information on the availability and readiness of our forces. There is inevitably some risk in any deployment, but we manage and minimise that risk. After all, operational deployment is the raison d'être of our armed forces, although we would not think so to listen to some of the speeches made by Opposition Members.
Perhaps the most vivid illustration that I can give is a simple comparison. At the height of the Kosovo operations in June 1999, 44 per cent. of Army personnel were committed to operations. The worldwide commitment is now about 27 per cent. of personnel, with about 18 per cent. deployed at the moment.
226WH
Despite heavy commitments, naval harmony guidelines under which ships spend 40 per cent. of their time in base port are generally being maintained. In the RAF, only about 2 per cent. of trained personnel exceed the planned limit for separated service.
It is true that our armed forces have been very busy. We ask our personnel to undertake demanding tasks, often in difficult circumstances such as in Afghanistan. We must ensure that that there are no doubts in the minds of families and potential recruits about what people let themselves in for when they choose a career in the armed forces. Our forces are for use, not for sitting around in barracks indulging in an endless cycle of training with no other ultimate purpose. Anyone who joins the British armed forces or the reserves must recognise that they will be expected to serve on operational deployment.
That is part of the attraction of the armed forces, and perhaps why recruitment has gone up dramatically over the past three months, especially to the Army. That has led to the problem that was properly outlined by the hon. Member for Newark, namely that recruitment is now greater than our capacity to bring new recruits into training. However, we are considering extending opportunities for people to be given some general training, to whet their appetites for the full training cycle. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence and I were offered that new strategy last year when asked how we would cope with a sudden surge in numbers. It has proved difficult to cope, as we generally expect numbers to remain fairly static or to increase gradually. The sudden surge in the past three months has posed problems, but we are addressing them.
We are not complacent about the importance of managing the demands that we place on our armed forces. To help determine them, we now seek to record separated service. I am afraid to say that that involves more paperwork. The most efficient running and coverage of what men and women do, which is what counts, requires a much higher standard and detail of record keeping than was common in the past. We need only point to medical and service records from the Gulf war to show how inadequate they were at the time, and hopefully how much better they are now.
More work is required for us to be able to trace the performance and service commitment of every individual in the armed forces. It is no small undertaking. As the hon. Member for Newark rightly pointed out, individuals in units can suffer from excessive stretch and excessive overseas deployment while the rest of the unit shows no signs of it. It is important to show what happens to each man and woman in our service. That is what we are bringing in, and all hon. Members would welcome it.
The provision of systems to capture such information for a widely dispersed and highly mobile population is difficult, and competes for resources with other technical priorities. It is a key objective of our forces personnel strategy, and in the end will give us a much a clearer picture of the demands that we place on individual men and women.
We have substantially invested in that capability, and its coverage will be extended to all parts of all three services as soon as is practicable. Since 1997, the RAF has provided that facility for personnel for periods of

227WH
separation of three days or longer. The Navy started recording on a daily basis for the majority of its personnel in September last year. The Army is at present conducting trials in some units, and will bring in a universal system as soon as is feasible.
Turbulence for individual soldiers and families is important, and our general approach is to try to reduce it as much as possible. We aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is absolutely necessary to achieve the military aim. They are withdrawn from operations at the earliest opportunity, as in Macedonia last year. Everyone pooh-poohed the idea that 30 days would be sufficient. In fact, the operation was conducted with clinical efficiency. We went in for 30 days; we came out after 30 days of weapons collection. The fact that a fragile peace has been established in Macedonia is due in no small measure to the actions that we took.
Similarly, we said that we would go into Afghanistan for a certain period, and we stuck to that. The Turks took over and are doing a good job.
Mr. Brazier: I accept that most of the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should help, but the bald fact is that in the Labour Government's time in office, divorce in the Army has risen by almost half. The haemorrhage of experienced personnel has worsened. Overall, the hon. Gentleman must accept that the Government are losing the battle.
Dr. Moonie: The figures show that divorce rates in the armed forces are similar to those for the comparable group in the general population. They change over time. I shall not waste too much of my speech trying to explain details of vital statistics to the Opposition.
Average unit tour intervals in the Army have improved. They are currently assessed at an average of 23 months, which is just below the strategic defence review target of 24 months. To be fair about that figure, there are differences between units. Not all of them have attained the 24 months figure. There are particular problems with certain light role infantry battalions, engineers and signallers.
I should stress in passing the value of our reserve forces. At present 850 of our reserves are serving in units on active service, and a further 2,240 are on full-time reserve service. That huge commitment by our reserves, quite independent of any other callouts, is an indication of how effective our strategy has been in placing them close to the front line, as far as possible, and using them where they are most needed to plug gaps in service. I hope, over time, to recruit more people to both the regulars and the reserves in specialist areas such as signals and engineering, to alleviate the overstretching of those personnel and bring them back to the norm for the armed forces. I pay tribute to the excellent work done in the past couple of years by the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and the National Employers
228WH
Liaison Committee, now known, I think, as Sabre, for their superb work in bringing employers on side, to help to ensure that our reserves are treated fairly and properly by their employers.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for the Minister's tribute to the cadet forces. I have heard that it is proposed that he should withdraw from his association with the air cadets. I hope that he can deny that and confirm that he will remain on the council.
Dr. Moonie: No, I do not deny that. I think that all cadet forces should be treated equitably by Ministers, and a Minister does not serve on the council of the Army cadets or the sea cadets. All three cadet forces should be treated in the same way. I can perform more effectively as a Minister responsible for cadets if I do not serve on their governing body, but their governing body reports to me as is proper, in line with the other two cadet forces.
I realise that I have a half-hour speech to make and about three minutes in which to deliver it, so I must try at a breathless rate to cover as many points as possible. On the matter of the use of fire brigade equipment, we have 331 breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 rescue equipment support teams available. In passing, I should mention that we use a great many sailors in firefighting roles. All sailors are trained, to an extent, as firefighters, because fire is the great fear on board any ship. Because of factors such as the tunnel effect of corridors, they are trained to use breathing apparatus and can provide invaluable support in firefighting activities. The services will not become a fire service; they cannot do that. However, with the equipment available to us, old though it is, I am confident that the thousands of personnel whom we have deployed on firefighting operations will cope well with their allocated tasks.
I am concerned about the matter that was raised concerning the Welsh Guards and lost holiday deposits. I understand that the issue is being intently considered. Frankly, I should think that if people are losing deposits because of unforeseen operational commitments, I would expect them to be reimbursed. I will not make any promises on that, however, until I know for certain what is happening.
We have a robust strategy for defending London from the effects of aerial attack, though I do not want to say any more than that now.
We have introduced retention packages for pilots. I would have thought that the Opposition knew about that. It is a bit early to determine whether the packages will be a success, though we have not made any secret of them.
With regard to the letter from the British Legion, I look forward to—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Swan Theatre (Worcester)
12.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed at having to draw the plight of the Swan theatre in Worcester to the attention of the House. Earlier this month, news broke that Worcester district council, through its leader, Councillor Steven Inman, intends to cut the annual grant that it gives to the theatre from £137,000 a year to £54,000. That, combined with its impact on match funding from West Midlands Arts, means that the theatre will be forced to close early in the new year, and I want to draw attention to that act of cultural vandalism today.
Worcester Swan theatre is a 350-seat theatre. It attracts visitors from the city, across the county and further afield. It is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is governed by a voluntary board of governors and run by a small group of staff aided by volunteers. Of its income in 2001–02, 55 per cent. was earned, 21 per cent. was grant aid from West Midlands Arts, 17 per cent. was from the city council, 3 per cent. was from the county council and fundraising revenue made up the remainder.
The theatre has three strands of work. The first is production, with home-produced plays made in Worcester, with the creative process led by the in-house artistic team.
Mr. Peter Luff: It is right that the hon. Gentleman should draw attention to the productions of the Swan theatre, of which my wife is a director. It is particularly tragic that the theatre faces closure now, when, artistically speaking, its productions are some of the finest that it has ever produced.
Mr. Foster: From time to time the hon. Gentleman and I disagree, but, on the issue in question, the city council has done us a great service in that we are united in our support for the Swan theatre, and I put on record my testimony to the hard work and dedication that the hon. Gentleman puts into theatre work in Worcester and in the all-party group on theatre.
Last year, Lance Woodman's "Red Skies Over the Severn" was critically acclaimed, and, as a result, Mr. Woodman was awarded a prestigious Pearson play-writing bursary. The Guardian gave the play glowing praise, describing it as
"a play that speaks so directly and urgently to its audience".
The second strand of work is presenting. with increasing quantities of national touring work going to the Swan. In 1998–99, there were 19 performances of six different productions. In 2001–02, there were 75 performances of 17 different productions. An example of that was "Victorian Values", which was watched last year by nearly 1,800 local children aged seven to 11.
The third strand is participation, which is made up of education and community work, as well as amateur theatre. Last Christmas, the theatre produced a musical adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", which linked the core professional actors and musicians with a community company of local, non-professional actors and children from across the city. There is a picture of
230WH
the performance in the annual report. I cannot see any physical resemblance between Councillor Inman and Scrooge, but I know that many friends and allies of the Swan may disagree with that view.
In 1998, West Midlands Arts announced its intention to remove completely its funding as of April 1999 because it was underfunded and needed to make savings. The Swan was chosen as the sacrificial lamb because historically the local authority had funded the theatre poorly. West Midlands Arts took the view that if a local council did not value a theatre there was no reason to put money into it. The city council responded by agreeing an extra £83,000 a year on top of the existing £54,000 grant. The theatre produced a three-year plan for 1999 to 2001 called "Creative Connections" and West Midlands Arts agreed three years' worth of funding.
Recently, the city council set up a working party to examine arts provision in the city. It comprised three city councillors, representing the three main political parties, who produced a unanimous report that was presented to the executive board of the city council in December 2001. The working party recommended that the grant continue to be paid at the full level in return for monitoring certain performance indicators at the Swan. Earlier this year, the budget was set and continued the grant funding level on that recommendation.
In 2001, Worcester Swan theatre was shocked to discover that it was not included in the distribution of additional funding resulting from the national review of English regional producing theatres. It was one of only four in the country not to be recommended for additional funding, and that was a major blow to the Swan. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the reason behind that decision, and to confirm whether it is true that, as Worcester Swan theatre was told, the primary reason for its exclusion was a lack of drive from local authorities.
Shortly after the Swan published its 2002–03 business plan, it was evident that financial viability was threatened. West Midlands Arts, through the lottery programme, funded a report by Andrew McKinnon on the theatre, its operation and finances. Broadly speaking, the report says that the theatre manages its resources well, that it is vibrant and that the chief problem is underfunding.
To continue its present policy and programmes, Worcester Swan theatre would need another £77,000 a year. West Midlands Arts and the Arts Council responded positively, suggesting that they could make an extra £50,000 a year available. Last night, I received a phone call from County Councillor Adrian Hardman, the portfolio holder for resources, who informed me of the council's intention to increase the grant by the extra £27,000 needed to match fund the West Midlands Arts' grant.
Worcester Swan, recognising that in the long term the theatre needs other resources as it is beginning to show its age and its location is not ideal, started discussions with the city council about shaping the theatre's future and what contribution could be made. In the light of those discussions the city council announced its intentions to withdraw the £83,000 of funding. It appears that Worcester city council has financial

231WH
problems. Naturally enough, it blames them on the Government, but in reality I suspect it made the classic mistake of anticipating savings and spending them before they were realised. Only on finding that those savings had not materialised did it realise that a problem existed.
Newspaper reports state that the feared deficit for this year is close to £400,000, and the projected deficit for next year is £1.1 million. It is in an attempt to resolve next year's financial problem that the city council has threatened the funding of Worcester Swan theatre. Since that news broke, the public outcry has been enormous. I attended a meeting of more than 300 friends and allies of the Swan on 14 October. The meeting heard from the chairman, Gerald Harris, that due to the actions of Worcester city council, the theatre would close in the new year. It will close unless the city council have a change of heart.
I want local councillors to view spending on the arts not as bailing out the Swan theatre, but as helping to serve the cultural needs of the local community.
Mr. Luff: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Does he understand that the wider community is not just Worcester city, but the county of Worcestershire? I am getting a great deal of pressure from my constituents, who are urging me to do all that I can to reverse the closure. The play of which he spoke, "Red Skies Over the Severn", was a powerful work about the impact of foot and mouth disease on Worcestershire, which made a powerful appeal to the farming community in my constituency. We are talking not just about Worcester city, but about the county.
Mr. Foster: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I have a letter from the Bishop of Worcester, the Right Reverend Dr. Peter Selby, who makes exactly the same point as the hon. Gentleman. Dr. Selby writes that the theatre
"serves a much wider area, and to that extent plays quite a part in bringing people into the city."
He then makes a telling point:
"A city without a theatre seems to me…something of a contradiction".
The theatre provides entertainment and culture for the city. Worcester is a vibrant city with an increasingly flourishing nightlife. Indeed, the city council has paid for a tourist website to show exactly what Worcester has to offer. The council includes the Swan theatre as a major attraction, yet its actions threaten the Swan's very existence.
I also call into question the secrecy surrounding the decision to cut funding to Worcester Swan theatre. The city council has an appointed representative who sits as an observer on the board of Worcester Swan, but he was not informed of the discussions on future funding and he found out about the decision by reading about it in the local newspaper.
The leader of the city council has responded to criticism from local people by attacking Worcester Swan theatre and how it is organised. Councillor Inman was quoted as saying that the Swan could survive if it lost
"the costly shackles of its professionals."
232WH
He said that he wants the theatre to be run by volunteers, amateur groups and friends, but I am afraid that that ignores the theatre's important community and educational role. That point was made strongly by Ben Humphrey of the Next Generation youth theatre at the meeting on 14 October. He asked what the 75 young people involved were meant to do in the evenings once their youth theatre group had closed down.
Worcester Swan cannot rely solely on being a receiving theatre. It would be in direct competition with the newly-refurbished Malvern theatre and the loss of in-house production and community work would set back the development of the Swan by 30 years. I accept that there is some confusion among those who provide grant aid as to what Worcester Swan theatre should do. The McKinnon report recognises that and calls for
"a shared view of a sustainable and fundable identity"
for Worcester Swan theatre.
I am pleased to note that the city council has called a special sitting of the community services committee, which will include representatives from the theatre board and the Arts Council, for 4 November. I hope that by then the city council will have realised the enormity of its mistake and changed its policy towards a grant for the Swan.
Perhaps the Minister can help Worcester. Can he give examples of other parts of the country in which there is a genuine partnership with those who provide grant aid for theatres? If so, can he point me in their direction so that all the local players in this game can get together soon to secure the future of Worcester Swan theatre?
Will the Minister consider the funding for the Swan from West Midlands Arts? It pledged an extra £50,000 to meet the findings and new direction arising from the McKinnon report, but that was on the basis of matched funding from local authorities. As of last night, that matched funding was made available. However, I understand that other theatres have had more generous grants of up to £250,000 a year, without the string attached of matched local authority funding.
The very existence of the Swan is being questioned at a time when there is huge potential for it to succeed in a new setting. The McKinnon report concludes that
"a new arts and cultural centre with up-to-date facilities for audiences, artists and the wider community in Worcester is now a pressing necessity."
There are some exciting developments planned in the city centre, particularly the regeneration of the old Castle street hospital, where such a base could find a new and permanent home. But the Swan needs to survive through next year if that is to become a reality and I should welcome advice from the Minister on how to secure the short-term future of the Swan and its long-term existence.
The conclusion of the McKinnon report was written before the city council broke the news of its plan to cut funding to the Swan. The final paragraph states:
"I suggest that Worcester City Council has a principal and primary role to play in this process. As both a barometer and the arbiter of opinion in Worcester I believe it has both the right and the duty to be instrumental in making the decision about the future of the theatre and performing arts in the city. This it can best do by taking a decisive and unequivocal position on the future of Worcester Swan Theatre within its plan for the provision of the arts in Worcester as a whole."

233WH
I doubt whether, when that was written, Andrew McKinnon had cuts in funding in mind, but those cuts are decisive and unequivocal and Worcester Swan theatre will have no future if they go ahead. I appeal to the city council to think again.
I am not a city or county councillor; I have no say in the spending decisions of local councils. My role is merely to draw the attention of those with that power to my fear that Worcester will become a cultural desert. In doing so I have been accused of causing mischief, but if, in being mischievous, I cause people in power to think again, I will have done my job. It is in Worcester's interest to have a successful theatre and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he can help to make that happen.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for securing the debate, which has given us the opportunity to discuss an issue that is clearly important to Worcester, and about which the Minister for the Arts also feels strongly. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is important that Worcester has a thriving theatre at its heart and I regret the funding decision that the city council has made.
However, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that Ministers have no direct influence on the funding of individual art forms or organisations, since funding for the arts is carried out at arm's length from the Government through the Arts Council of England. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) will agree that the worst possible thing would be for politicians to start arbitrating on who gets money and who does not with regard to the production of anything creative.
Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: No, I should like to make progress.
I make it clear at the outset that the difficulties faced by the Swan theatre in Worcester are not due to a lack of commitment on the part of the Arts Council, but are the result of decisions taken by Worcester city council. Those decisions are a matter of great regret to my Department, but ultimately they are local decisions.
That said, I am aware that the Arts Council and West Midlands Arts have a recent history of close and extensive work with the Swan theatre and its other funders, Worcester city and Worcester county councils, to enable financial and artistic development at the Swan and to ensure an exit strategy from its current building.
The need for a new building was first identified in 1998 following a lottery capital fund feasibility study for capital refurbishment or rebuild of the Swan theatre. That independent study concluded that the cost of refurbishment would not represent good value for money and that rebuilds on the theatre's current site would not be prudent as it lies within the flood plain of the River Severn.
234WH
The study also found, through extensive research of audiences, schools, non-attenders and strategic agencies, a
"high awareness but a low level of excitement about the Worcester Swan."
That sounds odd, but I recognise such feelings in my own constituency. People think that it is important for towns and cities to have such theatres but, for whatever reason—perhaps we can discuss those reasons—they do not feel that it is one of the most urgent of considerations.
Having considered the independent report, the board of West Midlands Arts intimated that it could no longer justify investment in the theatre unless further revenue funding could be raised locally and a plan developed to address the medium-term capital needs.
Mr. Luff: The Minister says that he has no response on the funding, but it is quite clear that he has taken his brief directly from West Midlands Arts. I agree with almost every word of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but the Minister must understand that although the golden bullet was fired by the city council, which I regret bitterly, the gun was formed by West Midlands Arts' history of non-co-operation with the Swan theatre, Worcester city council and Worcestershire county council. The rot set in with West Midlands Arts' unconstructive approach to the Swan theatre, which was the beginning of the crisis.
Dr. Howells: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall seek to prove that that is not the case and that there are serious reasons why the theatre is in its current position. I would not include in those reasons any criticism of the level of production in the theatre, because, independently of the brief, I have heard that the theatre is excellent.
In April 1999, extensive discussions took place with Worcester city council and Worcestershire county council. Worcester city council increased its subsidy to the theatre from £54,000 per annum to £137,000, and West Midlands Arts agreed to fund the theatre for a three-year period between 1999 and 2002, and negotiated a funding agreement for that period in consultation with the city and the county. Worcester city council put forward an application to the Arts Council's capital programme when that was relaunched as capital 2 in 2001. The competition for capital funding at that time was intense, and the application was not shortlisted against other priorities since no research or preliminary feasibility work had been carried out by the local authority in support of the idea. That is an important consideration.
West Midlands Arts could not give priority to the Swan theatre's case for new resources to implement the national theatre strategy in 2001 as there had been no resolution of the theatre's capital difficulties. In November 2001, the Swan theatre approached West Midlands Arts to discuss the new financial problems that it faced and its urgent need for assistance in managing its cash flow.
The regional and national offices of the Arts Council worked together to find an additional sum of £50,000 to supplement the theatre's core funding of £179,000 to enable it to continue to operate during the subsequent

235WH
two years. Funds were also offered to help with small-scale capital work to keep the theatre open. Those additional sums were conditional on a realistic plan being developed by the city council for the construction of a new arts centre in Worcester.
The city council has decided, in the light of its overall prioritisation of funding, to reduce funding to the Swan theatre. Funding of the arts is a mixed economy, involving the Arts Council, earned income, local authorities and private subsidy. The Arts Council does not seek to be, nor should it be, a majority funder. Money needs to be put into local arts resources by locally based bodies.
There is no statutory responsibility on Worcester city council to provide or deliver a theatre service, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport cannot dictate how local authorities allocate their funds. The grants offered by the city council to cultural facilities in the area, while welcomed by the Department, are at its own discretion. The modernisation ethos for local government outlined in the local government White Paper seeks to reduce and minimise ring-fenced grants in order to give local authorities more discretion over expenditure.
There have been some reports that local government funding for the arts is under threat. I assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that my Department monitors the situation vigilantly, and will want to be informed of any instances in which that is the case.
West Midlands Arts is working with Worcestershire county council to develop a touring circuit in Worcestershire that will bring professional theatre to community venues in the county, including Worcester city if the council agrees to participate in the initiative. West Midlands Arts is also aware of a new performing arts facility being developed at University College. Although these cannot replace the professional producing theatre, they will ensure access to participatory and community-based activity. West Midlands Arts will also talk to the county council about other theatre developments, particularly the recently refurbished Malvern theatre, which is just 10 miles away from Worcester city.
Government funding for the arts in general has reached record levels. That will address some of the issues that have been raised, although not the specific one raised by my hon. Friend. In March 2001, the Arts Council announced its theatre review, which discussed how the additional £25 million a year allocated to the theatre from 2003–04 would be spent. West Midlands Arts will benefit to the tune of £ 1.85 million, bringing the total spend on theatre in the region to £5.5 million, which by any standards is a considerable sum.
This year, the Arts Council joined together with the 10 regional arts boards to create a single arts funding organisation. We are monitoring its progress to ensure that it delivers improved value for the arts and the public. We will also be kept informed of the Arts
236WH
Council's progress on developing a strategy to address the £8 million to £10 million savings on administration. We want administrative savings to be ploughed back into the arts, especially at regional level, such as in the west midlands.
The Arts Council recognises the tremendous efforts and considerable achievements of all those involved in trying to help the Swan to make a critical transition. Regrettably, however, and after careful consideration, it seems that it is not possible for the funding partners to find between them the investment that the theatre requires in the short term, or for there to be sufficient movement towards a new arts facility that would provide a viable and sustainable future for theatre in Worcester.
The challenge for us all is to develop an understanding and appreciation of what the arts can do that cannot be done in any other way. Their contribution to broader social and economic objectives has been demonstrated time and again. I hoped that Worcester city council would see that as an extremely important vehicle in the equation, but it must be seen as additional to the arts' unique value to us as a people.
I urge all parties to see this as an opportunity to seek enhanced partnership funding within the local community. The thrust of the national policy for theatre in England has been to enable theatre to respond to, and reflect in its organisations, the inevitably changing role of theatre in contemporary society, and to reward those that have that immediate capacity. I understand that, among other things, the building in Worcester continues to be an enormous constraint on that possibility for the Swan.
The McKinnon report recommended a short-term increase in funding and urgent work to establish the route towards a new arts centre for Worcester. As I pointed out, West Midlands Arts was able to find an additional £50,000 to supplement the theatre's core funding towards re-establishing a financially viable base level of support for the Swan. Funds were also offered to help with small-scale capital work necessary to keep the theatre open. I stress that those additional sums were conditional on the city council developing a realistic plan towards the construction of a new centre in Worcester. It is important to remember that match funding was not a condition of the additional funds.
The assertion of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that somehow West Midlands Arts has conspired against the theatre is wrong. West Midlands Arts very much wanted this to be a success and put money towards it. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a great deal of competition for that funding, which will, of course, be directed to local authorities and other funding parties for theatres that have made a better fist of it. We have made it clear that we believe that regional and city theatres throughout the country fulfil roles well beyond simply putting on excellent performances, vital though those performances are. Those are the theatres that will receive most of the support.

Upward-only Rental Contracts
1 pm
Mr. John Randall: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is my near neighbour, especially as much of the work that I have done on this subject has been guided by the Hillingdon and Harrow branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and, in particular, by Mr. Robert Ridley. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, as both our constituencies share that branch.
One of the issues that I will be discussing is the impact of upward-only rent reviews on various groups of people, including retailers. It is therefore appropriate for me to declare my interest as a director of a family-owned retail business, although we do not have to pay rent because we are hereditary retailers and own the freehold, so the issue does not apply to me. However, being in business gave me, and continues to give me, great opportunities to talk to many small and medium-sized enterprises. Those businesses will always complain legitimately about the problems caused by the burden of the plethora of regulations imposed on them. It is fair to note that successive Governments always promise that they will do something about those regulations—you may have heard those statements yourself, Mr. Benton—but, unfortunately, successive Governments seem to manage to pass more regulations than they remove.
This anomaly, as I will call it, has an adverse impact on many businesses, so it is up to us in Parliament to address it. There is a history of debates on the subject, and I noticed in the course of my research on it that, in years gone by, some of my hon. Friends tried to persuade the Conservative Government of the merits of the argument. In 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in 1994. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has also been active on the problem, and I am sure that hon. Members from other parties have also asked questions about it. Unfortunately, it seems that, although the issue has been raised, it is like so much in government in that a great deal needs to be done before anything gets changed.
I will discuss later the code of conduct that has been put in place, but I shall first outline some of the problems involved. I am not an expert in commercial or leasehold law, but I have the benefit of some briefing notes on some of these points. The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 abolished the old rules relating to privity of contract on new leases, but upward-only clauses for rent reviews can still be incorporated into business leases. One of the justifications for upward-only reviews is that no one forces anyone to sign a contract with an upward-only review in it. It is up to the individual to agree it or to decline to sign it.
In reality, small and medium-sized businesses, which are not backed up by great legal teams, feel under a great deal of pressure. They normally sign up to these things when times are good. The problem with upward-only
238WH
rental agreements is that they take no account of current market conditions. When the rent comes up for review, it cannot stay the same or go down. The rent can only go up, even if market conditions have changed and there have been substantial changes in the surroundings. A good example would be a town centre that was suffering, as sadly many are, because an out-of-town shopping centre had opened. When times are good, problems can he absorbed, but when things are not so good, businesses will inevitably close.
The Government—I back them on this—have been making efforts to ensure that town centres are regenerated. Small businesses are very much part of that regeneration process and so it is important that consideration is given to helping them. It is also unfortunate that where the business rate is fixed, it takes rental values into consideration. That has another knock-on effect. A code of practice has been introduced which the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been working hard to try to encourage its members to adopt. Sadly, as it is a voluntary code, it has not had much effect.
In the past six months, for example, McDonald's has been negotiating on around 70 new leaseholds. It is trying to maintain its plan of opening 70 to 80 new restaurants a year. Out of the 30 resulting agreements during that period, no landlord has offered terms in line with the lease code. That is a good example of what we are up against. We often hear that prices and values may go down as well as up, yet this seems the only thing that I can think of that will always go up. The Chancellor would not be very popular if he suggested that interest rates could only go up. There is a real problem.
Another affected group is pub landlords, the majority of whom are self-employed tied tenants. They suffer many problems in being tied for the majority of liquor purchases, at the same time as having to cope with upward-only rental contracts. We are all aware of the difficulties faced by many pubs. The time has come seriously to consider banning upward-only rent reviews.
Such reviews operate in a way that does not recognise that in a low-inflation environment and increasingly fluid modern conditions, markets will go up and down. It is not unreasonable to say that most sectors should be privileged or protected against that—businesses are not—at the expense of others. That should apply to manufacturers and other sectors as well as retailers.
I urge the Government that now is the time. I am hopeful and do not want to talk down the economy by saying that we shall soon face tougher economic times, but I recognise that economic cycles occur. Business is well aware of that. My company has been in business for 110 years, during which many cycles have occurred. Somewhere along the line, despite what we hear from politicians of all parties, I am afraid that boom and bust may well return.
It is time to examine the provisions carefully. The voluntary code needs to be stiffened through legislation because it is not working. The Government can do something to help small businesses.
1.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I had intended to stick to the niceties and refer to the hon.

239WH
Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) as the hon. Gentleman, but, in the interests of near-neighbourliness and non-partisanship, I shall refer to him as my hon. Friend and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I also accept that Randall and Sons has probably seen more cycles in its 110 years than the Tour de France. I shall let him into a little secret: I am not an expert on commercial leasehold law either and do not profess to be so in any capacity.
I agree that upward-only rent review clauses are a matter of real concern. Our business manifesto acknowledged that they are a source of grievance for many and we promised greater flexibility in the commercial property market. My hon. Friend has provided some of the historical background, but it may be worth reflecting on it again in greater detail.
Upward-only clauses first developed in commercial property leases when inflation took off in the 1960s and 1970s. Landlords letting property on the then prevalent 25-year leases did not want to be left behind with static incomes. By the 1980s virtually every commercial lease included them.
As long as the prices that businesses charged customers rose steeply year after year, few tenants complained about ever-increasing rents, but in the early 1990s the property market turned down as general business conditions worsened. Many small businesses—I accept what my hon. Friend said about them—already suffering badly from the impact of recession found themselves paying rents well above those available in the open market. Some even faced demands for substantial increases in rents, with rents being uprated on the basis of market comparisons that were rapidly becoming out of date. Locked into upward-only rent reviews, tenants had no choice but to pay up. For some, that was the final push over the edge into bankruptcy—or at least ceasing to be able to trade. Tenants then began to complain about their plight, bringing about Government interest in the problem.
The simplistic response, to which my hon. Friend alluded, is that upward-only rent review clauses are a matter of private contracts, so tenants do not have to agree to them. If a tenant does not like them, he can ask the landlord for something else, and if he or she will not agree to an alternative, the tenant should find another landlord who will. That is the easy and simplistic response, which I agree is deeply unsatisfactory. For one thing, there are few alternatives, and, furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect small businesses to be experts in the complexities of the commercial property market. My hon. Friend made the point that small businesses do not have armies of lawyers at their beck and call, as huge conglomerates such as Randall's of Uxbridge do.
Start-up businesses understandably want to focus on their business operations rather than the terms on which they will be occupying premises to carry out their business. As my hon. Friend said, as far as such businesses do focus on the lease, it is primarily on the initial rent payable to start trading, rather than the rent payable several years down the line, when things might not be as cordial—in the business sense—as they were when the business started.
Upward-only rent reviews are not in the interests of small businesses. Any small business would be well advised to ask for a short lease, as is happening
240WH
increasingly often, so that it will not face any form of rent review. Otherwise, it could ask for a break clause timed to coincide with a rent review, which would allow the business to end the lease if the rent review had unpalatable consequences, and would, as my hon. Friend said, allow the business to appreciate the circumstances of the market at that time, rather than when it had signed up to a longer lease.
What should the Government do about upward-only rent review clauses? In 1994, the Government persuaded the property industry to introduce a code of practice on commercial property leases, not least because of the ten-minute Bill pressure—if I can call it that—coming from some of my hon. Friend's colleagues. I shall compare that code with the current one shortly.
The 1994 code contained useful information about leases but suffered from three major drawbacks. First, it did not require anyone to do anything, so it was a "warm words" version of a code of practice. Secondly, it was not an easy read for those unfamiliar with property jargon. I am sure that my hon. Friend has looked at it. It probably requires something between his excellent proficiency in English and his equal proficiency in Serbo-Croat to be understood; it was not in English. Thirdly, it disappeared without trace. Hardly anyone knew anything about it.
When the current Government came into power in 1997, we took over plans to review the code of practice, and commissioned the university of Reading to gauge the impact of the existing code. When it reported in 2000, the Reading commission confirmed that the code had had no impact whatever, but it found that the property market had undergone significant changes, which is an important point. It found that leases were much shorter. Small businesses in particular had benefited from the trend towards shorter leases. More leases had break clauses than was the case in the 1960s and 1970s, and more had other terms that were more favourable to tenants. However, upward-only rent review clauses were still prevalent in longer leases.
At the time, we considered immediately legislating against upward-only clauses but drew back because of the unintended repercussions of legislation, and particularly of intervening in what remains a very complex market. We acknowledge that in some circumstances upward-only clauses can be of mutual benefit to a landlord and tenant—for example, when they support a sale or leaseback deal. Instead, we prevailed upon the property industry to introduce a new voluntary code, and after some initial setbacks the property industry agreed a new code of practice, which was launched in April 2002.
In the press release to go with the launch, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), said:
"We are concerned not only about upward only rent reviews, but also about the length of lease, and allowing tenants to occupy on terms which enable them to adapt their lease arrangements to their changing business needs."
That is the notion of flexibility. Self-regulation is not a soft option; I should be very disappointed if we had to resort to legislation after all. I therefore urge everyone, whether owners, occupiers or advisers, to familiarise themselves with the new code and to observe it in the spirit as well as in the letter.

241WH
I am encouraged by the support for the new code and, in particular, the pledge by leading property suppliers to promote it actively. That pledge had, as my hon. Friend said, the support of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and several other bodies associated with the property industry. I do not need to mention all of them, but they included something called the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—I am not entirely sure what that is—the Law Society, the Small Business Service, the British Property Federation, the British Retail Consortium, the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British chambers of commerce.
I am pleased that the new code has the support of all involved in commercial property—funders, owners, occupiers and the professional bodies. In the context of today's debate, I am especially pleased that the code has the support of small business organisations—in particular, the Small Business Bureau, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business. I would be more than happy to consider the matter further with the Hillingdon and Harrow branch of the FSB, which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. It says on my brief that the code also has the support of the Government, which is handy.
Why do we expect the new code to succeed when the previous one failed? First, unlike its predecessor, the new code sets out recommended action. It urges landlords to consider offering tenants, among other things, a choice in the length of term of their lease, and break clauses where appropriate. It recommends that the basis of rent review should generally be open market rent, so that upward or downward movements in the market can be reflected. It urges landlords, whenever possible, to offer alternatives to upward-only rent reviews, on a risk-adjusted basis. It urges funders, whenever possible, to avoid constraining landlords in the choices that they can offer tenants. Some commercial landlords will say that it is not in their gift to release lessees from upward-only rent reviews and that it is the funders behind them who insist on what happens. People made hay while the sun shone in the happy days for the property market in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and, before the introduction of this code, I imagine that they did not think of anything other than upward-only reviews.
Secondly, the code is short and in plain English; it is accessible to people without expertise in property. It is also accompanied by a leaflet warning first-time tenants of the pitfalls of property leasing. The leaflet strongly recommends that they should take professional advice. It is worth repeating my hon. Friend's point that the terms of the lease are secondary to securing the property, getting in and starting to trade. The terms of the lease may the last thing on a small trader's or small business person's mind.
Thirdly, the code is being widely disseminated and is easily accessible on the internet, from where it may be downloaded, and I am pleased to say that the website has scored more than 100,000 hits. The code has had recent publicity in the property press and has a high profile. Unlike its predecessor, it has not been shelved.
242WH
By coincidence, or perhaps more than that, my first ministerial speaking engagement was to the property development faculty—I cannot remember its exact title, for which I apologise—of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, on precisely this subject. It was remiss of me when I scurried over to outside the Speaker's Office to check whether I had an Adjournment debate, as I always do on Wednesday mornings, not to catch that upward-only rental contracts came under my remit. They clearly do. When speaking to RICS, I said that we were loath to go down the legislative route, not least because of the regulatory burdens that my hon. Friend suggested. However, if we need to go down that route, we will.
We are being ever so slightly precipitate. The code was published in April, it has extensive support from a range of key players in the property industry and we need to give it time to bed in.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful for the Minister's contribution. I hope that this short debate will send out a message, loud and clear, that if people do not stick to the code, the Government will have to legislate.
Mr. McNulty: I share that sentiment and I am enormously grateful to be able to reiterate that message. I am at the penultimate paragraph of my brief, in which it says that the property industry knows that it is under notice to produce changes,. The gestation period of the code was long but, after extensive consultation, some of which was fairly bloody, we got there, and people signed up to it. Therefore, to decide in October that a code that has been in place only since April needs to be torn up and the process started again is ever so slightly precipitate. We are not necessarily looking for the elimination of upward-only rent reviews, but we are keen to promote choice and to ensure that tenants are able to negotiate terms that suit their business needs. That element of flexibility is core to the code of practice.
It is perfectly proper to say that those who invest in, and secure their income from, property investment, whether funders or landlords, have the right to earn their money in an entirely appropriate and legitimate market. There must, however, be some flexibility in recognition that there may be small blips up and down in the economic cycle, or windfall-like elements, such as the regeneration of a town centre.
Purely as an aside, my hon. Friend will know that by the mid-1970s and early-1980s Uxbridge town centre was a complete and utter basket case and a good example of how not to redevelop a town centre. Happily, in recent visits to Uxbridge, I have seen that it is increasingly an example of how to build a community around a town centre that serves it well. I have not had the pleasure of going into Randall's of Uxbridge, nor have I bought anything there. That pleasure awaits me, but I am sure that I will get there at some stage during its next 110 years of trading.
We have, once again, asked the university of Reading to monitor the property market, this time over a two-year period ending in December 2004. The university has already assessed the benefits and the efficacy, or otherwise, of the 1994 code. It is revisiting that research and will consider how the present code, which has only been in place since April, beds in. The university will

243WH
produce an interim report at the end of next year that will give us some indication of how much progress has been made. We are not just waiting until 2004. The property industry knows that we will consider legislative options if there are not clear signs of change by the end of 2004; I repeat that for its benefit as well as for my hon. Friend.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his choice of topic and on the informed and gentlemanly way in which he put his case. I ask only that he bear with me. The industry knows that if the new code does not work we will—I repeat—consider the legislative options. If my hon. Friend was asking me to look further at the McDonald's case and that of pub landlords, those are notions that I will take with me. Once again, I say that toward the end of next year the university of Reading will report in full on the state of play regarding research in the market.
Finally, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to reiterate what I said about the strength of the new code of practice. We are keeping a watchful eye on that. When I said that to RICS at its conference in June—my first ministerial speaking engagement—there was an open ear and a will and desire to move forward. Perhaps it knows that if the code of practice is not successful, the legislative option stands behind it. Nevertheless, I think that there is a good deal of equanimity and support for the notion that, in terms of the commercial property world, things have moved on significantly compared with how they stood when upward-only rent reviews first became the norm. That being the case, it is, perhaps, in the interest of RICS to consider relevant matters seriously in terms of supply and demand, and the regulation and efficacy of the market.
I shall make one last facetious point. I am pleased that my hon. Friend did not abuse or insult me in any way. One occasion that we crossed swords in the Chamber was during the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when we were discussing some obtuse Liberal Democrat amendment about what would be done if there were an electoral tie with an electorate of 5 million. I was waxing lyrical about whether one would toss a coin or draw lots and my hon. Friend asked me, entirely appropriately given the context, whether I was a tosser or a drawer. To this day, that remains one of the best interventions on me during my short career in the House, and I thank him for that. However, it is hard to respond to an intervention when one is laughing.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the points that I have already made about the code of practice. I congratulate my near neighbour once again on his informed delivery and I assure him that the university of Reading and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will watch over the implementation of the code of practice. I also say to the property industry that we will be back with legislative options at the end of 2004 if the code does not bed in properly.

National Asylum Support Service
1.30 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark: As the Minister is aware, I have been concerned for some time now about the performance of, and the standard of service provided by, the National Asylum Support Service. This is the second debate on the matter that I have sought this year. The first was on 12 March, also in Westminster Hall. On that occasion, I was assured by the then Minister that problems with the past performance of NASS had largely been addressed by a series of internal administrative reforms. In particular, I was assured that all cases involving a failure to deliver NASS subsistence support to an asylum seeker—one of the most common complaints against NASS—are now rectified within a maximum of 48 hours of NASS being notified of the problem.
I was told that further improvements in the performance of NASS would flow from an ongoing programme of regionalisation. However, since that time, I have continued to receive reports of problems with NASS, in my constituency of Peterborough and more generally. In Peterborough, the accurate number of asylum seekers remains unknown owing to the various routes and schemes by which individuals arrive, and despite the great efforts being made in Peterborough to assess them. However, health sources estimate that there are at least 2,500 cases, as do the police. The city council believes that the number could be even higher, particularly because of rapid turnover.
The pressure on housing has been increased by a very rapid rise in the number of homeless applicants in the past year, owing to the widening of duties under the homelessness legislation in July 2002. For instance, the numbers needing temporary accommodation have risen six times, putting pressure on all types of accommodation in the city. The duration of stay by asylum seekers dispersed through NASS in Peterborough—this is probably not untypical compared with other areas—is very short. On average, it is four months. That means that the same private and public sector accommodation is used over and over again as fresh populations arrive and depart. The city council has managed nearly 200 units of accommodation from its own stock during the past year, and in that time three quarters of those housed by the city council have been required to move on by NASS. The private landlords operating in Peterborough would report similar levels of turnover.
Obviously, the short-term nature of placement and the shortage of accommodation create a range of social problems. In general, there is also no recognition of the emotional and physical needs of individual asylum seekers placed in the city. No background knowledge of their circumstances is provided by NASS. It is clear that a number suffer from isolation, mental health problems and trauma. That is made more difficult by lack of work and idleness. Mental health services in Peterborough currently have an eight-month waiting list for counselling.
Despite those difficulties, I am glad to say that in the opinion of our housing director, Sheila Grant, the local picture is generally positive. Local people are no longer surprised by the presence of asylum seekers in the city,

245WH
despite the fact that more than 40 languages are now spoken. There has been some excellent work by the police, the Red Cross and other agencies and some innovative work with schools to educate young people about the traumas of asylum seekers. However, I regret to say that none of the credit for that can be taken by NASS. I am told that the support given by NASS to the local authority in resettling and rehousing asylum seekers has been negligible.
The Home Office has yet to conclude a formal contract with the city council despite the fact that it has taken accommodation asylum seekers since July 2001, and is being paid for it. That means that permanent staff cannot be recruited. Moreover, no training or advice has been offered by NASS to assist staff in dealing with issues of immigration and so on. In July, BBC Radio 4's "File on Four" programme highlighted the poor standard of service provided by NASS to supported asylum seekers and the organisation's unsatisfactory relationship with many of the local authorities with whom it is supposed to work in partnership. Earlier this month, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a report entitled "Distant Voices". It follows on from NACAB's February 2002 report on NASS process error, to which I referred in my earlier Adjournment debate. It is based on the direct experience of CABs between 1 March and 31 August 2002. During that time, CABs dealt with as many as 10.000 NASS-related cases. The report is based on more than 400 specific case examples sent to NACAB, three of them by the CAB in my constituency.
The report paints a disturbing picture of a complex, inaccessible system that is frequently unable to meet the most basic needs of those people it was set up to support, and from which it is almost impossible to get a response when things go wrong, as they do. Despite the assurances given to me in this Chamber on 12 March, many vulnerable people, including families with young children, have been left for weeks and even months without the support that they need to buy food and other essential items. The report describes the case of a single woman with five young children, who in June and July was left without subsistence support for more than six weeks, simply because NASS was sending essential documentation to the wrong address.
An example from Peterborough CAB tells how an adviser spent five hours in total trying to get through to NASS to discuss the case of an Iranian single mother who did not speak English and had been dispersed to Peterborough on 13 June. She had received a letter from Sodexho that advised her to collect her first cash voucher from the local post office between 24 and 28 June. Sodexho is a French company. It has the contract from the United Kingdom Government to print and distribute the vouchers, although one gathers that it does not do so very well. That woman had not received a voucher receipt book from Sodexho as she should have done, and she had been told by post office staff that she must have it before she could be issued with cash vouchers.
A CAB adviser spent 30 minutes on the NASS voucher inquiry line before giving up, having received no answer. She then telephoned the NASS emergency payment line, but again could get no answer. She called
246WH
the voucher inquiry line again, and spoke to an operator who told her to call the NASS general inquiry line. She tried, but gave up after getting no answer for 40 minutes. In desperation she telephoned the Sodexho helpline, but was told simply to call the NASS voucher inquiry line. She did so again but received no answer, so she called the general line, as advised previously by the voucher line. After waiting 25 minutes to get through to an operator, she was told that the matter was for the voucher inquiry line after all. When the adviser questioned the conflicting advice, a duty manager came on the line and after a short delay agreed to send a voucher receipt book to the client. I am exhausted after recounting all that.
"Distant Voices" describes many such cases in depressing detail. It reveals the remoteness and inaccessibility of NASS, which has no local presence, as I highlighted previously. It also reveals the resultant difficulty that asylum seekers and their advisers, such as the CAB, encounter when seeking to contact NASS by telephone to sort out a problem.
The NACAB report notes that the Government's proposed replacement for the NASS support system—a combined system of asylum induction and accommodation centres—is no more than embryonic and will remain so for many years. That is an important point, and I am sure that the Minister will accept it. It means that NASS is set to remain the principal provider of accommodation and welfare support to asylum seekers for many years, possibly until well after she and I have left the House for good. It is therefore essential that the Government fully address the current shortcomings in the performance of NASS, and especially those in its accessibility to supported asylum seekers.
There is some good news. Although NACAB tells me that it has not yet received a response from Ministers to "Distant Voices", it recently met the director of NASS. On that occasion, she and her senior officials frankly acknowledged the degree and nature of the service delivery problems described in the report. Furthermore, they acknowledged that there appeared to be some "disjoint" between what their quality assurance mechanisms told them about the performance of NASS and the reality. That sounds like progress, and I hope that the Government's response to "Distant Voices" will be to consider, in liaison with NACAB, local authorities and others, the action needed to address the issues that it raises. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that today.
My local authority has again called particular attention to the need for Government agencies to co-ordinate with benefits, immigration, police and other agencies, and to meet local authorities to advise them of their plans for resettlement and actively to listen to their concerns. I should have thought that that was common sense, never mind a courtesy, as has been said on many occasions and over many months. It would also like to be allowed to negotiate local housing contracts with landlords, rather than having to deal with national agencies such as Clearsprings and Adelphi. It has had particular difficulty getting accurate information from Clearsprings on the number of bed spaces in Peterborough, as it claims that its contract prohibits it from releasing the information. However, it suggested that I could write to its head office in Rayleigh, Essex, if I wanted a direct response.

247WH
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the regionalisation programme. I understood that Ministers may have decided to increase the degree to which NASS will be devolved to regional offices. I welcome that, as I am concerned that the regionalisation programme described by Ministers, not least in this place on 12 March, does not go anywhere near far enough. Although NASS clearly needs to improve its management of accommodation contracts, it is in no one's interests, least of all those of taxpayers, that it should be ripped off by cowboy landlords. NASS also needs to devolve its operational activities on the delivery of subsistence support so as to ensure that service delivery problems can be resolved speedily and without the intervention of third parties such as the CAB.
In January this year, many were sad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), the previous Minister, say that the regionalisation programme would not include any operational aspects of providing support. I hope that the Minister will tell me today that that is no longer written in stone and that the fresh approach for which I called in March is at long last beginning to take shape. In previous correspondence, she said that she had no plans to visit Peterborough. I hope that, in the light of today's debate, she will reconsider her decision, and I look forward to welcoming her and her officials to Peterborough as soon as possible.
1.41 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on securing, within six months, a second opportunity to raise issues of concern to her constituents and her local authority about the operation of the National Asylum Support Service. Neither I nor my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), have ever made a secret of the fact that, at its inception, NASS was not set up in the best possible way; indeed, it has had difficulties—some would say that they were considerable—during its first two years. We both made it clear, to my hon. Friend and to others, that substantial improvements were needed, and a programme of improvement is now being delivered.
As my hon. Friend said, I was not the Minister responsible at the time of the first debate on 12 March, and I am sorry if she feels that the changes that have taken place since then are not as evident as she would have wished. None the less, those changes are taking place and I am sure that everyone would agree that changes are needed if the system is to work.
My hon. Friend referred to the Government's proposals to bring forward a radical and comprehensive package of measures designed to ensure that the immigration and asylum systems are fair, efficient and timely, and that they operate in a proper and efficient manner. We must ensure the integrity of the asylum system, not least to establish its credibility with the British people. However, we must also ensure that we deal properly with asylum seekers.
The Bill proposes a complete reform of that system, from induction, accommodation and reporting to the integration of refugees—or their removal if their claims are not successful. Accommodation centres are to be the
248WH
subject of a trial, and, pending the outcome of that trial, the policy of dispersal will continue. We cannot return to the pre-NASS position, with its enormous pressures on London and the south-east, which, as the hon. Lady knows, the dispersal system was developed in response to. We are not complacent about the way in which asylum seekers are dispersed. I have made it clear, as did my predecessor, that we expect NASS officials to work much more closely with local authorities and other organisations in the dispersal areas. I have visited a number of areas and spoken to regional consortia. The feedback from areas such as the north-east and Scotland, which have considerably more asylum seekers than Peterborough, is that the tide is turning. They discern improvements in NASS and—perhaps more importantly—feel that the working relationships between NASS, the local authorities and the partner agencies are improving substantially.
We recognised from the outset that the presence of asylum seekers could lead to additional pressure on local services such as health and education. It was never intended that the pressure would be such that services could not be provided, and I do not believe that that is the case. Colleagues in other parts of government worked with us to guarantee the provision of extra funding—largely through local authorities and other agencies—to ensure that that did not happen.
As Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) announced that an additional £500 per pupil would made available to schools. Similar additional tranches of money were given to the health service through local development schemes to enable it to provide specified general medical services to meet local needs. I accept that many people coming into the country and claiming asylum have particular needs as a result of their long-term experiences and certainly as a result of their journeys, but it is not the sole responsibility of NASS to deliver the services that they need. Local agencies must take on the responsibility for delivery, albeit that we recognise that—certainly for dispersed asylum seekers—the funding needs to follow.
Since taking up my appointment, I have been concerned that we should accelerate the programme of regionalisation. As my hon. Friend said, as it becomes operational, we should look for ways in which to extend the range of functions that we can devolve to regional level. I am also determined, having spoken to local authorities and consortia, substantially to strengthen the involvement of local authorities at every level.
The internal review into the operation of the dispersal process, as my hon. Friend knows, recommended a regional presence. The process of developing a strong regional infrastructure is well under way and it will be in place by April 2003. That was the time scale that we set. Our intention is to establish a NASS presence as close as possible to dispersal clusters where the need for service delivery is greatest. NASS will regionalise in connection with housing management and investigations, and a separate team will manage outreach contact with asylum seekers in those areas. My intention is that that will enable the organisation to manage the services closer to the point of delivery and strengthen relationships with partners and other stakeholders on the ground. Certainly, outreach staff will visit asylum seekers in their homes shortly after arrival to ensure that

249WH
they have everything that they need. We will then be able to assist and signpost them in order to negotiate what will, for most of them, be a new environment. They will then be able to get on with daily living and look after themselves and their families as effectively as possible.
A project board has been established to oversee the development and examine which casework functions we can best devolve to regional offices, on which local authorities and key voluntary organisations are represented. Freda Chaloner, the director of NASS, has asked representatives of NACAB whether they also want to be represented on the board, and I am pleased to say that they have accepted. Irrespective of any formal response to the NACAB report and the issues that it highlights, it enables us to obtain a direct input from NACAB and other important stakeholders into the development of the regionalisation project and ensure that we make it as effective as possible in terms of what local authorities and other people on the ground really need.
I expect the regionalisation project to assist the strong working partnership that already exists in many areas, which will be important in dealing with issues such as the provision of accommodation, as my hon. Friend mentioned. NASS should engage more closely with local authorities on property acquisition. Together with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, we are trying to ensure that accommodation is not procured in areas that have been identified for regeneration. That is causing a problem in some regions. I also want to examine whether we can involve local authorities much more as prime contractors in the delivery of accommodation, although I cannot say what the outcome will be because it relates to the wider issue of procurement rules and contracting regimes within the Government as a whole.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the operation of NASS, the quality of its decision-making and other aspects of its work. There has been an extensive, radical overhaul of procedures and I am sorry if the changes have not been evident so far because that is an important priority for me, Freda Chaloner and my senior officials. We continue to examine how to develop processes and procedures to improve efficiency, effectiveness and quality. I am not familiar with the individual cases that my hon. Friend cited, but I have no difficulty saying that they are not acceptable. We cannot tolerate people being left in such circumstances.
NASS is working towards achieving an acceptable standard of service with the minimum number of errors and disruption to the people that it is supporting. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, I will be able to say to my hon. Friend and other colleagues—as I wish to say about the whole of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate—that it is now an excellent organisation that is doing its work in a proper way, and that it is a public service of which we can be proud. Certainly, I do not separate out the directorate or NASS from the wider Government objectives of improving the standard of public services.
My hon. Friend mentioned the number of asylum seekers in Peterborough. I accept that it was not a major point in her contribution, but it has been a theme of my
250WH
hon. Friend and others in Peterborough that there are significant numbers of asylum seekers in the area—much higher numbers than have ever been the case.
There are at present 520 N ASS-supported asylum seekers in Peterborough. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure for the number of people in Peterborough who have only financial support because we do not have that information, but there are 2,450 such people in the east of England. I apologise, I gave the wrong figure earlier. The figure of 520 NASS-supported asylum seekers was for the east of England. In the region as a whole there are around 3,000 asylum seekers, including those on local authority interim support. There are 410 asylum seekers in NASS accommodation in Peterborough and while I cannot give her an exact figure, most of the remainder who are on financial support are in areas that are much closer to London and the outer London boroughs than Peterborough.
My hon. Friend's claim today of 2,500 asylum seekers in Peterborough, which is 500 more than her claim six months ago, is not one that we recognise. That figure is wrong and it is unhelpful to the issues that need to be addressed in Peterborough that elected representatives and others are voicing what some may feel is an alarmist view about the extent to which Peterborough is accommodating asylum seekers. Community relations issues have arisen in that town, and to some extent the presence of asylum seekers has been an easy target for those who wish to claim that asylum seekers and the operation of NASS are the primary reasons for some of those difficulties. As we know from elsewhere, community tensions arise from much longer-term factors concerned with the segregation of communities, where people live in separated housing, young people go to separated schools and people feel alienated and that they have been denied access to opportunities.
Clearly, asylum seekers and the issues that they raise may be part of people's perceptions of the difficulties, but they cannot be a causative factor in the way that some claim. Such factors relate to much more long-standing and deep-seated problems that need to be addressed. I am grateful that officials in Peterborough council have shown themselves to be keen not only to work directly with NASS on the issues raised by asylum seekers, but to work on the wider agenda of promoting community cohesion and developing an action plan to start the process of addressing some of the more deep-seated factors that currently colour community relations in Peterborough.
My hon. Friend said that I had no plans to visit Peterborough. She wrote to me several times over the summer, and she may recall that I told her that I had no plans to visit Peterborough over the summer, because I had already planned to visit other areas in the country where there had been disturbances, but that when planned my next series of ministerial visits Peterborough would be included as it is an area that I want to visit.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Microcredit Summit
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who will represent her Department at the Microcredit Summit + 5 being held in Washington from 10 to 13 November. [77359]

  Clare Short
  DFID will be represented at the Summit by its Chief Enterprise Development Adviser, David Stanton. We have also invited funding applications to enable prospective participants from developing countries to attend the event.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Improvement District
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of provisions to alter the voting majority relating to the proposed business improvement districts outlined in the draft Local Government Bill. [76829]

  Fires

  Total incidents

  All fires

  Primary fires1

  Secondary fires

  Chimney fires

  False alarms

  Special services2

  1996

  13,232

  4,609

  2,467

  1,726

  416

  5,481

  3,142

  1997

  13,304

  4,266

  2,484

  1,514

  268

  6,021

  3,017

  1998

  12,517

  4,006

  2,619

  1,145

  242

  5,565

  2,946

  1999

  13,286

  4,737

  2,957

  1,560

  220

  5,351

  3,198

  2000

  14,290

  4,845

  3,013

  1,603

  229

  5,720

  3,725

  1Including additional "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents

  2Special service incidents related to financial years 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Fire Fatalities
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lives were lost due to fires in(a) East Sussex and (b) Eastbourne in each of the last 20 years. [77891]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows fatal casualties in fires attended by East Sussex Fire Brigade for the period 1982–2000. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available. Fire casualty figures by brigade area are not available prior to 1982. Data cannot be broken down below brigade area level.

  Year

  Fatal casualties

  1982

  6

  1983

  12

  1984

  15

  1985

  13

  686W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee recommended that a threshold of two thirds of the number of businesses eligible to vote should vote in favour before a Business Improvement District proposal proceeds. A number of other proposals were also made during the consultation on the draft Local Government Bill. We have considered all the proposals that have been made and will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Detrunking
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional monies will pass to the(a) shire counties and (b) unitary authorities on detrunking. [76271]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the time responsibility for a road passes to a local authority (or very shortly after) it receives revenue funding for routine maintenance in the form of Special Grant under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and support for capital maintenance in the form of supplementary credit approvals. The value of this support is determined by a generalised engineering assessment, with allowance made for local factors such as type of road, level of traffic and the cost of winter maintenance.

  Fire Facilities (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many emergency calls were responded to by the fire brigade in each of the last five years in(a) East Sussex and (b) Eastbourne. [77889]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table contains information on incidents attended by East Sussex Fire Brigade for the last five years for which data are available. Incident data are not available below brigade area level.

  Year

  Fatal casualties

  1986

  15

  1987

  11

  1988

  7

  1989

  9

  1990

  15

  1991

  16

  1992

  15

  1993

  10

  1994

  5

  1995

  9

  1996

  9

  1997

  11

  1998

  11

  1999

  5

  20001

  6

  1Provisional

  687W

  Fire Service Cover
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has(a) received and (b) requested from (i) chief fire officers and (ii) the Chief Inspector of Fire Brigades on their assessments of the adequacy of fire cover in fire authority areas during a firefighters' strike. [77110]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of MOD emergency fire cover has been planned centrally in consultation with the Chief Inspector of the Fire Service and locally in consultation with Chief Fire Officers to maximise the effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities. The emergency cover would not replicate the firefighting capabilities of the Fire Service, but would aim to minimise the danger to human life. The command and operational structure for emergency cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, and there will be a continuous dialogue between the emergency services and Chief Fire Officers.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of cross-border co-operation he anticipates between neighbouring fire authorities during a firefighters' strike. [77112]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the event of a firefighters' strike, the command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties. The fire crews will use a number of temporary stations across counties but the deployment of fire fighters will be based on the assessment by the military in consultation with others such as the police of how best to respond to an emergency in the quickest time possible. The extent to which retained firefighters continue to work will also be taken into account in determining how best to deploy military fire crews.

  Income from council tax as a percentage of spending

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Hampshire county council

  32

  33

  35

  34

  33

  Fareham borough council

  45

  35

  39

  43

  35

  Durham county council

  23

  25

  24

  24

  23

  Durham city council

  34

  30

  34

  36

  35

  English county councils

  28

  30

  30

  30

  30

  English district councils

  35

  39

  38

  40

  38

  source:

  1997–98 to 2000–01 Revenue summary returns 2001–02 Budget Estimate Return

  Local Government Finance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the implications are for the detrunking programme of the local government finance formula grant distribution. [76270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  688W

  Homelessness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 61W, what recent guidance produced by his Department in connection with the Connexions service he has issued to homelessness agencies working with vulnerable young people; and on what date it was issued. [78197]

  Mrs. Roche
  "Working Together— Connexions and youth homelessness agencies" outlined effective models of developing the Connexions Personal Adviser role in partnership with homelessness agencies.

  The report was launched in October 2001 and has been distributed at conferences discussing youth homelessness issues since then.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce a mechanism for ensuring local government ring-fence monies for waste management as part of the new spending assessment. [77513]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy is to restrict ring-fencing to cases which are high priorities for Government and where we cannot achieve our policy goal by specifying output or outcome targets; any new ring-fenced grant schemes will also be time-limited. We will announce the results of the review of local government revenue grant distribution in early December. There may also be changes to waste management funding arrangements following detailed consideration of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit's report on the subject.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of spending by(a) Hampshire county council, (b) Fareham borough council, (c) Durham county council, (d) Durham city council, (e) English county councils and (f) district councils was financed bycouncil tax payers in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [78171]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion of revenue expenditure financed from the council tax for the above local authorities and class of authorities in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 was:

  Decisions on which methodology is to be used for the local government finance formula grant distribution will not impact on the detrunking programme.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the report on the economics of the park homes industry. [78414]
  689W
  Mr. McNulty
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the research report on the economics of park homes and the park homes industry, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The report will help us consider options for reform, as part of our wider aim of addressing issues of concern to park home residents.

  Public Utilities (Statutory Obligations)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers he has to intervene where local authorities have failed to make public utilities comply with their statutory obligations. [77839]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Any specific powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in such cases would be set out in the relevant legislation. Generally, enforcement of utilities' obligations is entirely a matter for the relevant regulatory body including, in some cases, local authorities.

  Regional Assemblies
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the evidence used by his Department to support proposals for the devolution of powers and functions to elected regional assemblies. [76219]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is set out in the regional governance White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511) as part of the rationale for the Government's proposals to give each English region the opportunity to choose whether to have an elected assembly. Elected regional assemblies will have real power and funding to improve the quality of life of people in their region— particularly by improving regional economic performance.

  Assemblies will have powers to make a difference in key areas such as jobs, transport, housing, culture and environment. And their block grant will give them much greater freedom to allocate spending according to regional priorities. This offers the prospect of tailored regional solutions to regional problems. It strikes a balance between those issues that are best dealt with at a regional level and those that are best dealt with at a national or a local level. Our proposals for elected assemblies in the English regions will bring decision-making closer to the people and make government more efficient, more effective and more accountable.

  The evidence base includes the information presented in "Regional Government in England: a preliminary review of literature and research findings" (published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2000). Other relevant documentation is included in the White Paper's bibliography (annex J). The Government's approach to determining which powers and functions should become the responsibility of elected regional assemblies is described in chapter 4 of the White Paper. Copies of the documents referred to are available in the Library.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers exercised by central government will be devolved to the proposed regional assemblies. [78174]
  690W
  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is fully set out in Chapter 4 of the regional governance White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511).

  Residential Property Purchases
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend the right of local authorities to purchase residential property on the open market; and if he will make a statement. [77103]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to make any changes to the powers under which authorities can purchase existing housing outside their compulsory purchase powers.

  Travellers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what discussions he has had with the LGA on travellers; and if he will make a statement on what policy options he has evaluated. [77845]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Prior to the release of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office joint Traveller statement of 5 July, the former Housing Minister met with representatives from the LGA to discuss the Government's proposed approach of linking enforcement powers to site provision.

  Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will again meet with the LGA to discuss policy development issues in the light of the recently published research on the provision and condition of local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England.

  Copies of the research are available in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Savings
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 October to the right hon. Member for Fylde, columns 267–68, if he will give the calculation behind his statement on the trend in the level of people's savings. [77865]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) today.

TREASURY

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many community amateur sports clubs(a) have applied and (b) are registered with the Inland Revenue for tax exemptions; and if he will list those registered. [78013]

  John Healey
  As at 25 October 2002, 334 clubs had applied for registration with the Inland Revenue as community amateur sports clubs. Of those, 126 had so
  691W
  far been registered. A list of those registered follows. The Inland Revenue will be publishing a monthly update of the list on its website.

  3D Dynamos Football Club

  Abercorn Sports Club

  Acton Reynald Cricket Club

  Annbank Angling Club

  Antrim Rugby Football and Ladies Hockey Club

  Ards Rugby Football Club

  Assheton Bowmen Archery Club

  Aylesbury Vale Seido Karate

  Badenoch Riding Club

  Bainsford Bowling Club

  Belfast Wado Karate Club

  Bishop Sutton Tennis Club

  Blaydon Rugby Football Club

  Boat of Garten Golf and Tennis Club

  Bough Beech Sailing Club

  Brigstock Cricket Club

  Bristol Croquet Club

  Bristol Orienteering Club

  Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club

  Bullmershe Gymnastics Club

  Carrickfergus Rugby Football Club

  Castle Cove Sailing Club

  Chester Le Street Town FC

  Chipping Campden Tennis Club

  Chorley Buccaneers American Football

  Cliftonville Cricket Club

  Clydesdale Cricket Club

  Criccieth Golf Club

  Cromer Marrams Bowls Club

  Crowstone and St. Saviours Lawn Tennis Club

  Cwmcarn United RFC

  Dalgety Bay Sailing Club

  Dedham Cricket Club

  Dinnington Rugby Union Football Club

  Donaghadee Sailing Club

  Doune Cricket Club

  Duddingston Golf Club

  Dulwich Runners AC

  Dunfermline Tennis and Bridge Club Ltd.

  Durham Amateur Rowing Club

  Eastcote Hockey and Badminton Club Ltd.

  Epping Archers

  Falkirk Indoor Bowling Club

  Fife Athletic Club

  Forth Corinthian Yacht Club

  Garleton Football Club

  Girton Golf Club (Cambridge) Ltd.

  Gordonians Hockey Club

  Grampian Speleological Group

  Grantown-on-Spey Golf Club

  Gravesend Sailing Club

  Haddington Rugby Football Club

  Hampton Junior Football Club

  Harborough Flyers Basketball Club

  Hawkwell Athletic Football Club

  Helensburgh Sailing Club

  Herne Bay Lawn Tennis Club

  Herne Bay Lifeguard and Swimming Club

  Heywood Sports AFC

  Highworth Tennis Club

  692W

  Hindsford Junior Football Club

  Hollowell Sailing Club

  Hook Norton Sports and Social Club

  Kingussie Golf Club

  Langtons Cricket Club

  Largs Golf Club

  Lisburn Rugby Football Club

  Llandudno Golf Club (Maesdu) Ltd.

  Llandudno Rugby Club Ltd.

  Lochaber Camanachd Club

  Lochaber Yacht Club

  Lochcarron Golf Club

  Lundin Sports Club

  Lympstone Sailing Club

  Mansfield Rugby Union Football Club

  Merioneth Yacht Club Ltd.

  Morriston Town AFC

  Newbury and Thatcham Hockey Club

  Nottingham Kayak Club

  Oldmeldrum Golf Club

  Parkside Raiders Junior Football Club

  Pendle Ski Club

  Peterborough City Rowing Club

  Peterculter Golf Club

  Pevensy Bay Sailing Club Ltd.

  Philadelphia Cricket Club

  Pirbright Tennis Club

  Porthmadog Golf Club

  Portishead Yacht and Sailing Club

  Prestatyn Cricket Club

  Prestwick Symington and Ayr Fort Community

  Tennis Club

  Rogate Bowling Club

  Rothley Ivanhoe Tennis Club

  Royal Solent Yacht Club

  Rye Harbour Sailing Club

  Salcombe Rugby Football Club

  Scarborough and District Indoor Bowls Club

  Sevenoaks Athletics Club

  Shipley Juniors AFC

  South Antrim Hockey Club

  South Northumberland Cricket Club

  St. AnDrews Fencing Club

  St. AnDrews Lawn Tennis Club

  St. Just Cricket Club

  Stanley Sports and Social (Cricket and Rugby League)

  Stone-In-Oxney Sports Club

  Strathpeffer Spa Golf Club

  Street Sub Aqua Club

  Sydenham Lawn Tennis Croquet Club Ltd.

  Taynuilt Golf Club

  Thames Ditton Cricket Club

  The Rough-Stuff Fellowship

  The Trojans Club

  Twinstead Cricket Club

  Victoria Hall Badminton Club

  Wealden Bowls Centre Ltd.

  Wessex Mountaineering Club

  West Bridgford Hockey Club

  West Kirby Sailing Club

  Western Baths Club

  White Roding Social and Sports Club

  Wigton Moor Junior AFC

  693W

  Wollaston Lawn Tennis Club

  Woodford Rugby Football Club

  York Railway Institute

  Yoxford Cricket Club

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the causes of the change in aggregate sales since April; [77346]

  (2) how much revenue Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland has raised directly as a result of the aggregates levy since the aggregates levy was introduced in April and how much revenue Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland forecast would be raised before the introduction of the aggregates levy; [77342]

  (3) what action is being taken by Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland to combat non-payment of the aggregates levy on aggregate brought across the land border from the Republic of Ireland; [77344]

  (4) if he will estimate the change in tonnes in aggregate sales in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the aggregates levy; [77345]

  (5) if he will estimate the total weight of aggregate brought across the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without payment of aggregates levy since April. [77343]

  John Healey
  It is too early to assess the impact of the levy.

  No estimate has been made of the total weight of aggregate brought across the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without payment of aggregates levy since April. Aggregates levy is due at the point of first commercial exploitation in the UK and not at the point of import. Where it cannot be demonstrated that aggregate is from a levy-paid source, Customs will use their powers to recover the revenue due and impose penalties, where appropriate. The resources allocated to administering the levy in Northern Ireland take account of issues associated with the land boundary, and this resourcing will be subject to regular review.

  The revenue forecast for the aggregates levy is made for the UK as a whole, and is not available by devolved region; therefore, data on the aggregates levy revenue raised in Northern Ireland are not available. In total, the levy is forecast to raise £0.2 billion during 2002–03.

  Budget 2002
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 256W, and the assumption specified in paragraphs 2.30 and 2.52 of Budget 2002, what further assessment he has made of the start date for the current economic cycle, for the purpose of calculating the cyclically adjusted budget surplus or deficit; and what the calculations are on which that assumption is based. [77373]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury's methodology for assessing the economic cycle for the purpose of calculating cyclically-adjusted budget surpluses or deficits is set out in publication "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle", HM Treasury, March 1999.
  694W
  An updated assessment will be provided in the forthcoming pre-Budget Report.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) credit unions and (b) financial services organisations regarding the establishment of a central services organisation for credit unions; and if he will make a statement [78078]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers have had a number of discussions with representatives from the credit union sector and financial services organisations regarding the establishment of a central services organisation since the idea was proposed by the Credit Unions Taskforce in November 1999.

  The Government believe that credit unions have an important role to play to encourage the accumulation of savings and help tackle financial exclusion. We continue to liaise with the movement and develop proposals to support its development. The establishment of a central services organisation is a project for the credit union movement to take forward. We understand that the Association of British Credit Unions Limited (ABCUL) is developing new plans to deliver some of the services that could have been provided through a central services organisation.

  Cross-channel Smuggling
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to tackle cross-channel smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [78321]

  John Healey
  Tobacco smuggling grew very rapidly in the late 1990s until, by 2000–01, over 20 per cent. of the cigarette market was illicit. The cost of that tobacco smuggling to UK taxpayers was £3.5 billion. A further 6 per cent. of the market was legally non-tax paid product bought abroad and brought back for own use.

  The great majority of cigarette smuggling is undertaken by serious and organised criminals who conceal large volumes of cigarettes in excess of 1 million at a time in freight consignments. In 2000 a smaller proportion was smuggled by cross-channel passengers. However in that year the total cost of such passenger excise smuggling was still £1.7 billion.

  Had no action been taken over the past two years Customs and Excise estimate that the illicit share of the cigarette market would have reached 31 per cent. by the end of March 2002.

  Since the launch of the Tackling Tobacco Strategy in March 2000, Customs and Excise have been successful in containing growth in the illicit cigarette market, disrupted over 100 organised crime gangs responsible for the vast majority of the smuggling, and have had dramatic success in cutting losses from cross-channel passenger smuggling by almost three-quarters. Figures for 2001–02, the second year of this strategy, will be published at the time of the pre-Budget report and I anticipate they will show that the strategy remains on track. In the same period consumer expenditure on legitimate cross-border shopping for alcohol and tobacco has grown by 10 per cent.
  695W
  In 2000–01 Customs seized 2.8 billion cigarettes. Of these, 0.9 billion were seized overseas through the work of the Customs Overseas Liaison Officer network, a further 1.2 billion were seized in freight consignments, 400 million were seized inland and 55 million were seized at the ports from cross-channel passenger smugglers.

  The sole focus of Customs excise enforcement activity in respect of cross-channel passenger traffic is to tackle those who smuggle tobacco or alcohol, having received or intending to receive money or money's worth for those goods. The Government have consistently made clear that people are entitled to bring into the UK without liability to tax as much EU tax-paid tobacco or alcohol as they wish for their own use. Customs literature also makes this clear.

  Just one-tenth of 1 per cent. of those who have crossed the channel in the past two years have had tobacco or alcohol seized by Customs. Since the start of the strategy, the average quantity seized by Customs from cross-channel passenger smugglers was approximately 4,900 cigarettes and 15 kilos of hand rolling tobacco (equivalent to at least 18,000 cigarettes).

  Of the 0.1 per cent. of cross-channel passengers who had tobacco or alcohol seized in the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 over 75 per cent. chose not to make any sort of appeal against that seizure. Of those that did appeal, magistrates courts overwhelmingly backed the judgments made by Customs, and found against Customs in less than 0.1 per cent. of cases, and only 1 per cent. of cases were either overturned or restored by a Customs review officer or by an independent tribunal.

  Building on the success of the Budget 2000 anti-smuggling measures, I am today announcing the next stage of the Tackling Tobacco Strategy. Despite cross-channel tobacco smuggling having been cut by around three-quarters in the past two years, smugglers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their attempts to blend in with honest shoppers. So the measures I am announcing today will help make the distinction between smugglers and honest shoppers even clearer. The measures make clear that Customs activity is legal and fair but tough upon those who attempt to smuggle. It comprises the following components:
  Regulations will be laid before Parliament today to abolish the 1992 Personal Reliefs Order and replace it with new provisions that:
  effectively define shopping and smuggling, specify the factors Customs will take into account in distinguishing one from the other and place the onus for that decision upon Customs;
  reaffirm that all Customs stops are lawful and those for excise specific purposes based on reasonable grounds for suspicion;
  increase the Indicative Levels for tobacco from 800 to 3,200 cigarettes and from 1 to 3kgs of hand rolling tobacco, representing around six-months supply for an average smoker. Those bringing back larger quantities of tobacco must expect, if asked, to explain how it is that such goods are for their own use. Customs will continue to seize quantities below these levels as well as above them where they are satisfied that those goods are intended for resale or other exchange for money or money's worth.
  In addition, the announcements I am making today will confirm that:
  Vehicles used to smuggle tobacco or alcohol will continue to be liable to seizure but for small first offences Customs will offer restoration of the vehicle for the value of the attempted revenue
  696W
  evasion. Those who use vehicles to smuggle on a large scale or a repeat basis will not be offered such an opportunity and must expect to lose their vehicles.
  A new clearer guide to appealing/complaining is being published by Customs today and will be given to all those who have goods seized or wish to complain about Customs behaviour towards them.
  I have asked Customs to undertake, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, a review of the present appeals structure and to present proposals for streamlining and simplifying these arrangements to me by the end of January 2003. The Terms of Reference will be available today in the Library of the House and on the Customs website (), together with details for submitting contributions.
  Having brought cross-channel passenger smuggling under control the Government is determined that it should remain so. To this end, Customs expect to conduct an increased number of prosecutions against large scale and serial cross-channel passenger smugglers.
  Violence against Customs officers in the course of carrying out their duties will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Customs will toughen their policy and prosecute anyone who perpetrates serious assaults on staff.
  This set of measures provides the public with a clear guide to their right to shop for alcohol or tobacco for their own use within the EU and to the consequences for those who attempt to evade tax in bringing in such goods having received or intending to receive money or money's worth for some or all of them. It will also enable Customs to continue to prevent the smuggling of tobacco or alcohol and the disorder which accompanies such smuggling from ruining the enjoyment of honest cross-border shoppers. It will also enable Customs to prevent the smugglers from undermining the UK economy in alcohol or tobacco products and from depriving our public services of essential tax revenues. Customs will act fairly and in accordance with the law but they will also act firmly and with the full weight of sanctions against those who break the law.

  Euro Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the number of retail businesses that accept the euro in payment for goods and services. [77625]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 13 June,Official Report. column 1396W.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards reform of the arrangements for the control of inflation of the European Central Bank. [78087]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 231W.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the National Changeover Plan to date; what the money has been spent on; and what further expenditure is planned. [78121]
  697W
  Ruth Kelly
  Details of expenditure on changeover planning were included in the Sixth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 18 July 2002. Copies of the report are in the Library of the House.

  Private Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was put into private pension schemes of all types in each of the last five years, per head of the working population. [77826]

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

  Letter from Mr. L Cook to Mr. Michael Jack, dated 29 October 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on pension contribution statistics [77826].
  Following the publication of the Review of Pension Contribution Statistics on 10 October the estimated value of contributions to private pension schemes over the last five years in £ billion are:

  Year

  Value of contributions

  1997

  33.1

  1998

  37.3

  1999

  42.3

  2000

  47.5

  2001

  149.9

  1Data for 2001 are provisional. They are based on quarterly estimates and include a National Accounts coherence adjustment.

  These figures are consistent with those published in Annex B, Table 1 on pages 31 and 32 of the Review, a copy of which is attached. They include net contributions to funded occupational schemes, individual and employer contributions to individual/ personal pensions and also the employee contributions to unfounded and notionally funded schemes.
  The components are shown as follows The row detail refer to Annex B, table 1 of the Review of Pension Contribution Statistics:

  £ million

  Year

  Contributions to individual and personal pensions1

  Contributions to unfounded and nationally funded schemes2

  Contributions to occupational pensions (self administered and insurance managed3

  Total

  1997

  8,200

  2,801

  22,051

  33,052

  1998

  9,000

  2,715

  25,603

  37,318

  1999

  9,400

  3,024

  29,874

  42,298

  2000

  10,300

  3,472

  33,741

  47,513

  20014

  11,600

  3,912

  34,374

  49,886

  1Row M

  2Employee's part of row L

  3Row I + row K

  4Data for 2001 are provisional. They are based on quarterly estimates and include a National Accounts coherence adjustment.

  Estimates of the total working population have been taken from Labour Market Statistics issued in October. These estimates cover employed and self-employed persons and include part time
  698W
  employees and represent the position at April. They are the average of the four quarters in each of the five years. The totals, in thousands, are:

  Year

  Number of people employed

  1997

  26,663

  1998

  27,044

  1999

  27,465

  2000

  27,830

  2001

  28,090

  To the nearest £10, the contributions per head of the total working population are:

  £ per year

  Year

  Value of contribution

  1997

  1,240

  1998

  1,380

  1999

  1,540

  2000

  1,710

  2001

  1,780

  Public and Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of changes in the ability of employers to obtain public and employers' liability insurance. [77988]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are aware of recent increases in premiums for public and employers' liability insurance, and is monitoring the situation closely.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact that the level of public sector pay settlements is having on the money available to meet the targets set out in public service agreements. [78177]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments are responsible for ensuring that targets are delivered within the budgets which have been set.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry regarding the position of small businesses. [77940]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers meet regularly with business leaders and others to discuss a wide range of topics.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the expected outturn for tax receipts for 2002–03. [78179]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, an interim update of projections for the public finances will be published in the forthcoming pre-Budget Report.
  699W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Vehicles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many vehicles she and her Ministers have access to, broken down by vehicle type; what the annual operating costs are for the last three financial years; how much it costs to convert a car so it is suitable for a Minister: and if she will make a statement. [76925]

  Dr. Howells
  Four cars are accessible to Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as follows:

  Vauxhall Omega Elite;

  Vauxhall Vectra GLS; and

  two Ford Mondeo Zetec's.

  The annual operating cost for the past three years are:

  £

  April 2000 to

  April 2001 to

  April 2002 to

  March 2001

  March 2002

  March 2003

  Secretary of State

  61,028

  62,700

  67,620

  Minister

  48,497

  50,145

  51,148

  Minister

  57,705

  59,292

  55,258

  Minister

  56,763

  50,145

  51,216

  The cost of converting a car to enable it to be suitable for a Minister is £510.

  Draft Communications Bill
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she plans to publish the Government's response to the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill. [78438]

  Tessa Jowell
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have pleasure to inform the House that the Government's formal response to the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill will be published this afternoon. I would also like to express my gratitude to Lord Puttnam and his committee for their valuable contribution to our preparations of the Communications Bill.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tests for EPO have been conducted in the UK during(a) the Commonwealth Games and (b) other sporting events; and if she will make a statement. [77518]

  Mr. Caborn
  The anti-doping programme in the UK is delivered through the national anti-doping organisation, UK Sport. In addition, UK Sport was contracted by the Commonwealth Games Federation in conjunction with Manchester 2002 (the organising committee for the 2002 Commonwealth Games) to manage the anti-doping programme over the Games period.

  UK Sport has confirmed that during the Commonwealth Games it conducted 16 tests for erythropoietin (EPO). The other sporting events where UK Sport has conducted EPO testing have been the
  700W
  2002 London Marathon, where 16 EPO tests were undertaken, and the World Half Marathon, which took place in Bristol in October 2001, where five EPO tests were undertaken.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what preparations she has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77657]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS staff are fully trained in fire safety, and have been reminded of the need for greater care and vigilance in the event of a firefighters' strike. This measure, which will ensure the continuity of services operated directly from DCMS, has been achieved at no additional cost to, the annual administration budget. The majority of our services are provided through the Department's NDPBs, who are responsible for making their own provisions for ensuring business continuity in the event of a firefighters' strike.

  ITV Digital
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from football clubs over the collapse of ITV Digital; and if she will make a statement. [77960]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received 31 representations from Football League clubs on this issue.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 26 September 2002,Official Report, column 131W, on Sport England, if she will list the projections for UK Sport's income from the National Lottery for (a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06. [78267]

  Mr. Caborn
  The projected income for UK Sport from the National Lottery, based on the most recent forecast figures provided to the Lottery Distributors, excluding interest, is shown in the table.

  £ million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  UK Sport

  20.732

  20.318

  20.318

  20.318

DEFENCE

  Beef Supplies
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the beef supply contracts for the Ministry of Defence and its agencies are sourced from Scottish herds. [76812]
  701W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: I can confirm that 50% of the beef and beef products purchased for consumption by the armed forces in the United Kingdom is British. Of that total, in the past 12 months, 53 per cent. came from Scottish herds.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the six Chinook MSH/HC2A and eight Chinook MSH/HC3 ordered by his Department in 1995 will enter service with the RAF. [76379]

  Mr. Ingram
  The six Chinook MSH/HC2A entered RAF service in 2000.

  On current plans, it is intended that the RAF will begin to fly the Chinook MSH/HC3 from the end of 2003.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 151W, if he will estimate the annual increases in pay for Ministry of Defence non-industrial civil servants working only in his Department, excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [77520]

  Dr. Moonie
  The figures are listed in the table:

  Percentage increase to paybill of non-industrial staff

  2002

  3.2

  2003

  3.1

  2004

  3.1

  2005

  3.1

  Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy answered the last Continuous Attitude Survey; and what proportion of the service members in each service this represents. [77285]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of personnel that responded to the last Continuous Attitude Survey for each Service is set out in the table.

  Number responding

  Proportion of personnel (percentage)

  Naval Service

  957

  2

  Army

  1,867

  1.9

  RAF

  1,182

  2.4

  Note:

  Based on trained strength figures for the United Kingdom regulars as at 1 September 2002.
  702W

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the McKinsey report on the future strategy for the Defence Logistics Organisation. [77064]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no plans to publish the joint McKinsey/Ministry of Defence report.

  Discharged Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel have been(a) discharged! and (b) retired early from the RAF after being in service in (i) Sierra Leone, (ii) Saif Sareea, (iii) Afghanistan, (iv) Kosovo and (v) Macedonia as a direct result of their involvement in the deployments; and if he will make a statement. [78287]

  Mr. Ingram
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and cannot be determined from individual personnel records without incurring disproportionate cost and effort. There are no recorded instances of RAF personnel being medically discharged as a direct result of disabilities sustained during service in the named theatres of operation.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) MoD Fire Service appliances and (b) QinetiQ fire appliances from Boscombe Down will be deployed to provide fire service cover to the civilian community. [77232]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ownership of all fire service appliances at Boscombe Down was transferred to QinetiQ in 2001. The fire fighting capabilities at Boscombe Down are tailored to meet the primary need to provide emergency support to the airfield at the site and to support QinetiQ's activities. Although QinetiQ's fire service may be able to assist in response to emergency calls elsewhere in circumstances where their primary responsibility was not put at risk, this cannot be guaranteed.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Green Goddess fire engines will be deployed in Salisbury constituency; how many service personnel will man each appliance; and from what duties they have been withdrawn to provide fire service cover. [77316]

  Mr. Ingram
  One Green Goddess fire engine will be based in Salisbury. The command structure is designed to ensure flexibility when deploying emergency fire cover, and where necessary resources may be deployed from adjacent areas.

  Each Green Goddess has a crew of six per shift, with two shifts, each of 12 hours, providing 24-hour cover. The personnel involved may be withdrawn from a variety of other duties, depending on changing circumstances.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fire service vehicles there are at Norton
  703W
  Manor Camp; and what fire service appliances kept at Norton Manor Camp will be deployed to provide fire service cover to the civilian community. [77763]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no emergency fire service vehicles at Norton Manor Camp and there are currently no plans to deploy any emergency fire cover from there. However, a range of fire fighting capabilities, including breathing apparatus and heavy cutting capability will operate from Taunton TA Centre nearby.

  It is intended to use all available resources in a flexible manner to provide the most appropriate cover. Where necessary, resources may be deployed from adjacent areas.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, in the event of a firefighters' strike, what disposition of service personnel and Green Goddesses will be made for the protection of the people and their property in the Solihull constituency; and where they will be stationed. [77782]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Emergency cover in Solihull, as in the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddess crews, breathing apparatus teams, rescue teams (equipped with specialist equipment) and the police. The provision of Ministry of Defence emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer and local police to minimise call-out times and maximise the availability of the range of firefighting capabilities.

  Temporary fire stations will be located at the Police Traffic Centre, Aston, and the Police Training Centre, Pershore Road. Each location will have three Green Goddess appliances and one Specialist Breathing Apparatus Rescue Team. The Operational Control Centre, based at Bournville, will be responsible for co-ordinating emergency response in the quickest time possible, either through the deployment of these assets, or by requesting assistance from other areas.

  First World War
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received asking him to review the cases of soldiers who were shot for cowardice during the First World War; and if he will make a statement. [77046]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last six months I have received six representations from hon. and right hon. Members and 22 from members of the public on this issue.

  As the House has been told on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Dr. Reid, examined this matter in great detail and with deep care and concern. There are considerable legal difficulties in considering pardons, particularly the lack of evidence available today, and all these points were explained in my right hon. Friend's statement to this House on 24 July 1998, Official Report, columns 1372–86.

  While there are, I am afraid, no grounds to reconsider this matter, it is important that we do not overlook the
  704W
  very important steps that have been taken to recognise these men as victims of the war, and to draw them and their families into the nation's consciousness and remembrance. The public commemoration of these men in the new memorial in National Memorial Arboretum is very fitting.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans from the Twickenham constituency have been seen by the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme; how many of these were assessed; how many were assessed as having a cancer; and if he will make a statement. [76929]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 18 October 3,334 patients have attended the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP), and of these, three Gulf veterans were recorded as living in the Twickenham constituency. None were assessed as having a cancer.

  The clinical findings for 3,000 Service and ex-Service patients who attended the GVMAP in the period between 11 October 1993 and 18 June 2001 was published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine on 1 October 2002. The paper found that 75 per cent. of the 3,000 patients seen were well at the time of attendance. The authors found no unusual pattern of disease among patients attending over time.

  International Interoperability Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the membership of the International Interoperability Council is; what its objectives are; and if he will make a statement on its method of proceeding. [77791]

  Mr. Hoon
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Multinational Interoperability Council (MIC) which comprises Australia, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States of America. The objectives of the MIC are to identify interoperability issues and to articulate actions which, if implemented pan-nationally, would contribute to more effective coalition operations. The work of the MIC is principally conducted by means of Working Groups. Further information on the MIC is available at "www.c3i.osd.mil/org/c3is/ccbm/mic.html.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual cost of implementing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq since RAF military overflights began; how many bombs have been dropped on Iraq by British aircraft over this period; and what United Nations resolutions give authority for the policing of the no-fly zone. [75981]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our records do not separately identify expenditure incurred in maintaining the no-fly zones. However, the table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.
  705W

  £million

  Additional expenditure

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  25

  2001–021

  222

  1 Estimate.

  2 Calculated on a resource basis; all previous figures are cash-based.

  The Royal Air Force aircraft patrolling the Iraqi no-fly zones had dropped 318 bombs during this period (to 30 September 2002), 52 of those weapons were released during Operation Desert Fox.

  The Royal Air Force patrol the Iraqi no-fly zones in support of UN SCR 688, which demanded an end to Saddam's brutal repression of its own people.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical negligence claims were received by his Department in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002 to date: how many complaints in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002 resulted in compensation being paid; how much compensation was paid in each year; and if he will make a statement. [77286]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of claims received for alleged clinical negligence together with the amount of common law compensation paid in 2000–01, 2001–02 and between 1 April to 23 October 2002 was as follows:

  Clinical negligence claims received

  Number of claims settled

  Compensation paid including claimants' legal costs (£)

  2000–01

  128

  79

  10,617,263

  2001–02

  142

  59

  8,924,255

  2002–031

  78

  26

  6,427,000

  1 1 April to 23 October 2002

  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation, we do so. Most claims are settled amicably on a legal liability basis without recourse to the courts. The payment of compensation does not necessarily occur in the financial year that the claim was received.

  A record of complaints from Service personnel and their families alleging medical negligence is kept only for those cases where compensation is being sought.

  Military Trucks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies which have submitted bids 706W
  for the military trucks contract; and when an announcement on the award of the contract will be made. [77601]

  Dr. Moonie
  Bids for the military trucks contract were received from four companies—MAN UK Truck & Bus Limited, Mercedes-Benz UK Limited, oshkosh Truck Corporation and Stewart & Stevenson Services Inc. An announcement on the award of the contract will be made at contract placement in late 2003.

  Network-centric Capability (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to enhance the network-centric capability of the armed forces. [76863]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: As we stated in the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter, the key to delivering networked capabilities is the ability to collect, fuse and disseminate accurate, timely and relevant information to deliver improved situational awareness—a shared understanding of the battlespace among commanders at all levels. We are already committed to investment in a range of sensor capabilities such as Nimrod MRA4, ASTOR and RAPTOR and communications systems such as SKYNET 5, BOWMAN, FALCON and tactical Datalinks—part of the backbone of our network infrastructure. We are also investing in information processing applications that will enhance our capability to collate, analyse and control the distribution of information within the network. As part of the New Chapter we announced a number of early capability enhancements that will help improve situational awareness, for example, an extra Mission Console for the E3-D and advancing the WATCHKEEPER Surveillance UAV programme.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith),Official Report, 15 October 2002, column 547W, on nuclear weapons, if he will estimate the size of the credits payable to the UK under the 1998 MOU. [77799]

  Dr. Moonie
  The size of the credits payable to the United Kingdom under the 1998 MOU total ․47 million, based on fiscal year 1999 constant dollars.

  Partnered Defence Supply Chain
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the employment implications of the Partnered Defence Supply Chain Initiative; and when he will be able to inform the House. [77065]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation has challenging targets to reduce costs whilst improving the quality of logistics support to the Front Line. As part of this, the Partnered Defence Supply Chain Initiative is seeking to assess the risks and opportunities of increased levels of commercial participation in managing and
  707W
  operating the Defence Physical Supply Chain. This analysis has only just commenced therefore it is too early to ascertain what potential employment implications there could be. I will inform the House of the results of the current initial assessment, anticipated to be complete in the middle of next year.

  Pension and Compensation Arrangements
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish proposals on armed forces pension and compensation arrangements; and what consultation process he envisages following such publication. [77790]

  Mr. Ingrain
  Proposals on the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme and Compensation Scheme were published in March 2001. The formal consultations took place between March 2001 and July 2001, although they were informally extended to October 2001 to admit some late replies. In parallel, discussion groups took place at Service units throughout the country and discussions were also held with ex-Service organisations, such as the Royal British Legion and Forces Pension Society. The final proposals are currently being staffed for final approval by Ministers. These proposals have taken account of the comments received during the consultation process, the recommendations of the House of Commons Defence Committee, and discussions with the ex-Service community. Subject to approval around the turn of the year, the final details of the schemes and a report on the consultations will be published early next year.

  Puma (Tenders)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions he took to obtain tenders for the refurbishment of six ex-Republic of South Africa SA330 Puma aircraft before announcing his intention to place the main structural contract with Eurocopter of France; and what steps he took to ascertain what other companies were capable of undertaking this work. [77120]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The ex-Republic of South Africa Air Puma helicopters were procured to supplement the existing Ministry of Defence Puma fleet. Because the aircraft had not flown for over five years, and their previous usage spectrum was unknown, it was essential to ensure that the airworthiness and structural integrity of the aircraft could be adequately assured. Options for effecting the refurbishment of the aircraft to the same standard as the existing fleet were evaluated. It was assessed that Eurocopter, the design authority for the Puma, was the only company with the necessary knowledge of, and competences in, the structural load paths of the Puma to be able to act as a prime contractor. As a result, an entry was placed in the MOD Contracts Bulletin notifying that the work would be placed with Eurocopter, while encouraging Eurocopter to maximise sub-contractor opportunities.
  708W

  RAF Innsworth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of civilians employed at RAF Innsworth; and if he will make a statement.[77039]

  Mr. Ingram
  A wide-ranging review, PTC 2002, was initiated last year. Its aim was to optimise management processes and structures to support operational capabilities in a more timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. PTC 2002 reported in April this year, and recommended a rationalised HQ structure.

  A formal evaluation to validate the revised structure is currently being undertaken. However, the latest available figures indicate that there will be a reduction of around 180 posts across PTC (140 civilian (non-industrial) posts and 40 service posts). We estimate that civilian reductions at RAF Innsworth will be in the region of 50, with the remainder 90 occurring at other PTC stations. We intend that all manpower reductions will be effected through natural wastage.

  Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the UK contribution to the proposed NATO rapid deployment force unit will be; and if he will make a statement. [77811]

  Mr. Hoon
  The NATO Response Force (NRF) concept is currently being discussed within the Alliance, with the guiding principles expected to he put before Heads of State and Government at the November 2002 NATO Summit in Prague for their agreement. While it is premature to discuss what the United Kingdom's precise contribution will be, the UK strongly supports the NRF concept as a means of optimising the utility of the NATO Force Structure across the range of missions. We can therefore anticipate that the UK led Headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, the United Kingdom Maritime Force and our contribution to NATO Readiness Forces (Air), will form the basis of our participation in the NRF.

  Thefts
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 548W, he will assign monetary values to each of the items (a) to (e). [77233]

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

  Vaccination
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vaccination programmes for UK armed forces are(a) under way and (b) planned in advance of possible military action in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [76291]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Regular and reserve forces personnel are offered immunisations as part of an established vaccination programme. Members of the regular forces are given routine vaccinations, with immunity being maintained by the administration of regular boosters. Reservists at

  709W
  high readiness for deployment also have their immunity maintained at a similar level by routine booster immunisations. All other reserve forces personnel receive a lesser number of routine immunisations with additional vaccinations, and any necessary boosters, being administered upon an increase to a high readiness state. In advance of overseas deployment, any personnel deploying to areas with a specific health hazard, and those in special occupational risk groups (such as medical personnel), may also be given additional vaccinations before deployment. It is the responsibility of Commanding Officers to ensure that personnel are up to date with the appropriate immunisations. Units should also carry out pre deployment checks of vaccination states. Immunisation also forms part of the package of capabilities which protects our troops from, and enables them to respond effectively to, the threat of biological warfare. Since May 2001, personnel deploying on operations to the Gulf and in specialist NEC units have been included in our programme of voluntary immunisation against anthrax. We have since expanded this programme; I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 3 June 2002, Official Report, column 1343–44W, to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Local Education Authority Funding
  Mr. Dave Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged between four and 18 years are in schools in local education authorities; if she will list the funding allocated to each school under her Department's proposed options; and if she will publish the deprivation allocation from additional educational needs under the Government's options(a) with and (b) without any ethnicity-weighting factor. [77160]

  Mr. Miliband
  There were 7,438,964 pupils between 4 and 18 in maintained schools in local education authorities recorded in the most recent annual schools census. It is not possible to identify the funding allocated to each school under the options set out in the consultation paper on Local Government Finance issued on 8 July: that would depend on decisions to be taken by LEAs on their formulae for distributing funding to their schools. The amounts of funding distributed for additional educational needs, and within that for ethnicity and English as an additional language (EAL), under each of the four consultation options is set out in the table below:

  Funding for 2002–03

  Option 1

  Option 2

  Option 3

  Option 4

  Deprivation Funding(£m)

  4,880

  4,118

  4,940

  4,006

  Ethnicity/EALFunding (£m)

  600

  421

  600

  431

  The levels of funding in these options are based on research from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). If an alternative method of funding AEN were used, it would
  710W
  be necessary to consider how it could fit with the evidence from the PwC study, which associated substantial costs with the incidence of EAL.

  A Levels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received since August on the future of A Levels. [76493]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has received a number of suggestions that AS Levels be abolished, and that a baccalaureate type system be introduced in place of A Levels.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates she has made of the cost of this year's A-level regrading to her Department. [76783]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have made it clear that universities and higher education colleges will not suffer financial disadvantage as a result of changes to student numbers due to A level regrading. It is, however, too early to determine how much funding individual institutions might need, but the costs are not likely to be high given the relatively small number of students affected.

  The A level claims Fund has been established to meet the legitimate costs of students who are able to transfer and students have until 31 January 2003 to apply. The Fund can meet accommodation, books, travel and where necessary tuition fees. We expect the costs falling to the Fund to be small.

  A maximum of £105,000 has been set aside for Mike Tomlinson's Inquiry.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications of the admission of downgraded A-level students to university for the admission of(a) other EU and (b) overseas students. [74666]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: All of the 168 UCAS applicants who, as a result of regrading of their A-levels, may now have the necessary grades to make them eligible for transfer to their first or second choice institution. As all are from the UK, and none are from EU countries other than the UK or from overseas, there will be no implication for these students.

  Accommodation Centres (Education Facilities)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether educational facilities in accommodation centres will have(a) a special educational needs co-ordinator and (b) classroom assistants trained to assist with special educational needs. [76939]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The staffing mix in accommodation centres will mirror as closely as possible that of a typical maintained school. The centres will have sufficient experienced and trained staff to meet the needs of most pupils with SEN.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of(a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants that will be required to teach a total of 120 children in Years 1 to 13 in accommodation centres. [76940]
  711W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has made no such estimate. She has, however, made clear that the composition of the teaching staff in accommodation centres should mirror as closely as possible that of maintained schools and be appropriate to the needs of the children concerned.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether children in accommodation centres will be(a) allowed and (b) required to take GCSEs. [76941]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There will be no requirement for children in accommodation centres to take GCSE's. However, if a child has the ability to undertake such an examination, they will be able to do so. Each child will be assessed individually and their progress monitored and recorded throughout their stay.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have not been successful in reapplying for beacon status. [77746]

  Mr. Miliband
  There have been two renewal exercises to date involving a total of 250 schools. Beacon status was not extended in 26 cases.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what weight he gives to an increase of pupils with statements of special education needs when evaluating the educational results of a school when assessing a renewal application for beacon status. [77747]

  Mr. Miliband
  Renewal of beacon status is dependent on a school being able to show that it has had an impact as a beacon and that it has maintained or improved its own performance in its three years as a beacon. Schools are advised to provide evidence of any factors that may have an effect on the school's performance, such as the number of pupils with statements of special education needs, so that these can be taken into account at the time of the assessment.

  Children's Education
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many SENDIST and IAP members there were as at the end of June; how many SENDIST and IAP members had received any training as at the end of June in their forthcoming disability-related duties; what type and quantity of training they had received respectively; and what measures the Department has put in place to ensure that all SENDIST and IAP members will be able to perform their legal duty effectively when hearing claims of disability discrimination relating to exclusions. [77860]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are three main types of panel or tribunal relating to educational provision for children: SEN and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST), Admission Appeal Panels, and Exclusion Appeal Panels.

  SENDIST consider disputes between parents and LEAs about statementing of children with Special Educational Needs. They also consider complaints of disability discrimination made by parents against individual schools or LEAs.
  712W
  At the end of June the Special Educational Needs Tribunal had 51 legal chairmen and 97 specialist members. The Secretary of State appointed 39 new specialist members in July. The Lord Chancellor has appointed 11 new chairmen.

  By the end of June, 21 SEN Tribunal chairmen and 40 specialist members had received one and a half day's training on disability discrimination legislation. The training included theoretical and practical sessions that covered all the relevant provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, including the implications for school exclusions. The President of the Tribunal arranged training for tribunal members at three conferences, in June, July and September. The SEN Tribunal became SENDIST from September. Tribunal panels are likely to hear the first claims under the new legislation in the new year.

  Independent Admission Appeal Panels consider parents' appeals against refusal of admission of their children to particular schools. Responsibility for setting up a panel, and recruitment and training of panel members lies with the school's "admission authority" (in the case of voluntary aided and foundation schools this is the school's governing body, for community and controlled schools it is the local education authority). Although admission authorities themselves are responsible for the training of panel members, Information for School and College Governors (ISCG), who are one of a number of organisations delivering practitioner training, produced a training pack which is available free of charge to schools and LEAs. The revised Admission Appeals Code (to be laid before Parliament soon) contains guidance on the Disability Discrimination Act, and refers readers to other appropriate sources of help.

  Exclusion Appeal Panels consider appeals made by parents whose children have been excluded from a school, and the exclusion upheld by the school governing body. The panels are set up by LEAs, who are responsible for appointing and training members. The Department is currently revising its guidance in the "Exclusion Appeal Panels Training Pack", with regard to the Disabilities Discrimination Act. This revised guidance will be issued shortly.

  The Department does not collect data on admission or exclusion appeal panel members or information on the training they receive.

  The Council of Tribunals (which operates under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992) advises and supervises the procedures and working of tribunals. The Council, and the Judicial Studies Board, has a significant interest in the training of panel members. The Council of Tribunals publication "Making Tribunals Accessible to Disabled People: Guidance on Applying the Disability Discrimination Act" is available to both panel members and those responsible for their training.

  Children's Health
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on
  713W
  the role of schools in the health of children; and what measures have been taken to ensure that food and meals provided at school are nutritional. [77010]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Schools are encouraged, as part of the National Healthy School Standard, to present consistent messages about healthy eating. Food on offer in vending machines, tuck shops and school meals, for example, should complement the information about healthy eating covered in the taught curriculum.

  In April 2001, the Government introduced regulations which set minimum nutritional standards for school lunches. They were accompanied by guidance entitled 'Healthy School Lunches', which is available for school caterers, heads and others implementing the standards.

  Class Sizes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary schools in Castle Point had class sizes of 30 or above in each of the last three years. [75470]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures for January 2002 show that there were 19 maintained primary schools in Castle Point parliamentary constituency with classes of 30 pupils or more. The corresponding figures for 2000 and 2001 were 19 and 21, respectively.

  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 placed a duty on Local Education Authorities and schools to ensure that infant classes for 5, 6 and 7 year olds taught by one qualified teacher are limited to no more than 30 pupils per class by September 2001 at the latest. The legislation does allow the limit of 30 to be exceeded in certain circumstances.

  Figures related to the pledge for Castle Point parliamentary constituency show there were no classes of 31 or more pupils in 2002. In 2001 there was one class, and in 2000 there were 9 classes, of 31 or more pupils.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received supporting the extension of the work of classroom assistants into some aspects of teaching; who was consulted before the proposal was announced; and how many representations(a) for and (b) against he has received. [77678]

  Mr. Miliband
  A working party involving representatives of teachers and support staff, local government employers and other government bodies has met monthly over the past year and has had extensive discussions about the proposed extension of roles and responsibilities of teaching assistants and other support staff. These discussions led to the development of a consultation paper, "Developing the Roles of School Support Staff", which was published on 22 October 2002. An analysis of responses to the consultation will be produced after the response deadline of 22 January 2003.
  714W

  Connexions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have visited Connexions, seeking advice, in each region in which it operates. [77349]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information is not collected in the exact format requested; however the following table shows the number of occasions that young people have received assistance in each region since April 2001. Young people may have received assistance on more than one occasion. 2001–02 and 2002–03 are shown separately as different definitions of management information have been used in the two years, reflecting the move away from counting all contacts with young people to recording only those of a substantial nature.

  Region

  April 2001 to March 20021(assistance given)

  April 2002 to September 20022(interventions)

  South East

  74,266

  50,250

  London

  126,849

  95,077

  East of England

  35,345

  66,770

  South West

  188,858

  148,272

  West Midlands

  259,249

  161,362

  East Midlands

  58,532

  98,792

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  148,245

  140,472

  North West

  366,093

  282,200

  North East

  0

  83,207

  England

  1,257,437

  1,126,402

  1Data relate to 15 Connexions Partnerships which were launched before March 2002. There were no Connexions Partnerships operating in the North East during this period.

  2Data relate to 41 Connexions Partnerships (including the 15 partnerships referred to above) which were launched before the end of September 2002.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget for the Connexions service is, broken down by region. [77350]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 28 October2002]: In total £334,627,254 was allocated to Connexions Partnerships in 2002–03. The regional totals are as follows:

  £

  South East

  32,060,363

  London

  58,091,947

  East of England

  29,063,827

  South West

  34,644,952

  West Midlands

  44,858,545

  East Midlands

  26,890,604

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  34,626,011

  North West

  54,093,700

  North East

  20,297,304

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants have been made to voluntary organisations working with young people by the Connexions service, for each region in which it operates. [77351]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: 15 Connexions partnerships became operational through the course of 2001–02. Details of grants provided by these partnerships to voluntary and community organisations in 2001–02 by English region

  715W
  are as given in the table. Connexions partnerships will be allocating grants throughout the year so figures for 2002–03 are not currently available.

  Grants to voluntary and community organisations 2001–02

  £000

  Eastern

  109

  East Midlands

  —

  London

  453

  North East

  —

  North West

  505

  South East

  —

  South West

  605

  West Midlands

  738

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  216

  Totals

  2,626

  Note:

  These figures are as reported to the Connexions Service National Unit by Government offices for the regions. No Connexions partnerships were operational in the north east during 2001–02. In the east midlands and south east only one partnership was operational in each region during 2001–02. Grant arrangements in these partnerships had not been finalised at the time so figures are unavailable. The total represents 4.17 per cent. of the total grant allocation to partnerships by the Connexions Service National Unit.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers were unable to gain clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau before the first day of the new school year in(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England; [77631]

  (2) how many school days were lost due to teachers being unable to gain clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau before the first day of the new school year in the North West of England. [77632]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available.

  Departmental Projects (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the projects to which his Department has allocated funding in the Hull, North constituency since 1997, indicating the amount in each case. [76561]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Education SSA
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the education SSA is per head in secondary schools in Wandsworth. [77289]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03 Wandsworth's Education SSA per pupil in secondary schools is 4,460.

  Note:
  Figure in cash terms for pupils aged 11–15—rounded to nearest £10

  English/Mathematics Targets
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what special assistance she 716W
  proposes to provide to those local education authorities whose results in English and Mathematics for 11-yearolds in 2002 fell a long way short of the Government's 2004 target; and if she will make a statement. [77340]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following this year's Key Stage 2 results the Department asked all LEAs to draw up specific plans to identify and provide targeted support to those schools which are underperforming— both low attaining schools and those which are not helping their children make as much progress as other similar schools. Over the next couple of months the Department is meeting with all LEAs individually to discuss these plans and the further support they need to meet the challenging targets for 2004. The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies will continue to help LEAs improve their results, in particular by focusing low attaining and underperforming schools, improving leadership and intervention programmes for pupils who are not achieving their potential. We are allocating an additional £11 million this year to support schools make improvements in 2003.

  Examinations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to alter the administration of examinations in England. [76490]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Tomlinson report on A Level standards made a number of recommendations, which the Department accepted in full. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are now acting to implement these. The second stage of the Tomlinson inquiry will make further recommendations by the end of November.

  Exclusion
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from(a) state primary and (b) state secondary schools in the London Borough of Hillingdon at each of the key stages in each year since 1997. [77294]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the Key Stage of the pupil; a breakdown of the figures by age is given as a proxy. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in the London Borough of Hillingdon:

  Number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils

  England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Primary Schools2

  Age of Pupils

  Total

  6 and under

  7 to 10

  11 and over

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusion

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  66.7

  33.3

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.02

  0.01

  0.00

  0.01

  717W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in the London Borough of Hillingdon:

  Number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils

  England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Primary Schools2

  Age of Pupils

  Total

  6 and under

  7 to10

  11 and over

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  100.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population 4

  0.00

  0.03

  0.00

  0.01

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  100.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.03

  0.00

  0.02

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  25.0

  75.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.02

  0.00

  0.02

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4

  11

  0

  15

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  26.7

  73.3

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.03

  0.09

  0.00

  0.06

  Secondary Schools2

  Age of Pupils

  Total

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  and over

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  32

  25

  0

  57

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  56.1

  43.9

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.41

  0.51

  0.00

  0.38

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  24

  28

  0

  52

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  46.2

  53.8

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.31

  0.57

  0.00

  0.34

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  34

  25

  0

  59

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  57.6

  42.4

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.44

  0.51

  0.00

  0.390

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  15

  22

  2

  39

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  38.5

  56.4

  5.1

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.18

  0.43

  0.08

  0.24

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  30

  16

  0

  46

  718W

  Secondary Schools2

  Age of Pupils

  Total

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  65.2

  34.8

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.35

  0.31

  0.00

  0.28

  1 Permanent exclusions data for 2000/01 are estimated as they are known to be incomplete

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number.

  4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Exclusion Appeals Panels
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been sent by her Department to school exclusion appeals panels since 1998. [76786]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Circular 10/99 published in July 1999 contained statutory guidance on exclusion including the working of appeal panels. Letters amending the guidance in Circular 10/99 were issued in January and August 2000 and January and June 2001.

  This guidance was sent to local education authorities which are responsible in law for establishing the panels.

  In addition a training pack for exclusion appeal panels was sent to all LEAs in September 2001.

  Expenditure (Secondary Schools)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what his estimate is of the average expenditure on(a) secondary school places per pupil in the state sector and (b) secondary school places per day pupil in the independent sector; and if he will make a statement; [75255]

  (2) what his estimate is of the total local and national government expenditure, per pupil, in state secondary schools in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [76547]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: For the state sector, the estimated average recurrent expenditure funded by central and local government in 2001–02 was £3,600 per pupil. Independent Schools Council figures suggest a private school recurrent spending figure of £5,400 per annum. Some caution is needed in making detailed comparisons between the sectors as it is not easy to calculate per pupil funding exactly on a like-for-like basis.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74987]
  719W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Since June 2001 the Department has completed focus group work for:Higher Education Student Support commissioned groups to explore how first year students and parents navigated the HE student support website. This was at a cost of £44,050. The work was done by the research agency Conway Smith Rose.
  Strategic research was done by the agency Campbell Keegan to gauge young people's attitudes to, and perceptions of, education. The cost was £62,334.
  Fathers were asked their reaction to the new magazine "Dads and Sons" to find out if the publication had any impact on their behaviour to their sons. This work was done by Solutions Strategy Research for £23,030.
  Women between 18 and 40 joined a focus group run by Solutions Strategy Research to discuss child care recruitment at a cost of £17,743.
  Men and women over 40 were followed up by the same agency for £27,143.
  Solutions Strategy Research conducted focus groups with ethnic minorities to look at the barriers to working in child care for £41,000.
  Ethnic minority pupils' views of education and learning were gathered by Connect Research and Consultancy at a cost of £51,113.
  Employers were invited to discuss their information needs. This research was conducted by MORI at a cost of £43,113.
  The agency Cragg Ross Dawson was commissioned to discuss parents' information needs in respect of children's education. The cost was £58,985.
  For £31,138, the agency Rosenblatt conducted evaluation of the Aimhigher Roadshow withYear 9 pupils at schools across England.
  A pack to aid transition between Key Stages 2 and 3 was researched by Solutions Strategy Research, which cost £96,800.
  The agency Came Martin researched attitudes to implementing and promoting basic skills training to employers for £26,849.
  Reactions to careers information and advertising about Modern Apprenticeships were gathered by Stimulating World Research for £58,444.
  Educational Communications sought the reactions of children from 10–19 on the Science Year Pack and advertising for £43,181.
  For £90,475, the agency Rosenblatt looked at current and potential communications media for young people.

  In addition to the projects listed, the Department regularly commissions research as part of the development of advertising and publicity campaigns. Focus group and other market research into creative development work of this type are regarded as commercially confidential and therefore cannot be published.

  The Department's website has details of its research programme (www.dfes.gov.uk/research). Information about focus groups and other forms of research commissioned by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Free School Meals
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of families not entitled to(a) income support and (b) income-based jobseeker's allowance who will be passported to free school meals under the new tax credits scheme. [77276]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Section 201 of the Education Act 2002 replaces Section 512 of the Education Act 1996, and anticipates that some families will move from 720W
  income support and income based jobseekers allowance onto the new tax credits. If we had taken no action, they would have lost their entitlement to free school meals.

  As was announced during the passage of the Education Bill through Parliament, we intend to make an order which will protect the school meal entitlement of around 100,000 children whose families will cease to receive Income Support and Income Based Jobseekers Allowance. It will also extend free school meals to an additional 89,000 children.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the arrangements will be for passporting families to entitlement to free school meals under the new tax credits scheme. [77277]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Section 201 of the Education Act 2002 replaces Section 512 of the Education Act 1996, and anticipates that some families will move from income support and income based jobseekers allowance onto the new tax credits. If we had taken no action, they would have lost their entitlement to free school meals.

  As was announced during the passage of the Education Bill through Parliament, we intend to make an order which will protect the school meal entitlement of around 100,000 children whose families will cease to receive income support and income based jobseekers allowance. It will also extend free school meals to an additional 89,000 children.

  LEA Performances
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of local education authorities where performance has been found to be unsatisfactory; if she will list these authorities; and if she will make a statement. [75257]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Since Ofsted began its statutory inspection of local education authorities in 1998, 42 authorities have been found to be unsatisfactory. These are listed. Of the 27 LEAs that have been re-inspected at least once so far, and the findings published, Ofsted found that 26 had improved, and of these 21 were satisfactory.

  LEAs that were found unsatisfactory

  Barnsley

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Buckinghamshire

  Calderdale

  Derby

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Gloucestershire

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Kent

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Leicester City

  Lincolnshire

  721W

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  North Somerset

  Plymouth

  Redbridge

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  Swindon

  Tameside

  Thurrock

  Tower Hamlets

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Westminster

  Local Education Authority Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, by local education authority, the percentage of children receiving extra funding from(a) area cost adjustment, (b) other deprivation, (c) ethnicity, (d) income support and (e) sparsity funding. [77016]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the current education standard spending assessment system, additional funding for deprivation, area costs, and sparsity is allocated to each LEA according to indicators derived from an analysis of past spending patterns. It is not therefore possible to identify percentages of children receiving extra support for each of these characteristics.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources have been earmarked for research start-up in new medical schools. [77488]

  Margaret Hodge
  Higher education institutions themselves decide how to deploy the resources made available to them from the public purse. I understand some institutions have chosen to devote some of their share of the £1 billion science research investment fund to support new medical schools. Alongside this, the Department of Health has provided £4.25 million non-recurrent funding for NHS facilities to support research in the new medical schools in 2001–02, and is making arrangements to provide a further £9.25 million in 2002–03. From 2002–03 it is providing over £1 million in recurrent funding to mobilise NHS support for research at the schools. In addition, researchers at all medical schools and faculties of medicine are eligible to 722W
  apply to the Medical Research Council for research funds. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  PSA Targets
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list each target set for schools in England and Wales for each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02, stating whether the target set was achieved, and where the target was not met, what actions were taken by the Department for Education and Skills. [76583]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information about progress on PSA targets was published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report in June 2002.

  Latest progress will be reported in the Department's 2002 Autumn Performance Report to be published for the first time in November 2002.

  Recycling
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to encourage schools to promote recycling; and if she will make a statement. [77215]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Within the national curriculum, for example in Citizenship and geography, pupils learn about sustainable development, including the benefits of recycling.

  Many schools are working in partnership with local authorities on recycling projects through Local Agenda 21, which is an action plan for achieving sustainable development at local and community level.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers she has to overturn the decision(a) to exclude a pupil and (b) to reinstate an excluded pupil; and what effect legislation enacted since 1997 has had on the powers of her office. [76778]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Secretary of State has no powers to overturn the decision to exclude a pupil and no powers to reinstate an excluded pupil. These matters fall to be determined at local level. In respect of exclusions and exclusion appeals legislation enacted since 1997 has not changed the powers of her office.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have been excluded from(a) state primary and (b) state secondary schools in West Sussex at each of the key stages, in each year since 1997. [76872]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the Key Stage of the pupil; a breakdown of the figures by age is given as a proxy. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.
  723W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in West Sussex Local Education Authority: Number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Age of pupils

  6 and under

  7 to 10

  11 and over

  Total

  Primary schools21996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  10

  8

  2

  20

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  50.0

  40.0

  10.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.04

  0.02

  0.09

  0.03

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  2

  18

  3

  23

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  8.7

  78.3

  13.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.06

  0.12

  0.04

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  6

  24

  3

  33

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  18.2

  72.7

  9.1

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.02

  0.07

  0.12

  0.05

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  5

  21

  4

  30

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  16.7

  70.0

  13.3

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.02

  0.06

  0.14

  0.05

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  7

  27

  7

  41

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  17.1

  65.9

  17.1

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.03

  0.08

  0.27

  0.07

  Age of pupils

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  Secondary schools21996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  49

  72

  1

  122

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  40.2

  59.0

  0.8

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.24

  0.47

  0.02

  0.30

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusion

  48

  94

  2

  144

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  33.3

  65.3

  1.4

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.23

  0.63

  0.04

  0.36

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  50

  68

  2

  120

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  41.7

  56.7

  1.7

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.24

  0.45

  0.04

  0.30

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  39

  58

  0

  97

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  40.2

  59.8

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.18

  0.39

  0.00

  0.23

  724W

  Age of pupils

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  80

  58

  0

  138

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  58.0

  42.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.35

  0.38

  0.00

  0.32

  1 Permanent exclusions data for 2000–01 have been estimated as they are known to be incomplete.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number.

  4The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  School Milk
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary schools provide school milk; and what proposals she has to reintroduce it in all schools. [77009]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department does not collect statistics on the provision of school milk. We do not have any plans to reintroduce free school milk, but the nutritional standards for school lunches, brought in April 2001, strongly recommend that drinking milk is available as an option every day.

  Schools (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) pupils, (b) teachers and (c) support staff there were in each school in the Portsmouth, South constituency at the end of the 2001–02 academic year; and if she will make a statement. [76789]

  Mr. Miliband
  The latest available information is shown in the table below. This gives numbers of pupils as published in the Primary and Secondary School Performance Tables for 2001. Otherwise, school level information is not routinely published.

  Number of pupils on roll in schools1 in Portsmouth, South constituency

  Name of School on roll

  Number

  Maintained Primary schools with Key Stage 2 pupils

  Charles Dickens Junior School

  205

  Arundel Court Junior School

  239

  Cottage Grove Primary School

  370

  Langstone Junior School

  335

  Milton Park Junior School

  209

  Wimborne Junior School

  338

  Fernhurst Junior School

  389

  Meon Junior School

  343

  Craneswater Junior School

  298

  Newbridge Junior School

  464

  Somers Park Primary School

  311

  St. Jude's CofE Primary School

  410

  St. George's Beneficial CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  237

  St. John's Cathedral Catholic Primary School

  229

  725W

  Number of pupils on roll in schools1 in Portsmouth, South constituency

  Name of School on roll

  Number

  Maintained Secondary Schools

  City of Portsmouth Girls' School

  993

  Priory School

  1,271

  St. Edmund's Catholic School

  973

  St. Luke's CofE VA Secondary School

  799

  Independent Schools

  Mayville High School

  323

  The Portsmouth Grammar School

  1,321

  Portsmouth High School

  608

  St. John's College

  702

  Special Schools

  East Shore School

  60

  1 Includes schools which have pupils eligible for Key Stage 2 tests or pupils aged 15 and for whom results are published in the primary and secondary performance tables The primary performance tables only include maintained primary schools with Key Stage 2 eligible pupils. Independent schools and infant schools are therefore excluded.

  Source:

  2001 Primary and Secondary Performance Tables

  Secondary School Standards
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress she has made in improving standards in secondary schools in(a) England and (b) Wandsworth. [77287]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are committed to raising standards significantly in secondary schools. That is why we have set challenging targets for raising pupil attainment at 14 and 16. The GCE results for Wandsworth are currently not available, though we know nationally that over 51 per cent of 16-year olds-have achieved five or more GCSEs or GNVQ equivalent. This is an increase of 4.9 percentage point from when targets were first introduced in 1997/98.

  In the case of 14-year-olds, there has been an improvement nationally of 1 percentage point in English and mathematics, while in science the large gains made last year have been consolidated. Provisional data for Wandsworth suggest that the number of 14 year olds achieving the standard expected at the end of Key Stage 3 has risen by 4 percentage points in English, and 2 percentage points in maths and science. This is good news, and suggests that our Key Stage 3 strategy has made an early impact on raising pupil standards in the early years of secondary education.

  Technology Paper III
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance was issued to schools this year in respect of changes to the Technology Paper III exam. [77646]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: No such guidance was given by the Department. Guidance to schools on examination matters is the responsibility of the awarding body which offers the qualification.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the OCR Board in respect of this year's Technology Paper III. [77647]
  726W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The Department has had no such discussions. Examination contents and assessment are the responsibility of the awarding body which offers the qualification.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with university vice chancellors and principals about the introduction of top-up fees; and which universities haveinformed her of their intention to introduce top-up fees. [77682]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend and I meet university vice chancellors and principals from time to time in the course of normal business. We discuss a range of issues, and a number have raised the issue of discretionary fees.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect on access to higher education of the introduction of top-up fees. [77857]

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what evidence(a) from the UK and (b) from overseas she has assessed on the effect of top-up fees on levels of participation in higher education; [77750]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of top-up fees on improving access to higher education. [77751]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. The document will be published shortly; it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that strategy at this stage.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis penalties are applied to claims under the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2001; and whether these penalties are equally applied to farmers in other countries within the Common Agricultural Policy. [77526]

  Alun Michael
  The Integrated Administration Control System sets down the penalties to be applied to the 2001 Beef Special Premium Scheme. These penalties are detailed in Commission Regulation 3887/92 (as amended). This regulation applies equally in all member states and compliance with it is monitored closely by European Commission auditors.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the appeal procedure regarding the Beef Special Premium Scheme in 2001; under what legislation it operates; and if she will list the names and legal qualifications of those who hear the appeals. [77527]
  727W
  Alun Michael
  There is not a formal appeal procedure for the 2001 Beef Special Premium Scheme. The Integrated Administrative and Control System Appeal Procedure, which was introduced on 1 April 2002, applies only to decisions made for the 2002 and subsequent scheme years. An internal customer complaints procedure is operated by the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for operating the scheme.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many appeals have been made regarding the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2001; and how many were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful. [77529]

  Alun Michael
  There were 3,544 total refusals and 7,203 partial refusals of claims out of 102,495 which were submitted for Beef Special Premium Scheme 2001. Of these a small proportion have made representations to their rural payments agency processing site. A further 47 have made representations via their MP, and 55 have made customer complaints. In the majority of cases the original decision has been maintained because the European regulations governing the scheme do not allow for discretion to be applied where the conditions for claiming aid have not been met.

  Breastfeeding
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking in response to recommendations from the UN Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child on measures to promote breast feeding and adoption of the International Code for Marketing of breast milk substitutes. [76402]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. Under the NHS Plan, we have a commitment for "increased support for breastfeeding". As part of the Government's commitment to reduce health inequalities and increase breastfeeding rates, particularly among disadvantaged groups, a target has been set to increase breastfeeding initiation rates by 2 percentage points through the NHS priorities and planning framework.

  The Department has undertaken several strands of work in promoting breastfeeding and will be further developed in the context of the children's national service framework. A total of 79 "best breastfeeding practice" projects have been funded across all regions. The aim is to increase the rates of breastfeeding, both initiation and duration among the disadvantaged groups. This is a goal shared by all sure start initiatives and several health action zone programmes.

  Other related Department activities include support for an annual National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, that aims to raise the awareness of breastfeeding through the NHS. The Department also has close links with the four main voluntary organisations involved in the promotion of breastfeeding and the UNICEF/ World Health Organisation baby friendly initiative. The Department also conducts research into breastfeeding through quinquennial infant feeding surveys.
  728W
  Since 1981, the United Kingdom has publicly endorsed the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the relevant resolutions passed at the World Health Assembly. The Infant Formula and Follow-on-Formula regulations came into force on 1 March 1995 and they implement the EC Directive 91/321/EEC, which embraces the principles of the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes 1981. The regulations place statutory restrictions on the composition, labelling, advertising and export of infant formulae. By implementing the Directive, the Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect infant health and are at present revising the policy lines on infant feeding. We will be giving full consideration to the United Nations Committee's recommendations on promoting breastfeeding.

  Broadband (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage total roll-out of broadband in rural areas. [77848]

  Alun Michael
  The Government are setting up a new regional broadband unit, co-ordinated by the DTI. This unit will see a broadband expert located in each of the English regions and the devolved Administrations. The experts' role will be to help stimulate the rollout and take up of broadband, including in rural and remote areas. This is part of the Government's strategy to meet their target for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. Defra is working closely with DTI in taking the rural broadband agenda forward.

  EC Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). [78378]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have today published jointly with the National Assembly for Wales a Second Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). This technical document, which is the second of three consultations, sets out how the Directive will be transposed into national legislation. I have placed copies of the paper in the House Libraries.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent reports she has received under her Department's high level targets for flood and coastal defence; and if she will make a statement. [78379]

  Mr. Morley
  During summer recess, we published three reports on the high level targets which are designed to assist in delivery of the Government's policy aims and objectives for flood and coastal defence. Copies were placed in the House Libraries. These reports relate to:

  Target 2—Provision of flood warnings;

  Target 10—Water Level Management Plans;

  Target 12—Development and Flood Risk.

  Target 2—Provision of Flood Warnings

  729W
  This report follows the one published in May of this year and shows the following improvements since the last report was compiled: The percentage of flood warnings meeting target has risen by nearly 4 per cent. from 67.6 per cent. in April 2001 to 71.3 per cent. in April 2002.

  The coverage of a direct flood warning system to properties in areas at risk of flooding has risen by 3 per cent. from 58 per cent. in April 2001 to 61 per cent. in April 2002. This is. an increase of some 57,000 properties. Since autumn 2000 a further 322,000 properties are covered by the flood warning arrangements.

  Target 10—Water Level Management Plans

  This report summarises the Agency's progress in developing and implementing Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) on European sites.

  Target 12—Development in Areas at Risk from Flooding

  This is the first report published since PPG25 was introduced in July 2001 and is the starting point to consider whether these guidelines are working. PPG25 is due to be reviewed in 2004. Future reports will provide a clearer picture as the guidelines are embedded. In general, I am pleased to note that Environment Agency advice on flood risk developments is being accepted and followed by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs).

  Fuel Poverty
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) single pensioners, (b) older couples and (c) families with children are recognised as fuel poor; and what the figures were in each year since 1997. [77450]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers in fuel poverty in England in 1998 were published jointly by DTI and DEFR A in August 2001 and in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy published in November 2001. They are available on the DTI website at:
  "http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consumers/fuel" http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consumers/fuell—poverty/1998estimates—england.pdf

  It is estimated that in 1998 there were (a) 1.2 million households containing a single person over the age of 60, (b) 0.7 million households with older couples, and (c) 0.5 million households containing children in fuel poverty in England (based on income including Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest). When Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest are excluded from the definition of income, the figures become (a) 1.5 million households containing a single person over the age of 60, (b) 0.8 million households with older couples, and (c) 0.9 million households containing children in fuel poverty in England in 1998.

  The 2001 English House Condition Survey will update this information and the information on the extent of fuel poverty in England generally. Results from this will be published in the update of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy which should be published early in 2003.

  Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and therefore it is for the respective Assemblies and Parliament to report on the situation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  730W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place to monitor the number of(a) single pensioners, (b) older couples and (c) families with children who are fuel poor. [77451]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy was published in November 2001 and sets out the proposals for monitoring the numbers in fuel poverty.

  The monitoring of progress in tackling fuel poverty will be taken forward in two ways. Firstly the actual number of households in fuel poverty will be monitored, in particular for vulnerable groups such as pensioner households and households with children. Secondly, progress on the factors that affect fuel poverty (income. fuel prices and housing) will be monitored. These factors are referred to as indicators of fuel poverty and they include background information on issues relevant to those in fuel poverty. Together these two approaches should enable progress on tackling fuel poverty to be monitored.

  In England, the monitoring of the actual number of households in fuel poverty will be carried out using information collected through the English House Condition Survey. Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and therefore it is for the respective Assemblies and Parliament to report on the situation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Import Controls
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance she proposes to support local councils with the additional expense of the increased regulations relating to the testing of food of non-animal origin at ports of entry. [75919]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that financing of import controls, including for the testing of food of non-animal origin, will be covered by a European Commission proposal for a regulation on official feed and food controls. This is expected in late November 2002. The Agency will consult on it with all its stakeholders. It will, in particular, work closely with local and port health authorities in considering the charging arrangements for import controls, including the option of full cost recovery.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was to the UK for each of the past five years of the inspection of imports of food of non-animal origin. [75923]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the information requested on the costs to the United Kingdom of inspection of food of non-animal origin is not held centrally. Local authorities have responsibility for the inspection of imports of food of non-animal origin.
  731W

  Male Fish
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 23April 2002,Official Report, column 133W, on male fish, if she will make a statement on the outcome of discussions with the Environment Agency and the water industry regarding gender change in male fish. [77374]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Officials from Defra, the Environment Agency, and the water industry met over the summer to discuss implications of the jointly funded research published by the Agency on 26 March for sewage treatment processes. It was agreed that a joint programme of work, now under way, was needed to:

  assess the applicability of results from the 10 UK rivers previously addressed to the wider UK aquatic environment;

  quantify the significance of endocrine disrupting pollution in UK rivers;

  identify common factors between affected sites, such as key stretches of river, aquatic species, and major sewage treatment works (STW) implicated; and

  investigate STW technologies, including cost-benefit assessments.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, columns 133–34W, on male fish, if she will publish the findings of research into endocrine disruption in marine life; and if she will make a statement. [77375]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: A summary report of the 3-year research programme on endocrine disruption in the marine environment (EDMAR) is due to be published in November. I will place a copy of this and the full report of the programme in the House Library.

  Some of the research outcomes from this programme, which was funded by DEFRA, the Environment Agency, the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research and the European Chemical Industry Association, have already been published in the scientific press and were presented at two seminars and in a series of newsletters.

  The main achievements/findings of EDMAR are as follows:

  the development of new methods for detecting endocrine disruption in marine fish and invertebrates;

  evidence of a slight decrease in one biomarker of endocrine disruption (egg protein production in male flounder fish) at some sites;

  signs of oestrogenic (feminising) endocrine disruption in blenny fish in some estuaries;

  very slight effects on migratory trout and salmon, suggesting that endocrine disruption from exposure to oestrogenic contamination in estuaries is not widespread in these species; and

  identification of natural and synthetic causal substances, the most important being natural and synthetic steroid hormones.

  DEFRA will be discussing with other Government Departments and Agencies how to take forward the recommendations for further research resulting from the EDMAR programme.

  Market and Coastal Towns
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make 732W
  a statement on the funds made available by the Government for the Market and Coastal Towns initiative. [77531]

  (2) when the Market and Coastal Towns initiative was established; what the criteria are for the awards given by this scheme; who decides how and to whom such funds should be allocated; and if she will list the grants made to whom and when they were made. [77532]

  Alun Michael
  As announced in the Rural White Paper, the Government made available £37million over three years for the revitalisation of small rural towns under the Market Towns initiative (referred to in the south west as the Market and Coastal Towns initiative). £32 million of this was channelled via the regional development agencies and £5 million via the Countryside agency.

  It is for local town partnerships, using the Countryside agency's Healthcheck process, to draw up and agree action plans and for regional development agencies to approve individual projects. Detailed information on grants awarded is not collected centrally.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions she has had with the US Department of Agriculture over the US National Organic Programme and its implementation; [76252]

  (2)what assessment she has made of the impact of the US National Organic Programme on UK organic (a) exports and (b) standards; [76253]

  (3)what representations she has received in relation to the US National Organic Programme; and if she will make a statement. [76254]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Department has been in close touch with the USDA since the submission last year of an application for a determination that UKROFS' standards meet the requirements of the NOP. The USDA has now written to UKROFS to confirm that it accepts the UKROFS control system as sufficient to secure conformity with the NOP. This means that the UK organic inspection bodies are able to certify product for the purposes of the NOP but it does not affect the standards required to be met by products sold as organic in the UK. The Department has also been in close touch with organic certifiers in the US to ensure that the introduction of the NOP does not invalidate authorisations previously issued to import US organic produce into the UK. Discussions are also taking place between the European Commission and the USDA to ensure that disruption to trade between the Community and the US is kept to a minimum. We have received a number of representations about the introduction of the NOP from the UK organic inspection bodies and from companies concerned about the effect of the NOP on their ability to export to the US.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the
  733W
  money available under Rural Transport Partnership was spent in 2001–02 and 2002–03 broken down by (i) date and (ii) county. [77083]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Transport Partnership fund is administered by the Countryside Agency, which has supplied the following information for Defra. Funds are not allocated to specific geographic areas and the level of spend in each region is dependent on the applications approved. The allocation for 2001–02 of £6.89 million was overspent by £0.155 million. £10.35 million has been allocated for the whole period 2002–03. The spend until 24 October 2002 is £4.475 million. Figures at county level are not held centrally. The amount of money spent by region is shown in the table.

  £

  Region

  2001–02

  2002–031

  North East

  639,282

  453,994

  North West

  514,782

  375,700

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  990,110

  479,718

  East Midlands

  578,518

  291,800

  West Midlands

  1,280,871

  821,660

  East of England

  851,494

  493,517

  South East and London

  1,185,032

  731,916

  South West

  950,466

  826,544

  1 Until 24 October

HEALTH

  Children in Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many immigrant children have gone missing from social services care in each of the last five years; how many of these were suspected victims of trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [Transferred] [77331]

  Jacqui Smith
  Based on the information returned to the Department by local authorities, in 2000–01 the number of children that went missing from care for 24 hours or more was approximately 790. The majority of young people were missing for less than one week, while 2 per cent. were missing for over six months. Comparable data for previous years are unavailable, as prior to 2000–01, councils were only required to return data on children who were missing for more than seven days. Provisional data about missing from care episodes in 2001–02 will be available at the end of November 2002.

  It is not possible to identify immigrant children from the above data. From 2002–03, councils will be returning statistics on unaccompanied asylum seekers. This information will be available in autumn 2003.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) chiropody and (b) podiatry new episodes of care per head of population there were in each of the NHS regions in each of the last three years. [76305]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about the number of new chiropody/podiatry episodes of care per 1,000 population for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 by national health service region is shown in the following table.734W

  NHS region

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England

  17.3

  16.6

  Northern and Yorkshire

  17.1

  16.8

  Trent

  17.2

  7.4

  Eastern

  10.0

  10.7

  London

  18.3

  16.3

  South East

  12.8

  11.3

  South West

  21.0

  21.3

  West Midlands

  19.3

  19.5

  North West

  23.1

  22.0

  Source:

  Form KT23, Department of Health Statistics Division (SD3G)

  From 1 April 2002 the NHS was reorganised with the establishment of strategic health authorities; the old health authorities and regional offices were abolished. Information about new chiropody episodes of care per 1,000 population is now available by Government Office regions for 2001–02 and is shown in the table.

  Government Office Regions

  2001–02

  England

  17.1

  North East

  16.9

  North West

  21.5

  Yorkshire and Humber

  17.6

  East Midlands

  16.9

  West Midlands

  20.5

  East of England

  12.2

  London

  17.6

  South East

  11.9

  South West

  20.2

  Source:

  Form KT23, Department of Health Statistics Division (SD3G)

  Further information about patient contacts with the chiropody service in England is available in the publication "Chiropody services: summary information for 2001–02, England". A copy is available in the Library and on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/ public/kt230102.

  Biological Attack
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures he has taken with regard to the availability of vaccines intended to protect the population against biological attack. [75386]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has contingency plans to deal with the deliberate release of a biological agent. These plans include stocks of antibiotics, antitoxins and vaccines, which can be mobilised rapidly. Specific details concerning vaccine stocks and their availability is not being made public as this information could be of use to terrorists.

  Cancer Research
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money his Department has spent on research into(a) breast cancer, (b) lung cancer, (c) prostate cancer and (d) leukaemia for each year since 1997. [75792]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to give meaningful estimates of these figures, for two reasons. First, it is difficult to distinguish expenditure on research that is relevant to one particular turnour site from research on other or all cancers. Second, over 75 per cent. of the
  735W
  Department's total expenditure on research, including that on cancer, are devolved to national health service and details of these figures are not collected centrally.

  We are tackling both of these difficulties. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) is developing a database of research funded by NCRI members. Research projects are being classified according to the "Common Scientific Outline" system drawn up by the National Cancer Institute in the United States of America. This will enable all NCRI members to use the same system for distinguishing expenditure on research that is relevant to one particular turnour site from research on other or all cancers.

  The modernisation of the NHS research and development funding system should enable a significant proportion of funds that are currently devolved to the NHS to be entered on to the NCRI database and analysed in a similar way.

  Cancer Services
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much money from the NHS Cancer Plan has been spent to date on cancer services. [75375]

  Ms Blears
  The Cancer Plan is being backed by a big increase in funding with an extra £407 million in 2002–03 compared with 2000–01. £76 million of this money was earmarked within national health service budgets for 2002–03 to ensure that investment gets through to the front line to be spent on the priorities for cancer services identified by doctors, nurses and other frontline staff. We are looking very closely at progress this year and Professor Mike Richards is working with chief executives of StHAs to ensure that the money gets through to cancer services and that Cancer Plan targets are met.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of(a) prostate, (b) lung, (c) ovarian and (d) leukaemia cancer services was in each year since 1997. [75810]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of services provided by the national health service in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of a particular disease. The cost of cancer care to the NHS has been estimated to be approximately 6 per cent. of hospital expenditure.

  The Cancer Plan set out the Government's commitment that an extra £570 million would be made available for cancer services by 2003–04.

  Care Homes (Closure)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) number of residential care homes that have closed and (b) number of residential
  736W
  care home beds lost in Portsmouth, South in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and if he will
  make a statement. [76489]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available by constituency. The number of residential care homes and care home beds in Portsmouth unitary authority is shown in the table at 31 March for the years 1998 to 2001. Data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Number of residential care homes and care home beds in Portsmouth unitary authority at 31 March, 1998 to 2001

  As at 31 March

  Care homes

  Care home beds

  1998

  165

  1,890

  1999

  165

  1,850

  2000

  155

  1,735

  2001

  140

  1,595

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the closure of care homes. [75363]

  Jacqui Smith
  Department of Health figures show that between 1997 and 2001 the most recent figures available the number of care homes in England reduced by only 640 or 2 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, on 23 July, an extra £ 1 billion for social services by 2006. Some of this money can be used to boost capacity in the care home sector.

  Child Care Workers
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary for Health what steps he has taken to improve the vetting of child care workers. [75369]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to improving safeguards for children. They have enacted a raft of new legislation over the last few years, including the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and the Care Standards Act 2000. Together these initiatives establish a coherent cross-sector scheme for identifying those people considered to be unsuitable to work with children. They also ensure that when such people have been identified they are prevented from gaining access to children through their work.

  Children's Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on children's trusts. [76338]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children's trusts provide an opportunity for delivering better services and outcomes for children and families. They will be based in local councils with power for the first time to commission health and social care. They will enable local partners to jointly plan, commission, finance—and where it makes sense—deliver services for children by putting their needs at the centre of policy. The first pilot sites will start from April 2003 and we will be seeking expressions of interest in December.

  Chinese Community
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his action to support the care needs of older members of the Chinese community in London. [77630]
  737W
  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework (NSF) for older people provides local National Health Service bodies and councils with a template for raising the standards of health and social care and reducing inconsistency in access and service provision for all older people. The NSF and the ongoing project, Developing services for minority ethnic older people, provides specific guidance on how the needs of minority ethnic older people, including older Chinese people, can be effectively assessed and met.

  Clinical Negligence
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what policies he has to reduce the human and financial costs of clinical mistakes in hospitals. [75374]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have established a broad programme of work specifically to address the important issue of patient safety and reduce unintended harm to patients.

  The National Patient Safety Agency, established in July 2001, is a key part of this patient safety programme. The NPSA is already beginning to have an impact on the safety of national health service patient care. The agency will establish and run a new national reporting system to record adverse events and near misses in hospitals and primary care. It will promote a culture of reporting and learning so that lessons learnt in one part of the NHS are properly shared with the whole of the health service.

  We are also targeting areas of known risk to patients. Work is under way on reducing medication errors, obstetrics errors and maladministered spinal injections. We have also commissioned a programme of research into aspects of patient safety which is under way at the University of Birmingham. [75374]

  Community Involvement in NHS
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase community involvement in the organisation and delivery of NHS services. [75380]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department will introduce new systems to build the capacity of communities and hard-to-reach groups, so they can influence the way the national health service works.

  Number of deaths related to drug misuse1 England and Wales, 19932 to 2000

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Deaths

  864

  1,002

  1,100

  1,247

  1,302

  1,459

  1,568

  1,662

  1 These data relate to deaths where the underlying cause of death is poisoning, drug abuse or drug dependence and where any of the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) are involved.

  2 Comparable data are not available for earlier years.

  Source:

  Death related to drug poisoning: England and Wales 1993–2000Health Statistic Quarterly 13, Spring 2002, Office for National Statistics:ONS database of drug-related poisonings. Available on the internet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme health/HSQ13 v4.pdf
  738W
  A new national body—The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—will be established during next year. Patients' forums will be set up in every NHS trust and primary care trust, to directly involve many thousands of people in the organisation and delivery of NHS services. They will work in local communities to promote involvement in local decision-making processes by generating interest and empowering people to get involved.

  In addition, the Department has launched the Community Engagement Learning Network, a major organisational development programme designed to help PCTs throughout England engage with communities, patients, the public and staff in renewing and improving health services.

  Day Surgery in Hospitals
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of day surgery in hospitals. [75378]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most patients prefer day surgery as it provides fast effective care and is the least disruptive to their lives. As part of the Day Surgery Strategy, we aim to make day surgery the usual way people have their planned operations not the exception, and increase to 75 per cent. the rate of elective operations undertaken as day cases. This is underpinned by £68 million that we are providing in 2002–03 and 2003–04 to improve access and deliver choice to patients in day surgery units.

  Drugs-related Deaths
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died as a result of(a) smoking, (b) alcohol and (c) drugs, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [77050]

  Ms Blears
  It is estimated that smoking causes 120,000 deaths in the United Kingdom each year.1

  Estimates of deaths from alcohol range between 5,000 and 40,000 per annum in England and Wales, reflecting the wide range of methods of calculation used in many studies. The trend data requested is not available.

  The available information on drug-related deaths is shown in the table.

  1Source:

  The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995— health education authority (comparable figures are not available for other years).
  739W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug related deaths were caused in the last five years by(a) heroin, (b) crack cocaine, (c) cocaine, (d) ecstasy, (e) cannabis, (f) alcohol, (g) solvents and (h) prescription drugs; and how many people have used NHS services to treat (i) addiction to and (ii) the adverse effects of using each of these drugs in each of the last five years. [76938]

  Ms Blears
  Information on deaths owing to substance abuse is shown in the table:

  Numbers of deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate, England and Wales, 1996 to 2000

  Drug

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Heroin and Morphine

  466

  445

  646

  754

  926

  (b) and (c) Cocaine

  19

  39

  66

  88

  80

  (d) MDMA/ Ecstasy

  16

  12

  16

  26

  36

  (e) Cannabis

  12

  13

  5

  8

  11

  Note:

  It should be noted that the figures provided are for the last five years available.

  Source:

  Death related to drug poisoning: England and Wales 1993–2000;Health Statistics Quarterly 13, Spring 2002, Office for National Statistics; ONS database of drug-related poisonings.

  Estimates range that between 5,000 and 40,000 deaths per annum are caused by alcohol in England and Wales, reflecting the wide range of methods of calculation used in many studies: consequently the trend data requested are not available.

  Information on deaths owing to volatile substance abuse is shown in the table:

  Deaths Associated with Volatile Substance Abuse (VSA)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (g)VSA

  78

  78

  80

  75

  64

  Note:

  It should be noted that the figures provided are for the last five years available.

  Source:

  Trends in death associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances, Report no.15, St. George's Hospital Medical School, June 2002.

  Information on deaths through prescription drugs is not available centrally.

  Up to March 2001, the number of drug users in treatment with drug misuse agencies and general practitioners was around 118,500. Over the two-year period from 1998–99 to 2000–01, there has been a 16 per cent. increase in the numbers of drug users accessing drug treatment services. National health service trusts provide the majority of medical treatment services, while the voluntary sector primarily provides rehabilitation services. The great majority of drug users, 87 per cent., were receiving treatment within NHS services.

  Information is not available centrally as to how many people have used NHS services to treat the adverse effects of using drugs.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring forward country of origin food labelling. [75387]
  740W
  Ms Blears
  Rules on origin labelling of food are set at European Union level. The Food Standards Agency has taken the lead in pressing for changes to improve the clarity and amount of information available to consumers particularly in relation to country of origin. In the meantime, the Agency has published advice to help enforcement authorities tackle misleading labelling.

  General Practitioners (Recruitment)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that in areas where there is a shortage of general practitioners that extra funding will be provided to aid the recruitment process. [75364]

  Mr. Hutton
  Funding to aid general practitioner recruitment is targeted at primary care trusts classified as being in under doctored areas, on the basis of the number of general practitioner principals, or equivalents, per weighted head of the population. The list will be reviewed and updated periodically.

  Health Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made with setting up assertive outreach and crisis intervention/home treatment teams for mental health services in West Sussex; [78169]

  (2) what monies have been made available for the development of mental health services in West Sussex; and what monitoring has been carried out by his Department to see whether funds made available for the development of mental health services in West Sussex have been used for that purpose. [78168]

  Ms Blears
  The earmarked funding included in the allocation for 2002 –03 for investment in mental health was £1.112 million. In addition to mandatory cost pressures, over £800,000 of this allocation has been used for the provision of specific mental health services across West Sussex. There has also been additional commissioning of services not provided locally, such as high secure placements, amounting to £0.5 million. Monitoring is undertaken by the strategic health authority through the annual delivery agreement it has with the primary care trusts.

  West Sussex Health and Social Care National Health Service Trust is developing plans for outreach, crisis intervention and home treatment teams as part of its adult mental health services strategy. Work is also progressing on the development of a crisis resolution service in Adur, Arun and Worthing with a view to the services becoming operational in April 2003.

  Health Inspectors (Imports)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health inspectors are available to check imports through the ports of(a) Southampton, (b) Bristol, (c) Portsmouth, (d) Poole, (e) Weymouth, (f) Bournemouth Airport and (g) Southampton Airport; and if he will make a statement. [72521]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that responsibility for employing environmental health

  741W
  officers at airports and seaports rests with the local authorities which have responsibilities for port health work. The number of enforcement officers employed is determined by the local authorities. The numbers of such officers are not held centrally.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of responsibility between a primary care trust and a hospital trust in the event that the latter incurs a financial deficit. [78173]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts should ensure they do not incur a financial deficit. However, the underlying cause of a financial problem and the identification of any remedial action necessary needs to be handled jointly between primary care trusts and NHS trusts and managed overall by the strategic health authority.

  Hospital Acquired Infection
  Mr. AnDrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards a reduction in hospital acquired infections. [75379]

  Ms Blears
  A number of actions are already under way to help reduce infections, and analysis of infection control returns shows improved performance over the last two years. However, further work is needed, and we are working with key stakeholders to develop a targeted action plan for health care associated infection as part of our strategy to combat infectious diseases.

  Indebtedness
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the level is of indebtedness of the North Wiltshire and Kennett PCT. [75357]

  Ms Blears
  Kennett and North Wiltshire Primary Care Trust started the current financial year with a range of financial pressures. These included the distribution of the liabilities of the former Wiltshire Health Authority, the share of underlying recurring deficits in providers within the strategic health authority area and a range of other cost pressures including primary care prescribing. As part of the assistance received from the NHS Bank, following the application by the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority, the trust was allocated the second highest share of any organisation in the health authority area. The health authority will work with the trust in developing a three year recovery plan to address the underlying shortfall.

  Integration of Health and Social Services
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what further steps he intends to take to promote the integration of health and social services. [75367]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government intend to continue to support the integration of health services, with not only social services but all health-related functions of councils.
  742W
  This month the Department of Health, working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will launch a new network to further support and promote joint working.

  We have also recently announced our intention to pilot Children's Trusts. We expect as a minimum that these will bring together services from health, education and social care to deliver better co-ordinated services for children and their parents.

  Kava-kava
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to publish the conclusions of the Medicines Control Agency's consultation, MLX286, on the herbal ingredient kava-kava in unlicensed medicines; [78166]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Medicines Control Agency's consultation MLX 286 on the herbal ingredient kava-kava (piper methysticum) in unlicensed medicines; [78165]

  (3) which herbal interest groups and organisations are participating in the voluntary agreement to withdraw products containing kava-kava from sale in the United Kingdom; how many have not agreed to the voluntary agreement; and if he will list the reasons his Department has received from such organisations for not participating; [78164]

  (4) what discussions he has held with (a) the Medicines Control Agency and (b) the Food Standards Agency with regards to the proposals to prohibit the sale of products containing kava-kava in the United Kingdom; [78163]

  (5) if he will make a statement on his position regarding the sale and use of the herbal ingredient kava-kava in herbal remedies and food products; [78160]

  (6) what representations he has received from herbal interest groups with regards to the (a) voluntary agreement to withdraw the ingredient kava-kava from unlicensed medicines and food products and (b) the proposals to prohibit the herbal ingredient kava-kava in unlicensed medicines and food products; [78161]

  (7) whether products containing the herbal ingredient kava-kava sold in the United Kingdom are comparable with such products sold in Germany. [78162]

  Ms Blears
  Following initial advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines in December 2001 as to public health risk associated with medicines containing Kava-kava, a voluntary agreement between the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the herbal sector to withdraw from sale medicinal products containing Kava-kava took effect at the beginning of 2002. In July the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) gave further advice, that there was evidence that in rare cases Kava-kava was associated with hepatotoxicity, which may be serious in nature. The CSM made the provisional recommendation that use of the plant should be prohibited in unlicensed medicines. The Government considered that advice and asked the Medicines Control Agency to consult on proposals to prohibit the sale, supply or importation of unlicensed
  743W
  medicinal products consisting of, or containing, Kava-kava except those for external use only. The proposals were set out in consultation letter MIX 286.

  The consultation period has now ended and the Government have requested further advice on this issue, taking account of the responses to consultation, from the independent advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines. In addition, in accordance with the statutory procedure under section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968, the consultation responses have been referred to the Medicines Commission, who will report their findings and conclusions to Ministers. The Government will make an announcement once it has considered this advice and the Commission's report.

  During the consultation period around 50 responses were received, with a majority of those commenting supporting the proposal. A number of the responses from the herbal sector advocated alternative options, in particular the continued availability of Kava-kava with voluntary inclusion of warning information for the purchaser or the continued availability of Kava but subject to restrictions, for example as to strength.

  Over 20 representative organisations in the herbal sector or individual companies have at various stages notified the MCA of their participation in the voluntary agreement. In the period preceding the CSM's further advice in July, the MCA was aware that one company had withdrawn from the agreement on the basis of its view that there was insufficient evidence of risk to the public from Kava-kava to justify the withdrawal of the product, although it subsequently resumed participation. The current position is that the MCA is not aware of any relevant representative groups or organisations that have advised their members not to participate in the agreement. However, the national association of health stores notified the MCA at the end of July of their position that it was a matter for individual shops to check with their insurance companies to establish whether cover would remain in force.

  The MCA has received a wide range of oral or written representations and views from the herbal sector relating to the voluntary agreement. The main points made by various parties have included: support for the agreement pending a decision on the future regulatory status of Kava-kava; disagreement or doubt that the strength of evidence of risk justified the agreement or its continuation; requests for an early decision about any regulatory action in order to resolve the position; and concerns over whether all parties were implementing or abiding by the agreement.

  As herbal remedies may be supplied under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 without a marketing authorisation or any other form of notification to the MCA, a comprehensive record of Kava-kava products on the United Kingdom's market is not available. The MCA therefore requested information from the herbal sector about unlicensed remedies containing Kava-kava which had been on the market prior to the voluntary agreement. The information provided was insufficiently comprehensive to enable a detailed comparison with products on the German market. However, products listed by the herbal sector included ones similar to those
  744W
  sold in Germany, such as standardised extracts providing a daily dose of between 120 and 210 mg of kavalactones.

  In relation to the position on food, since December 2001 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has been advising against consumption of foods containing Kava-kava and encouraging industry to voluntarily withdraw these products from the market. In July 2002, acting on the advice of the chairman of the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment (COT), the FSA initiated a consultation on proposals which would prohibit the use and import of Kava-kava in foods. The consultation period has now ended and the FSA is considering the responses. Around 30 written responses have been received from a range of interested parties with roughly equal numbers supporting and opposing the proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has had no discussions with the FSA on this matter. The FSA has no additional information to that outlined above on compliance with the voluntary withdrawal. The FSA does not hold information on the range of food products containing Kava-kava available on the German market.

  Merging NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the merging of NHS trusts; [75370]

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy for merging acute NHS trusts. [75377]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers will agree to proposals from national health service trusts to merge only if we are persuaded that such a merger is in patients' interests through supporting the delivery of the targets set out in the NHS plan.

  Ambulance Services
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress of ambulance trusts in meeting response time targets. [75371]

  Mr. Lammy
  The goal for ambulance service national health service trusts of reaching 75 per cent. of category A calls within eight minutes is more challenging for some than for others, but the Government remain determined that they all should meet it. While there is more to be done, the ambulance service nationally has made significant progress in recent years—in 1996 only one trust performed at the level indicated by current targets.

  Strategic health authorities are responsible for managing the performance of ambulance trusts. Any trust not meeting its response time targets is required to produce a recovery plan in conjunction with their strategic health authority.
  745W

  Bed Blocking
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to produce final guidance on the proposed fine system to tackle bed blocking. [75372]

  Jacqui Smith
  We intend to bring legislation forward as soon as possible, including guidance to the national health service and social care about how the system of reimbursement will be administered, in relation to delayed transfers of care.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase the number of mental health beds in the NHS. [75373]

  Jacqui Smith
  Extra central investment enabled the creation of over 500 additional secure beds and 320 24-hour staffed beds by April 2001. There are also NHS plan commitments, which we expect to achieve, to develop 200 long-term secure mental health beds and 140 beds for dangerous people with severe personality disorder by 2004. The main thrust of our policy, however, is to develop community services that can safely treat most mental health patients without hospital admission.

  Dentists
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives are available to attract NHS dentists to work in areas of shortage. [75381]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government are committed to modernising national health service dentistry. Over the three year period 2000–01 to 2002–03 over £125 million has been made available to the NHS to improve local services. In addition we introduced a scheme in April 1999 to encourage dentists to increase their NHS commitment.

  Working with the profession and other stakeholders, the Department, through its Modernisation Agency, is planning shortly to test new models of providing NHS oral health care through the Options for Change programme, building on the learning already available from the personal dental services pilot projects.

  Hemel Hempstead General Hospital
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that financial considerations do not impede the restoration of maternity and paediatric services to Hemel Hempstead General Hospital. [75382]

  Mr. Lammy
  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority has agreed with St. Albans Primary Care Trust and Dacorum Primary Care Trust that it will find the necessary funds during this financial year to establish and support the most appropriate model of care at Hemel Hempstead General Hospital. Further discussions are in progress about funding for next year.
  746W

  Acute Services (East Kent)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with the review of acute hospital services in east Kent. [75383]

  Ms Blears
  A judicial review of the consultation process undertaken to reach the recommendation on the reconfiguration, of acute services in east Kent is to begin in November. Ministers will need to wait for the legal process to be concluded.

  Mental Health Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the Mental Health Bill; and if he will make a statement. [76687]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government published a draft Mental Health Bill and consultation document on 25 June. The consultation period ran for 12 weeks and ended on 16 September. We have received over 1,900 formal responses including letters from the public and hon. Members about issues raised in the Bill.

  Mental Health Care (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the staff by grade and specialty in(a) the elderly care team, (b) the city team, (c) the rural team and (d) other categories in the Salisbury Mental Health Care team; and who funds each person. [77315]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mesothelioma Cancer
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of current available treatments for mesothelioma cancer; and if he will make a statement. [75388]

  Ms Blears
  A clinical guideline on mesothelioma cancer is being considered by the Department for referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. This would consider how mesothelioma should be diagnosed and managed.

  National Service Frameworks
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the topics that are under consideration for future National Service Frameworks in the Health Service; and how they are selected. [76246]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework (NSF) programme currently includes frameworks for mental health (1999), coronary heart disease (2000) the [national] Cancer Plan (2000), older people (2001) and diabetes standards (2001). The diabetes NSF delivery strategy is due later this year. Work is in hand on national service frameworks for renal services, childrens services and long term conditions. These frameworks amount to a significant programme of quality improvement across the national health service. We have no plans to amend the programme at present. The criteria for selection are set out in "A First Class Service".
  747W

  Neuroscience Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of regional specialist commissioning groups in respect of neuroscience services. [77005]

  Mr. Hutton
  The future of regional specialised commissioning groups is being considered as part of the consultation on commissioning arrangements for specialised services for which responses are still coming in. I will be considering the responses and expect to reach conclusions on the way forward by the turn of the year.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on difficulties experienced by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in dealing with applications. [75368]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was established on 1 April 2002 and inherited from its predecessor the United Kingdom Central Council its resources, systems and processes for the registration of nurses, midwives and health visitors.

  Its establishment coincided with the installation of a new information technology system commissioned by its predecessor which has resulted in a backlog in dealing with new applications.

  The NMC has taken action to resolve the issues including improving communications, targeting resources to tackle the backlogs and undertaking a review of systems and processes. I am advised that the NMC has cleared the backlogs in the UK applications and is continuing to target resources at registration applications from those qualified overseas.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the position of elderly residents who are obliged to seek alternative accommodation when nursing homes seek to re-register under a different status. [77987]

  Jacqui Smith
  If a care home is de-registered, councils should re-assess the needs of the home's supported residents for whom they are responsible to determine the best course of action, which may involve moving residents to another registered care home. In similar circumstances, self-funding residents may turn to councils for information and advice. Where self-funding residents cannot make their own arrangements, councils may make alternative arrangements for them under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. When care homes are de-registered, there should be prior consultation with all relevant parties, including the residents and their families.

  Older People's Taskforce
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2002,Official Report, column 872W, on the older people's task force,
  748W
  if he will set out the reasons for each of the former members of the task force being replaced with new appointees. [76574]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]:Mr. Harry Cayton resigned on taking up his post as Director of Patient Experience and Public Involvement at the Department.

  Dr. Peter Melton, Mr. David Panter, Mrs. Beth Taylor and Mr. David White stepped down because of other pressing work commitments.

  Mr. Chai Patel stepped down because he was no longer the owner of Westminster Healthcare and no longer had a direct interest in older people's services that qualified him to serve on the older people's task force.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the proposed changes to the Public Health Laboratory Services. [75366]

  Ms Blears
  We propose that many of the functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service should be incorporated into the proposed Health Protection Agency. The remaining functions—the laboratories predominately undertaking diagnostic microbiology services— will transfer to the management of local national health service trust by 1 April 2003.

  Radiotherapy Waiting Times
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the latest waiting times are for postoperative radiotherapy treatment: and if he will make a statement. [75385]

  Ms Blears
  Waiting times for radiotherapy treatment are not collected centrally. In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times, we are making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current work force and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

  Smoking
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the smoking percentage rates among women during pregnancy in each year since 1990 in(a) England and (b) each NHS region. [75638]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on smoking in pregnancy is obtained from the infant feeding survey, which is carried out every five years; the most recent survey was in 2000. The results are not analysed by national health service region. The available information is given in the tables.

  Table 1. Proportion of women who smoked throughout pregnancy/England, 1990,1995, and 2000

  Percentage

  Smoking prevalence

  19901

  19952

  20022

  Smoked during pregnancy

  28

  23

  19

  Base number

  5,413

  4,956

  34,921

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1990 relate to Great Britain.
  749W
  2. The results from the 1995 and 2000 surveys are not directly comparable, since some of the smoking questions on the questionnaire were revised in 2000 to improve the reliability of the results.

  3. The base for 2000 excludes 200 mothers who did not supply sufficient information for their smoking status to be classified.

  Sources:

  OPCS Infant feeding survey 1990, ONS Infant feeding survey 1995, and BMRB Infant feeding survey 2000. The latter is available from the internet at http://www.doh.qov.uk/pdfs/ infantreport2000.pdf

  Table 2. Proportion of women who smoked throughout pregnancy, by region, England and Wales, 2000

  Region

  Percentage

  Base number

  London and South East

  15

  1,809

  South West and Wales

  21

  784

  Midlands and East Anglia

  21

  984

  North

  23

  1,625

  England and Wales

  19

  1,25,225

  Notes:

  1. 216 mothers who did not supply sufficient information for their smoking status to be classified have been excluded.

  2. 23 mothers who did not supply information for their region to be classified have been excluded from the regional breakdown.

  Source:

  (Derived from) BMRB Infant feeding survey 2000. The published report is available from the internet at "http://www.doh.qov.uk/" http://www.doh.qov.uk/ pdfs/infantreport2000.pdf

  Treatment for the Blind and Partially Sighted
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to improve treatment for the blind and partially sighted. [75376]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have set a new target for the national health service to improve diabetic retinopathy screening. We have invested £20 million to modernise cataract services. At the same time, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is working with us to develop a resource pack for implementation of the Older People's National Service Framework. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence are also carrying out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy.

  Waiting Times (A&E)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times in accident and emergency departments. [75384]

  Mr. Lammy
  Long waits in accident and emergency are not acceptable and improving patients' experience of emergency care is a Government priority.

  The NHS Plan set the target to reduce the maximum wait in accident and emergency (A&E) from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours or less by 2004. By the time of the first milestone in March 2002, 77 per cent, of all patients attending A&E in England spent four hours or less in A&E. This slightly exceeded the milestone which was set at 75 per cent.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will list the number of contacts his Department has had with(a) Wythenshawe Hospital and (b) Greater
  750W
  Manchester health authority concerning the case of Mr. Stanley Ford and list, in each case, the date and nature of contact. [76641]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Officials have been in contact with South Manchester University Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority on a number of occasions since my hon. Friend first raised her constituent's case in five parliamentary questions last July. These approaches have been by letter, telephone and e-mail and not all were individually recorded.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations have taken place into hygiene standards at Wythenshawe Hospital following the outbreaks of MRSA in May and June. [76643]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Several meetings took place, attended by all relevant staff, including a consultant microbiologist and an infection control nurse. The trust's cleaning contractor was given instructions about additional cleaning requirements, with which it has complied. These enhanced cleaning measures are continuing to be monitored.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons why Wythenshawe Hospital was short of theatre staff on 22 March; how many staff were missing; what post each of them held; and, in each case, what the reason for absence was. [76645]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: On 22 March, five of the 20 nursing staff were on sick leave, although four colleagues worked overtime to compensate for their absence. It was as a result of an emergency admission going to theatre at 14:35 hours that my hon. Friend's constituent had to have his operation cancelled.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will investigate the procedures adopted by(a) Wythenshawe Hospital and (b) the Greater Manchester health authority when dealing with complaints about the treatment of Mr S. Ford of Warrington; and if he will make a statement. [76647]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: At the request of the national health service chief executive, the director of health & social care— North has reviewed Mr. Ford's case and the handling of subsequent complaints by South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust and Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority. The director wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 September with his findings.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

    Amina Lawal
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Amina Lawal. [76991]
    751W
    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 23 October 2002, Official Report, column 363W.

    Arms Sales (Israel)
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the sale of arms to Israel. [77510]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The UK arms trade with Israel is tiny. All relevant export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other relevant announced Government policies. Our criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for internal repression or external aggression. The outbreak of the intifada, continued Israeli incursions in the occupied territories and the Israeli breach of its assurance that UK originated equipment would not be used in the occupied territories have all been factored in to the Government's current export licensing policy.

    Bali
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many consular officials there are in Bali. [77366]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    On 26 October there were 25 British officials (14 in the consular support team and 11 police family liaison officers) in Bali offering help and advice to those affected by the terrorist attack on 12 October. They are working alongside British-funded counsellors. We continue t o monitor staffing requirements in Bali closely and will send more personnel as needed. A consular team will remain in Bali for at least the next three months.

    Beef Supplies
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the beef supply contracts for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its agencies are sourced from Scottish herds. [76813]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The FCO welcomes competitive offers of beef sourced from Scottish herds.

    Bishkek Summit
    AnDrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representatives from his Department will attend the Bishkek Global Mountain summit from 29 October to 1 November 2004. [77796]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: UK input will come from DFID staff based in Bishkek, who will be attending as observers.
    752W

    Catherine Meyer
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting between Baroness Amos and the hon. Member for Leicester, East concerning Catherine Meyer. [77367]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    My noble Friend the Baroness Amos and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Rosie Winterton) held a joint Ministerial meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and Lady Meyer, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22 October 2002, to discuss Lady Meyer's consular case. A number of action points were agreed.

    Cuba
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Cuba regarding the incarceration and treatment of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva; and if he will make a statement. [77053]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    Our Embassy in Havana raised Mr. Leiva's case last May with the Cuban Foreign Ministry. My noble Friend Baroness Amos raised human rights issues with the Cuban Vice-Foreign Minister during her visit to Havana in June.

    Democratic Republic of Congo
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the claims in the UN's Panel of Experts report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo that British Aerospace spare parts for Zimbabwe Defence Force Hawk jets were supplied to the DRC early in 2002 in breach of European Union sanctions on Zimbabwe; what information he has on the role(a) Mr. John Bredenkamp, (b) the Aviation Consultancy Services Company and (c) other individuals or companies played in mediating those deals; who granted the export licences; and if he will make a statement. [77983]

    Mr. Straw
    We are looking into the UN panel report. We take seriously any allegation that the UK or EU arms embargoes on Zimbabwe may have been circumvented. Any action in the UK would be a matter for the relevant authorities. We are aware of allegations of past arms dealing activities by Mr. John Bredenkamp. I am unable to provide the precise information requested by the right hon. Member under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning claims made in the UN's Panel of Experts report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo that Aviation Consultancy Services Company represents British Aerospace; and if he will make a statement. [77984]
    753W
    Mr. Straw
    We are looking very closely at all allegations made in the report. Any alleged connexion between ACS and British Aerospace is a matter for British Aerospace.

    Diego Garcia
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in place to permit United States military forces to use the air base in Diego Garcia; and what consultations have taken place with the Ilois islanders from Diego Garcia over military use of their islands. [76216]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    HMG have entered into a series of bilateral agreements with the United States which allows the territory to remain available for the defence needs of the two countries for an initial period of 50 years. These agreements also deal with the establishment and functioning of a US defence facility on Diego Garcia. There have been no consultations on the military use of the islands.

    Exports (Iraq)
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the military exports to Iraq authorised for export since 17 March 1988. [75946]

    Nigel Griffiths
    I have been asked to reply.

    Details of all military exports to Iraq authorised since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997. 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

    For details of military exports to Iraq authorised between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2002, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, columns 578–579W, and to the replies from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) on 18 June 2002, Official Report, columns 296–297W, and the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 16 October 2002, Official Report, column 833W.

    Friends of Scotland
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the events supported by UK embassies to promote the Friends of Scotland initiative in the past year. [77207]

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the events held in UK embassies to promote the Friends of Scotland initiative in the past year. [77206]

    Mr. Straw
    Diplomatic posts have hosted or supported the following events for the Friends of Scotland initiative:

    22 January 2002—British Chamber of Commerce lunch in Hong Kong

    23 January 2002—A business lunch in Guangzhou, China

    754W

    25 January 2002—A lunch with the St AnDrew's Society of Selangor,

    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    17 June 2002—A reception in Halifax, Nova Scotia

    25 June 2002—A lunch in Amsterdam

    14 October 2002 reception in Sydney, Australia

    17 October 2002—A reception in Wellington, New Zealand

    18 October 2002 A reception in Dunedin, New Zealand

    20 October 2002-A- reception in Singapore

    The Advocate General for Scotland gave an address at the event on 17 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an address at each of the events in January and October.

    India
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Indian authorities in the last six months concerning the case of Professor Davinder Singh Bhullar. [77949]

    Mr. Straw
    My Department has made no representations in the last six months concerning Davinder Singh Bhullar, but we are aware of his case. We understand that a final decision on Mr. Bhullar's appeal to the Indian Supreme Court is still awaited. Our High Commission in New Delhi will continue to follow the case along with EU partners.

    Mr. Michael Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government encouraging the Indian Government to grant access in the Punjab to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; [77950]

    (2) what representations his Department has made to the Indian authorities with regard to encouraging the granting of access to the Punjab by international human rights groups. [77951]

    Mr. Straw
    We have made official level representations to the Government of India for greater general access to India of UN Special Rapporteurs and international human rights NGOs, although not specifically for their access to Punjab.

    We continue to encourage the Indian Government to ratify the UN Convention against Torture (CAT). My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Mike O'Brien) most recently discussed this and a number of other human rights issues during his visit to India on 17 October.

    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions(a) he and (b) other Ministers have had with the authorities in India about the use of and removal of land mines in that country.[77952]

    Mr. Straw
    I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 791W. This remains our position.
    755W
    I warmly welcome the recent announcements of the Indian and Pakistani Governments to withdraw forces from their international border. I hope that further such de-escalatory measures by India and Pakistan will continue to reduce the regional tensions, and pave the way for a resumption of dialogue over Kashmir.

    Iraq
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Syrian Government on potential British and US military intervention in Iraq; and what the policy of the Government of Syria is on the issue. [77023]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I met the Syrian Ambassador on 26 September. UK and Syrian officials in both London and Damascus meet regularly to discuss a range of issues, including Iraq. There is also frequent contact between our officials at regular UN meetings in New York on Iraq. The Syrian Government's stated policy is to work for a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi issue. Syria has called both for Iraq to comply with its UN obligations and for the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.

    Jordan
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the British Government to request the use of Jordanian airspace and territory for the use of their planes and ground forces for military intervention in Iraq. [77022]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have been asked to reply.

    No decision regarding the commitment of United Kingdom armed forces to any potential conflict in Iraq has yet been taken. Military action is neither imminent nor inevitable. It is not helpful to speculate on the sort of assistance we might seek from states in the region in the event that military action became necessary.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many hon. Members have made representations to him on the subject of alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria. [76990]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: During the last two months the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received more than 70 letters from hon. Members on human rights abuses in Nigeria. The majority of the correspondence has been about Amina Lawal, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.

    Pakistan
    Diana Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of President Musharraf's ability to curb religious fundamentalism and terrorism in South Asia, with reference to the recent electoral success of religious extremist groups in two provinces of Pakistan. [77021]
    756W
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We welcomed President Musharraf's courageous decision to join the international coalition against terrorism. In a speech on 12 January, he condemned all forms of sectarianism and religious hatred. He has also taken steps against militancy in Pakistan and banned five terrorist groups. Pakistan continues to be a staunch ally in the continuing campaign against al-Qaeda. We will continue to encourage Pakistan to sustain these efforts. It is too early to assess the impact the religious parties will have on Pakistan's policies. We have no reason to doubt Pakistan's continuing commitment to act against terrorism wherever it occurs.

    Sikh Community
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet representatives of the Sikh community following the postponement of meetings on 6 August and 11 September, and for what reason the latter meeting was postponed. [77953]

    Mr. Straw
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) had planned to meet a number of Sikh organisations on 11 September and was keen that the meeting should be with as broad a cross-section as possible of representatives of different Sikh groups. Many of our contacts were unable to attend on 11 September, and we therefore decided to postpone the meeting to another date. We hope to arrange a new date for a meeting soon.

    South Asia
    Stephen Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the sequence of activities required to decrease tensions in the South Asian region. [77284]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warmly welcomed the announcements by India to withdraw forces from the international border and Pakistan to withdraw forces from the international border and Line of Control. These are positive steps towards the reduction of tensions in the region. We hope that this will be followed by further de-escalatory moves on both sides that will lead to a resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan. Only peaceful dialogue can lead to a lasting solution of the Kashmir issue.

    Sudan
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of abductions and slavery in the Sudan. [76987]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: There have been no new confirmed cases of abduction during 2002. The majority of abductions in recent years have been associated with the Government train to Bahr al Ghazal. We and our EU partners have made representations to the Government, urging suspension of the train until peace is achieved and an end to encouragement for armed horsemen (murahiliin) militias. The train has not operated this year.
    757W

    Torture
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries the Government categorise as using torture. [76919]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer. 28 October 2002]: Torture is inflicted on men, women and children in almost half the countries of the world. The UK believes that torture has no place in the 21st century and is therefore committed to combating torture everywhere. In October 1998 the UK launched an initiative to tackle torture throughout the world. Phase 3 of this initiative was launched in June this year. Over the four years of the anti-torture initiative the UK has established the reputation of having one of the strongest anti-torture stances in Europe. As part of the initiative the UK has been lobbying countries worldwide to ratify the UN Convention against Torture. Since our campaign was launched, 20 new states have ratified, bringing the total to 130. However, the Convention against Torture still remains the least ratified of all the UN human rights treaties.

    Torture Allegations (Bahrain)
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he wil1 make a statement on progress with the police investigation into the allegations made against a person whose name has been made known to him concerning alleged involvement in torture while Head of the Bahraini Security and Intelligence Service. [77528]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    This is a matter for the Police.

    Travel Warnings
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what methods of issuing travel warnings to British citizens are regularly employed in addition to notices on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website; and what change there has been in the use of each other method of issuing travel warnings to British citizens since the advent of the FCO website. [76691]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    Since 1996 the FCO have published travel advice on the FCO website. The advice is accessed regularly by the travel industry and members of the public. Many regular users arrange to receive automatic updates when travel advice changes, by using the "automatic update facility" on the FCO site.

    In addition to this service, those seeking travel advice can contact the Travel Advice Unit during working hours by fax or telephone. A further 30 organisations receive daily faxed updates from the Travel Advice Unit. Travel advice, covering countries and areas to which the FCO either advise against all travel or all non-essential travel, are also published on CEEFAX (page 474). Significant changes in travel advice are also announced via press statements. CEEFAX (page 471) gives contact information for the Travel Advice Unit, and the website address, from which comprehensive travel advice may be obtained. Our posts overseas have discretion to issue local advisories, with information and advice of particular interest to the expatriate community. This is disseminated in a variety of ways, depending upon local
    758W
    circumstances. In countries where we have a warden network we ask wardens to pass on significant changes in travel advice.

    The FCO has gone to great lengths to improve and to maximise awareness of our travel advice. The Know Before You Go (KBYG) campaign, launched in June 2001, is a market transformation campaign made up of three main strands: the FCO website, strategic partnerships and PR. The key campaign message is simple and applies to everyone: know before you go—get travel insurance and check the FCO travel advice before you go.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the level of violent crime in the London Borough of Havering. [75107]

    Mr. Denham
    In 2001–02 there were a total of 3,947 violent offences in Havering.

    It should be noted that recorded violent crime is not necessarily an accurate guide to trends in violent crime, as it is subject to changes in reporting and recording. For example, in the British Crime Survey, for England and Wales as a whole, the number of common assaults showed a statistically significant decrease of 24 per cent. between 1999 and interviews during 2001/02, whereas common assaults recorded by the police in England and Wales increased by 15 per cent. over the same period.

    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what affect the decision in the Ahmadi case has had on his asylum policy; and if he will make a statement. [75414]

    Beverley Hughes
    The ruling does not impact on our general policy regarding third country transfers under the Dublin Convention. Nor does it affect the operation of Section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The case impacts on the Secretary of State's power to certify human rights claims as manifestly unfounded where certain types of medical evidence are in issue. We are disappointed that the High Court took the view it did on the particular facts of this case. An appeal against the decision has been lodged with the Court of Appeal. The family's separate appeal to the Independent Appellate Authority has been listed for hearing.

    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to communications data, how many times(a) the Security Services and (b) each police force sought access to such data from communications providers such as Internet service providers in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74482]

    Bob Ainsworth
    The Metropolitan Police made approximately 155,000 requests for communications date to be passed to them under the Data Protection Act 1998. Figures for each police force are not collected centrally. It is policy not to comment on the operational matters of the Security Service.
    759W

    Accommodation Centres (Education)
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what duties local schools will have to admit children living in accommodation centres. [76584]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    I have been asked to reply.

    Clause 35(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill provides that a child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery. However, clause 36 enables an LEA to disapply that provision and to arrange for the education of a child residing in an accommodation centre. In such circumstances the LEA may require the admission of a child to a maintained school, after consulting the school's governing body. However, the LEA cannot require the governing body of a school to admit a child if the child's admission will result in special measures to ensure compliance with the Secretary of State's limits on infant class sizes.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the teaching unions on his proposals to educate some children seeking asylum in accommodation centres. [76585]

    Beverley Hughes
    There have been no discussions with the teaching unions on the proposals to educate some children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. However, officials in the Department for Education and Skills have established an advisory group with representatives from the Local Government Association (LGA) and the local education authorities in the areas where centres are planned.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set out in law the role of the LEA in the delivery of education in accommodation centres. [76586]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    I have been asked to reply.

    Clause 35 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill specifies which LEA duties are not to apply in respect of children living in accommodation centres. Clause 36(3) empowers the Secretary of State to provide guidance to be followed by LEAs when using their power to arrange for the provision of education in accommodation centres. Such guidance can also offer further information as to the role of LEAs in the delivery of education for children living in the centres.

    Asylum Applications
    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on applications for asylum by individuals citing threats from a blood feud as a basis for their application; and if he will make a statement. [77245]

    Simon Hughes
    Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom are considered individually on their merits in accordance with the UK's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Unless the applicant may reasonably be expected to seek asylum in a third country or the Dublin Convention applies, asylum is granted where the applicant fulfils the criteria in the 1951 UN Convention.
    760W
    Where an application is based on a blood feud, then we will assess whether the circumstances are knowingly tolerated by the authorities in the country concerned, whether they are unwilling or unable to offer effective protection, or whether the applicant could reasonably have been expected to seek the protection of the authorities, or moved to another part of the country where he or she would be safe.

    Asylum Seekers
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet Scottish Executive ministers to discuss the impact of the Government's asylum policies on Scotland. [76911]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Immigration and asylum are reserved issues. The Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) and I met the Scottish Minister for Social Justice (Margaret Curran) on 12 September; a further meeting will be arranged shortly. Home Office officials are also in regular contact with their counterparts in the Scottish Executive about the impact of the Government's asylum policies in Scotland.

    Martin Linton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom in each month in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 have come from Somalia. [77288]

    Beverley Hughes
    The information requested is given in the table.

    Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom(excluding dependants), total and Somalia, January 2001 and June 20021,2

    Month

    Total application

    Application from national of Somalia

    Percentage of total

    Jan-01

    6,850

    520

    8

    Feb-01

    5,935

    385

    7

    Mar-01

    6,120

    480

    8

    Apr-01

    5,050

    435

    9

    May-01

    5,315

    500

    9

    Jun-01

    5,525

    520

    9

    Jul-01

    6,155

    725

    12

    Aug-01

    6,590

    845

    13

    Sep-01

    6,120

    700

    11

    Oct-01

    6,480

    550

    9

    Nov-01

    5,770

    420

    7

    Dec-01

    5,455

    385

    7

    Jan-02

    6,575

    470

    7

    Feb-02

    6,415

    380

    6

    Mar-02

    6,530

    450

    7

    Apr-02

    6,475

    455

    7

    May-02

    7,510

    550

    7

    Jun-02

    6,415

    445

    7

    1Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

    2Data are provisional.

    Note:

    Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the third quarter (July to September) of 2002 and will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
    761W

    Asylum Support
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics are held by(a) the National Asylum Support Service and (b) the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate relating to the length of time asylum applicants have been in the UK before making an application for support. [76918]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]: There are no statistics available on the length of time asylum applicants have been in the UK before making an application for support.

    There is, however, evidence that a proportion of applications for asylum will have been made by someone who has been in the country for some time. Since a person cannot apply for asylum support until they have applied for asylum, it can be similarly inferred that this will also be the case for support application.

    Child Prostitution
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been trafficked into the UK and forced into prostitution in each of the past five years; from what countries the children came; and if he will make a statement. [76798]

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been trafficked into the UK in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [76797]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    There is currently no criminal offence of trafficking. Criminal statistics which might give an indication of how many children have been trafficked into the UK in each of the past five years, and from where they came, are not therefore available. The Nationality and Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before the House will introduce a new offence of trafficking for the purposes of controlling an individual in prostitution.

    Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic given the reluctance of the victims of trafficking to report to the police. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the UK or the European Union.

    A Home Office research study 'Stopping Traffic' (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000) indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

    Correspondence
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded delivery items addressed to Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road, Croydon, are missing; and when he will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East relating to Mr. and Mrs. Ajaz Khan dated 1 September reference 18156/2. [76611]
    762W
    Beverley Hughes
    This information is not available. Items of recorded delivery post addressed to Lunar House, but not delivered, are the responsibility of the Royal Mail. All recorded delivery items received in Lunar House are logged into a computer database, together with a record of where in the organisation they have been sent.

    I wrote to the hon. Member on 18 October about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Khan.

    Mr. Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent performance of the Immigration and Nationality Department Board in answering letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) the public. [76738]

    Beverley Hughes
    Information on all correspondence received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. IND received over 1 million pieces of correspondence during 2001–02, and systems are not yet in place to identify whether responses were given to all categories of correspondence received.

    Figures will be available shortly on IND's performance in answering letters from hon. Members from 1 September 2002 and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as these are available.

    We are developing measures to record and track all categories of correspondence. The Home Office Customer Communication Foundation Project was suspended last November and has now been replaced by a short term/tactical Correspondence Tracking System (CTS) Project to address the handling of correspondence and the provision of accurate management information. The project is due to begin on 1 November and will be rolled out for operational use over the coming 12 months. IND's ministerial, official and public correspondence are all included in the intended scope of the project. The CTS project is part of a raft of measures to improve IND's customer service delivery which will be developed over the coming year, in which customer communications will feature strongly.

    Home Detention Curfews
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the home detention curfew period; and if he will make a statement. [78366]

    Hilary Benn
    On 5 February,Official Report, column 866W, the Government announced plans to lengthen the maximum curfew period from 60 to 90 days. Today we are presenting to Parliament an Order to enact that proposal. The Order will come into force on 16 December 2002, subject to the approval of both Houses. Eligible prisoners serving between eight months and under four years who pass a risk assessment will be released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) to spend the latter part of their sentence at home for a period of up to 90 days depending on sentence length. There will

    763W
    be no change in the maximum curfew length for prisoners serving between three months and under eight months. They will continue to serve between 15 and up to 60 days on curfew. In all cases offenders not statutory excluded will be subject to a risk assessment and released on HDC only where it is safe to do so.

    Under the HDC scheme prisoners serve the remainder of their custody period at home under electronic curfew usually from 7pm and 7am. At any one time we expect this measure will remove up to 600 prisoners from prison accommodation in addition to the 2,400 who are already on the scheme. The impact of these arrangements will be kept under close review.

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001(p)1

    Illegal entry action1

    4,540

    5,585

    5,225

    6,115

    6,760

    of whom:

    Principal asylum application2

    2,605

    3,095

    2,615

    2,820

    3,775

    of whom

    non-asylum cases

    1,935

    2,485

    2,610

    3,290

    2,985

    1 Figures for 2001 have been estimated.

    2 Persons who had sought asylum at some stage. Figures exclude 200 dependants of asylum seekers removed as a result of enforcement action in the period April to December 2001; data on the dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001.

    National Confiscation Agency
    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much money, attained through the proceeds of corruption in developing countries, has been confiscated by the National Confiscation Agency each year since 1999; [75074]

    (2) what efforts are being made to channel money, attained through the proceeds of corruption in developing countries and confiscated through the National Confiscation Agency, back to the country of origin. [75073]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    None. Since 1999, no sums have been realised by any of the criminal justice agencies from confiscation orders relating to corruption in developing countries. The Assets Recovery Agency, the body established under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to investigate and recover unlawfully held assets, will not commence operations until early in the new year.

    I should add that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 also brings forward the point at which assets may be restrained to the start of a criminal investigation. At present, restraint is only possible when proceedings have or are about to be instituted which may be too late to prevent assets from being dissipated. The international co-operation provisions of Part 11 of the Act will also enable co-operation to be provided without the need to designate overseas authorities for assistance, enabling assistance to be given much more readily when cases arise.

    In this context I should also note two new provisions which should assist in combating corruption in developing countries. Section 108 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 ensures that foreign agents are covered by the law on bribery and corruption. Section 109 extends UK jurisdiction in respect of acts committed abroad by UK nationals and bodies incorporated under UK law which would amount to corruption offences if committed here. These provisions were brought into force on 14 February 2002.
    764W

    Illegal Entrants
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants who were suspected victims of trafficking have been deported from the UK in each of the past five years; from which countries they came; and if he will make a statement. [76788]

    Beverley Hughes
    The number of people removed as a result of illegal entry action in each of the past live years is given in the table. I regret that the information requested on those removed who were suspected victims of trafficking and the country from which they came is not available.

    The confiscation provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act will apply to these offences, following conviction of an offender where the offender has benefited from his conduct.

    Arrangements exist for the UK to share sums realised on behalf of another jurisdiction following enforcement of an overseas confiscation order. As a general rule the maximum amount which can be shared with a requesting country is 50 per cent. of the sum realised once enforcement costs have been deducted. However, the UK is prepared in principle to return 100 per cent. (following deduction of recovery costs) of any assets that are the proceeds of corruption, and have been the subject of a confiscation order enforced in the UK courts.

    In May 2002 a Department for International Development (DFID) conference was held to advise developing countries as to how they could seek assistance from the UK in investigating, freezing and confiscating assets of criminal origin which are believed to be located in the UK.

    The UN Corruption Convention, currently under negotiation in Vienna, will also require all UN member states to address the issue of returning the proceeds of corruption to the country of origin. The UK Government is actively proposing, including in EU Common Position, that the UN Corruption Convention should favour the return of assets plundered from state funds by corrupt leaders.

    Parent Abuse
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the policy pursued by his Department towards parents abused by their own children; [76889]

    (2) what discussions his Department has had with groups representing parents who have been abused by their children. [76888]
    765W
    Jacqui Smith
    I have been asked to reply.

    Incidents of abuse are of huge concern to the Government no matter what the source. As a civilised society we must have the determination to confront abuse wherever it occurs.

    As part of our integrated approach to combating abuse we launched our guidance "No Secrets" on the protection of vulnerable adults in March 2000. Local authorities and other authorities had to develop their own locally based codes of practice and ensure that they were developed and implemented by 31 October 2001.

    The Department has had no discussions with groups representing parents who have been abused by their children.

    People Trafficking
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspected victims of trafficking who have been deported have re-entered the UK in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [77335]

    Beverley Hughes
    I regret that the information requested on those removed as suspected victims of trafficking and the number who have re-entered the country is not available.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases his Department has granted leave to remain on an exceptional basis to victims of people trafficking in the last five years. [77383]

    Beverley Hughes
    I regret that the information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

    Race Equality (Scotland)
    Claire Ward
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward the Commission for Racial Equality's draft statutory code of practice on the duty to promote race equality in Scotland. [78367]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Commission for Racial Equality's draft statutory Code of Practice on the duty to promote race equality in Scotland has today been laid before Parliament.

    The statutory Code of Practice will offer practical guidance to public authorities in Scotland on how to meet their general and specific duties to promote race equality. Once the statutory Code of Practice is brought into effect it will be admissible in evidence in any legal action, and a court or tribunal should take relevant provisions of the Code of Practice into account.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Child Abduction Unit
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will make a statement on the number of people in the Child Abduction Unit. [77370]
    766W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Child Abduction Unit has, since 1992, operated from within the office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee. It has two full-time members of staff, a manager with seven years experience of this work and three additional staff to provide cover where necessary. A senior lawyer within the OS/PT office provides legal advice.

    Court Service
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to downgrade Cheltenham County Court; and if she will make a statement. [77045]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Court Service report, Modernising the Civil and Family Courts, published on 23 May 2002 set out a vision of a new business model for the civil and family courts. The aim is to increase the choices for people who need to use the courts; reduce social exclusion in the system of justice; and improve the use of technology in the courts to enhance service. Under the proposals Cheltenham County Court would become a part-time local hearing venue on the basis that, on average, it currently has hearings on fewer than three days per week.

    We will be consulting on our proposals for the court network next year. During this period, the views of all those with an interest in the future status of Cheltenham County will be canvassed. The consultation will include Members of Parliament.

    Government Information (Disclosure)
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the statutory provisions prohibiting the disclosure of Government information which have been introduced since May 1997. [77090]

    Yvette Cooper
    It has not been possible in the time available to identify all the relevant legislation containing such prohibitions. The Lord Chancellor will report in November on progress of the Government's review of all legislation which prohibits disclosure of information. I will write to the hon. Member with the information he seeks before then and place a copy of my reply in the library of the House.

    Halloran v. Delaney
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make statement on the case of Halloran v. Delaney and its effect on funding personal injury cases. [76931]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    We are considering the implications of this Court of Appeal judgment and how it relates to the House of Lords judgment in Gallery v. Gray. As the time limit for seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords in Halloran v. Delaney has not elapsed it would be inappropriate to comment any further.

    King Edward VIII
    Kevin Brennan
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will announce
    767W
    the result of his review of the status of papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII; and if he will make a statement. [77029]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on this subject on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 118W. Any official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII will need to be re-reviewed by Departments. It is hoped that the results of the review will be known and put into effect by the end of the year.

    Knutsford Crown Court
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to make a decision on the proposed closure of Knutsford Crown court. [77092]

    Yvette Cooper
    Following the responses received during public consultation and our own meeting on 23 July, I have asked for careful consideration to be given to all the real concerns raised. I expect to be able to make a decision on the future of the Crown court at Knutsford early in the new year. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. Member that the building will remain as a Crown court centre.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the decision on the planned closure of Knutsford Crown court has been delayed. [77093]

    Yvette Cooper
    Following the responses received during public consultation and our own meeting on 23 July, I have asked for careful consideration to be given to all the real concerns raised. Full and proper consideration must be given to all the facts before any decisions are made. The future of the court must be seen in context of the overall number of Crown court sitting days required in Wales and the North West of England.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the name and date of closure of each magistrates' court that has closed since May 1997, by parliamentary constituency. [77278]

    Yvette Cooper
    Magistrates' courts are the responsibility of locally based Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) and are a locally managed service.

    Decisions to close individual courthouses are made by the local MMCs, with procedures for appeal. There have been 96 magistrates' courthouses closed since May 1997 in England and Wales, as set out in the table as follows. These have been listed in MMC area to which they belonged as information about which parliamentary constituency each MCC is a member of could not be obtained within the timescale.

    MCC

    Magistrates' Courthouse

    Closure Date

    Bedfordshire

    Apmthill

    1 January 2000

    Bedfordshire

    Biggleswade

    1 January 2000

    Bedfordshire

    Dunstable

    1 January 2000

    768W

    MCC

    Magistrates' Courthouse

    Closure Date

    Bedfordshire

    Leighton Buzzard

    1 January 2000

    Cambridgeshire

    March

    31 December 1998

    Cheshire

    Warrington Patten

    1 April 2001

    Hall

    Cheshire

    Macclesfield Park

    1 April 2001

    Green

    Cumbria

    Keswick

    30 April 2000

    Cumbria

    Appleby

    31 May 2000

    Cumbria

    Windermere

    31 May-2000

    Cumbria

    Wigton

    31 May 2000

    Derbyshire

    Alfreton

    1 January 2001

    Derbyshire

    Ashbourne

    1 January 2001

    Derbyshire

    Bakewell

    1 January 2001

    Derbyshire

    Matlock

    1 January 2001

    Devon and Cornwall Bideford

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Exmouth

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Kingsbridge

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    South Molton

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Teignmouth

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Tavistock

    30 April 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Axminster

    4 May 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Tiverton

    4 May 2001

    Devon and Cornwall

    Newquay

    30 June 2001

    Dorset

    Christchurch

    31 March 1999

    Dorset

    Gillingham

    30 September 2001

    Durham

    Barnard Castle

    31 December 1998

    Essex

    Braintree

    31 December 1997

    Essex

    Clacton on Sea

    31 October 1997

    Essex

    Saffron Walden

    31 December 1998

    Gloucestershire

    Stow on the Wold

    30 June 1999

    Greater London

    Marlborough Street

    31 March 1998

    Greater London

    Clerkenwell

    31 December 1998

    Greater Manchester

    Ashton under Lyne

    31 August 1997

    (Manchester Road)

    Greater Manchester

    Duckinsfield

    31 August 1997

    Greater Manchester

    Leigh

    31 March 2001

    Greater Manchester

    Middleton

    31 March 2001

    Gwent

    Bargoed

    31 December 1997

    Gwent

    Monmouth

    31 December 1997

    Gwent

    Pontlottyn

    31 December 1997

    Gwent

    Pontypool

    31 December 1997

    Hampshire and Isle

    Southampton

    31 August2001

    of Wight

    (Commercial Road)

    Hertfordshire

    Bishop's Stortford

    31 March 1998

    Hertfordshire

    Hatfield

    31 March 1998

    Hertfordshire

    Hitchin

    31 March 1998

    Humberside

    Bridlington

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Brough

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Driffieid

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Hull (Guildhall)

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Hull (Lowgate)

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Pocklington

    9 November 2001

    Humberside

    Withernsea

    9 November 2001

    Kent

    Sheerness

    31 December 1998

    Kent

    West Mailing

    31 December 1998

    Kent

    Gravesend

    9 June 2000

    Lancashire

    Lytham

    31 -December 1998

    Leicestershire

    Lutterworth

    31 July 1998

    Lincolnshire

    Market Rasen

    31 March 1998

    Norfolk

    Diss

    31 December 1998

    Norfolk

    Fakenham

    1 May 2002

    North Wales

    Corwen

    31 December 1998

    North Wales

    Abergele

    31 December 2000

    North Yorkshire

    Stokesley

    31 December 1997

    North Yorkshire

    Malton

    6 February 1998

    North Yorkshire

    Ripon

    1 August 1998

    Northumbria

    Hebburn

    5 June 1997

    Northumbria

    South Shields (Kepple Street)

    5 June 1997

    South Wales

    Pontardawe

    9 October 1997

    South Yorkshire

    Thorne

    31 August 1997

    Staffordshire

    Lichfield

    31 March 2000

    Staffordshire

    Leek

    31 March 2001

    Staffordshire

    Womborne

    1 September 2001

    Suffolk

    Felixstowe

    31 -December 1998

    Suffolk

    Haverhill

    31 December 1998

    Suffolk

    Saxmundham

    31 December 1998

    769W

    MCC

    Magistrates' Courthouse

    Closure Date

    Suffolk

    Stowmarket

    31 December 1998

    Suffolk

    Newmarket

    31 December 1998

    Surrey

    Chertsey

    31 March 1998

    Surrey

    Farnham

    31 March 1998

    Surrey

    Oxted

    31 March 1998

    Sussex

    Arundel

    1 December 2001

    Thames Valley

    Abingdon

    31 March 1999

    Thames Valley

    Henley on Thames

    31 March 1999

    Thames Valley

    Windsor

    31 March 1999

    Thames Valley

    Beaconsfield

    1 July 2002

    Thames Valley

    Buckingham

    1 July 2002

    West Mercia

    Bromsgrove

    31 May 1997

    West Mercia

    Worcester

    31 March 2001

    West Mercia

    Bridgenorth

    31 January 2002

    West Mercia

    Leominster

    31 January 2002

    West Mercia

    Ledbury

    31 May 1997

    West Yorkshire

    Morley

    31 March 1999

    West Yorkshire

    Pudsey

    31 March 1999

    West Yorkshire

    Keighley

    1 April 2000

    Wiltshire

    Chippenham (Market Place)

    30 June 1997

    Wiltshire

    Wootton Bassett

    2 October 2000

    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts in(a) England and (b) Wales opened in each year since 1997. [77279]

    Yvette Cooper
    14 magistrates courthouses have opened in the years 1997–2002 in England and Wales. Chippenham in 1997, Birmingham (youth), Southshields and Ashton under Lyne in 1998, Cannock in 1999, Hinckley in 2000, Southampton, Peterlee, Hull, Beverley, Bridlington, Kidderminster and Hereford in 2001, and Worcester in 2002.

    PACT
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to assist PACT. [77369]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    My Department will consider with PACT (Parents and Abducted Children Together) and other organisations how to improve awareness of the procedures involved in using the Hague Convention provisions.

    Upper Age Bars
    Mr. MacDougall
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason people over the age of 70 are barred from(a) being magistrates and (b) jury service. [76127]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 21 October 2002]:

    (a)The upper age for serving as a magistrate was set by Parliament after wide consultation and was generally supported. It enables individual magistrates to continue to make a contribution to the administration of justice for a long time.

    (b)The Juries Act 1974 set the upper age limit for jury service at 65. This limit was later increased to 70 by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The recent review of the Criminal Justice System by Lord Justice Auld, which considered the structure and representation of juries made no recommendation on increasing the upper age limit for jury service.
    770W

  SCOTLAND

    Friends of Scotland
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list her Department's staff members working(a) full-time and (b) part-time for the Friends of Scotland Unit, broken down by location of work. [77202]

    (2) how many staff have been seconded from the private sector to work for the Friends of Scotland initiative since its inception in 2001; and from which organisations these individuals have been seconded. [77203]

    Mrs. Liddell
    There are currently two officials working full-time on the Friends of Scotland project. A further five officials give assistance on the project when required. Both full-time officials are based in Glasgow.

    Two members of staff have been seconded from the private sector, both from the Bank of Scotland (HBOS plc).

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list the events run(a) in Scotland, (b) in London, (c) in other locations within the UK and (d) outside the UK by Friends of Scotland since its inception in 2001; [77204]

    (2) if she will list the events her Department has run jointly with the Scottish Executive to promote Friends of Scotland and the GlobalScot initiatives. [77205]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The events run by the Scotland Office in furtherance of the Friends of Scotland initiative have been as follows:

    Events

    (a) In Scotland

    22 July 2002

    A business lunch in Edinburgh

    13 August 2002

    A reception in Edinburgh for cultural attaches from diplomatic missions in London

    (b) In London

    27 November 2001

    The Friends of Scotland launch event in the Banqueting House, Whitehall

    11 June 2002

    A business dinner in Dover House, Whitehall

    15 June 2002

    A reception in Dover House, Whitehall

    23 July 2002

    A reception for the launch of the Friends of Scotland website in Dover House, Whitehall

    (c) Elsewhere in the UK

    None

    (d) Outside the UK

    23 January 2002

    A business lunch in Guangzhou,China

    14 October 2002

    A reception in Sydney, Australia

    The events run jointly by the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive for the Friends of Scotland and GlobalScot initiatives were the dinner in London on 11 June and the reception in Sydney on 14 October.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on which date the Friends of Scotland website was established; [77208]
    771W
    (2) if she will list the (a) start-up and (b) maintenance costs of the Friends of Scotland website; [77229]

    (3) what marketing her Department carried out on behalf of Friends of Scotland to promote the launch of the Friends of Scotland website; [77210]

    (4) how many visits the Friends of Scotland website has received in each month since it was first established; [77209]

    (5) how many (a) organisations and (b) individuals have registered their interest in Friends of Scotland through the initiative's website since its inception; and if she will list them by country of residence; [77214]

    (6) if she will list the reasons given by organisations and individuals for registering their interest in the Friends of Scotland initiative, as submitted to the initiative's website; [77211]

    (7) how many (a) organisations and (b) individuals have registered to receive e-mail updates from the Friends of Scotland website; and if she will list them by country of residence; [77213]

    (8) how many e-postcards have been sent from the Friends of Scotland website in each month since it was first published. [77212]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The current Friends of Scotland website was established on 23 July 2002. The start-up cost was £62,623; the cost of subsequent maintenance and development to date has amounted to £4,711. The launch of the website was announced at a reception held in the Scotland Office on 23 July.

    The website has received the following number of visits in each month since it was established:

    Number of visits

    July

    826

    August

    2,046

    September

    3,261

    October (up to 24)

    3,451

    The website has attracted 32 registrations of interest since its inception. Individuals registering their own interest and those registering on behalf of an organisation cannot be differentiated. The breakdown of the total by country of residence is as follows:

    Number

    UK

    20

    Australia

    3

    New Zealand

    2

    Canada

    1

    Japan

    1

    USA

    2

    Belgium

    1

    Germany

    1

    unknown

    1

    Those registering their names have cited interests in culture, education and business.

    Seventy individuals have registered to receive e-mail updates from the website. A breakdown of this figure by country of residence is not available.
    772W
    The number of e-postcards sent from the website during the period up to 24 October 2002 was 80. A month by month breakdown of this figure is not available.

    Letters have been sent to key influencers around the world inviting them to access the website. Arising from this exercise, 136 recruits have been secured for Friends of Scotland.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been budgeted for by her Department to support the Friends of Scotland initiative during the financial year 2002–03. [77218]

    Mrs. Liddell
    A budget of £ 260,000 has been allocated for the current financial year. This figure does not include staffing costs.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list the dates and locations of meetings of the Advisory Board to Friends of Scotland since its inception in 2001; [77219]

    (2) if she will list the costs of meetings of the Advisory Board to Friends of Scotland since its inception in 2001 in terms of (a) travel expenses, (b) refreshment costs and (c) other expenses. [77220]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Friends of Scotland Advisory Group's first meeting was on 18 December 2001 in London. Its second meeting was on 1 March 2002 in Glasgow. Its third and most recent meeting was held on 20 May 2002 in Edinburgh.

    The costs of the Advisory Group's meetings have been (a) £1,440 and (b) £278. There have been no other separately identifiable costs (c).

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    BCCI
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance her Department is giving to the liquidator of BCCI so that the liquidation can be concluded. [75663]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The progress of the liquidation of BCCI is a matter for the liquidators.

    Business Start-ups
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies were set up in Somerset; and how many went into liquidation in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [73312]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The only official measure of business starts-ups is VAT registration data. These are based on calendar years.

    Start-ups: VAT registrations Somerset county

    Number

    1999

    1,415

    2000

    1,560

    2001

    1,390

    Source:

    Business start-ups and closures 1980–2001
    773W
    There is no single area that reports company and individual insolvencies for Somerset.

    Car Pricing Order
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to monitor the implementation and impact of the car pricing order; if a progress report will be published; and if she will make a statement. [75137]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Responsibility for monitoring the car pricing order and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

    His office is keeping the order under review.

    The order is one of several factors influencing car prices. These include a renegotiated block exemption from EU competition rules for vehicle supply and servicing introduced on 1 October 2002.

    Customs and Excise
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take in the light of the House of Lords decision Customs and Excise v. Plantiflor Ltd. [76299]

    John Healey
    I have been asked to reply.

    The judgment of the House of Lords confirms the view of Customs and Excise that Plantiflor should account for VAT on delivery charges as part of the total price of the goods it supplies. On 20 August 2002 Customs and Excise issued business brief (number 23/ 2002) which gives full background details on the issue and provides guidance on action to be taken by all affected businesses. It is available in the Library of the House and can also be accessed from the Central Office of Information website at: www.nds.coi.gov.uk.

    Doorstep Selling
    Martin Linton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of energy companies using doorstep selling to encourage people to switch companies; and what plans she has further to regulate doorstep selling. [77291]

    Mr. Wilson
    Doorstep sales are used in a number of markets, including gas and electricity supply. Since the introduction of domestic gas and electricity supply competition, such sales have been a useful way of bringing the benefits of competition, particularly access to lower prices, to the attention of customers. Consumers are protected under the Doorstep Selling Regulations, which were enhanced in 1998, and are enforced by local Trading Standards departments. At present, the Government have no plans to introduce further regulation. Gas and electricity consumers are further protected by specific regulations in supply licences, which are the responsibility of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM). Where appropriate, OFGEM takes investigative and enforcement action against suppliers that breach these conditions.
    774W

    Energy Market Liberalisation
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress she has made on EU-wide discussions on liberalising energy markets; and if she will make a statement. [78214]

    Mr. Wilson
    We fully support the Commission's proposals for the liberalisation of the EU energy market. Council discussions on the dossier are at an advanced stage and the Danish Presidency hopes to reach political agreement at the November Energy Council. We will be negotiating constructively to ensure a satisfactory outcome.

    European Working Time Directive
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations her Department has received on the forum considering the implementation of the European Directive on Working Time in the offshore oil and gas industry; [77336]

    (2) what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the offshore oil and gas industry on the implementation of the European Working Time Directive in that industry; [77341]

    (3) what recent discussions she has had with representatives of workers employed in the offshore oil and gas industry on the implementation of the European Working Time Directive in that industry. [77337]

    Alan Johnson
    The Horizontal Amending Directive (HAD) (2000/34/EC) entitles workers in the offshore sector to the full provisions of the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC). The HAD was formally adopted on 1 August 2000 and is required to be implemented by 1 August 2003.

    I have met with representatives of the offshore oil and gas industry, on 5 September, and have agreed to meet representatives of the Inter Union Offshore Oil Committee (IUOOC) to listen to their views on the implementation of the HAD to workers offshore.

    A forum, comprising representatives from all sides of the sector and facilitated by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), was set up to assist employers and worker representatives to reach agreement over the implementation of the HAD in the offshore sector. The forum was unable to reach agreement on many issues and DTI officials continue to hold discussions and correspond with those from both sides of the industry.

    Export Licences
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has had following the recent award of an export licence for F-16s to Israel; and if she will make a statement. [77055]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Export Control Organisation has received representations regarding the grant of export licences for parts, sub-systems and components to the USA for incorporation into the F-16 aircraft from a number of different sources, including Members of
    775W
    Parliament, exporters and the general public. No UK export licences have been issued for the export of F-16 aircraft to Israel.

    Gas Storage Facilities
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 21 October 2002, which local planning authorities have been contacted this year by her Department regarding new gas storage facilities; and what responses have been received. [77299]

    Mr. Wilson
    The two councils to which the Department has written this year are Cheshire County Council and Wyre Borough Council. I understand that Cheshire County Council refused planning permission for the proposed gas storage facility at Byley, and that the applicant has now taken this to appeal I also understand that a planning application has not yet been submitted in respect of the other project, at Fleetwood in Lancashire.

    Iraq (Exports)
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what goods on the Military List have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [76678]

    Nigel Griffiths
    For details of goods on the Military List that have been approved for export to Iraq between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2002, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 578–79W, and to the replies from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) on 18 June 2002, Official Report, columns 296–97W, and the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 16 October 2002, Official Report, column 833W.

    Limited Companies
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many limited companies were incorporated between(a) 1 April and 30 June and (b) in the same quarter in 2001. [76298]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    There were 64,838 companies registered from April to June in 2002, and 52,196 for the same period in 2001.

    NETA
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish a review of the operation of NETA. [76398]

    Mr. Wilson
    Ofgem have published a review of the first year of NETA's operation. We are currently considering it

    Nuclear Power Stations (Radiation Leaks)
    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many radiation leaks there have been from each UK nuclear power station and nuclear reprocessing plant in each of the last 20 years. [77544]
    776W
    Mr. Wilson
    The Quarterly Statements of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations include information on radioactive leaks of any significance.

    The Statements are compiled by the Nuclear Safety Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive and have been sent to the House of Commons Library since 1977.

    Petrol Retail Industry
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from independent petrol retailers to investigate competition in the petrol retail industry; and if she will make a statement. [75136]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction has received representations concerning competition issues in the petrol retailing industry during 2002. The Minister held a Downstream Oil Industry Forum in July to discuss in particular the issue of rural petrol stations. Representatives of all major oil companies and large independent supermarkets attended. A further meeting is planned for November, and it is his intention to maintain a regular dialogue through this forum in order to address issues of concern.

    Regulations Summits
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the two regulations summits took place between the Small Business Service and business representative organisations; and if she will list the organisations that attended. [76835]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The summits between the SBS Regulation team and business representatives were held on 1 November 2001 and 27 February 2002.

    Invitees for the seminars were: British Chambers of Commerce; Confederation of British Industry; Federation of Small Businesses; Forum of Private Business; Institute of Directors; Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; and the Small Business Council

    A subsequent DTI stakeholder seminar on regulation was held with a similar audience on 16 October 2002.

    Small Business Service
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to hold a Small Business Week in 2002. [76824]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Small businesses contribute 40 per cent. to our GDP and together have an annual turnover of one trillion pounds. They employ 12 million people in the UK, which is around 55 per cent. of the private sector workforce, so we promote SMEs every week of the year.

    The Small Business Service is sponsoring The Sunday Times National Small Business Week. This major event will take place at Earls Court Exhibition Centre London on 28–30 April 2003. The organisers describe it as "a true celebration of entrepreneurship", focusing on the

    777W
    day-to-day issues of running a small business, assisting them to gain more of a competitive edge with the final aim of increasing profitability.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcomes of the regulation summits held between the Small Business Service and key stakeholders, including the list of potential projects which it was agreed would be considered in greater detail. [76833]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The meetings enabled a useful dialogue with small business representative bodies and provided an opportunity for business representatives to feed their regulatory concerns direct to Ministers.

    On 16 October, discussions were held on a number of issues of importance to small firms; in particular on alternatives to regulation, the small firms impact test, the small firms start up resource pack and DTI consultation.

    Officials and business representatives agreed to work together on these important issues to deliver benefits to businesses right across the country.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made by the Small Business Service in identifying a possible system for assisting small firms affected by disaster, as outlined in the Government's response to the Small Business Council's second annual report. [76823]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Small Business Service has researched the issues arising out of establishing such a fund and the potential form(s) of assistance given to businesses affected by disasters in England. The devolved authorities are responsible for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    Officials have reviewed the scheme operated by the USA's Small Business Administration, which provides loans to financially viable enterprises in the event of such a disaster and considered the extent to which that model, or other models, would be applicable in England.

    Work in this area is being reviewed in light of the announcement on 18 September 2002, by the Commission of the European Communities, of its proposal to establish a European Union Solidarity Fund. This fund is to be focused on giving immediate financial assistance to help the people, regions and countries affected by major natural, technological or environmental disasters.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to support small businesses in Romford. [76394]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Business Link for London, working with local partners including Havering Council, is the main conduit for the Government's support to Romford's 7,000 small businesses. The Business Link for London has helped over 850 of these in a wide variety of ways.

    The BL services for small and medium sized businesses is available by phone,through the web, or through one of our 200 business advisors. These
    778W
    Business advisers work directly with clients to offer pragmatic advice in support of new and existing businesses. They help solve problems, ease the growing pains of success, or help take a business to the next level of its development.

    Expert advice and support is provided in IT, Finance, Sales and Marketing, Human Resources, Design, International Trade, e-business. Supply Chain, Innovation,Franchising, Creative Industries, Manufacturing and more recently, Sustainable Business and Social Enterprise.

    Within the London Borough of Havering, Romford's small businesses benefit from the Borough-wide distribution by the BLfL of regularly undated information oncurrent issues such as legislation changes, funded schemes and the availability of sector specific support.

    ELSBC in conjunction with Havering Council and Natwest Bank has formed an alliance to run a programme of business support within the borough. This support consists of providing business counselling for people considering starting up new businesses in Havering, the provision of a 4-Day business training course and post-start counselling and mentoring. For the business counselling sessions, the counsellor will meet clients at two Havering locations—Romford and Harold Hill—with Harold Hill being subject to additional SRB funding.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she will take to ensure that small businesses are aware of their employees' rights; and if she will make a statement on recent related research by her Department. [76830]

    Nigel Griffiths
    In May 2002, the DTI published the report of its recent research into small businesses' awareness of employment rights, "Small Firms' Awareness of Employment Rights" in the Employment Relations Research Series (Report No. 14). This was placed in the Libraries of the House.

    The research was conducted by the Small Business Research Centre at Kingston University. Overall this research showed that confidence levels of small employers about their knowledge of individual rights were low even though awareness of those rights was generally high.

    The Department is acting to raise levels of awareness among small business. We have set up an Employment Information Advice and Guidance project in partnership with ACAS, and the Small Business Service. Starting with the changes introduced in the Employment Act 2002 the project will improve the ways that the information advice and guidance on employment rights is provided to employers and employees with a particular emphasis on the needs of small businesses. The work of the project benefits from the advice of a user group of representatives of employers and employees including representatives of the Small Business Council, the Federation of Small Business and the private business forum and representatives of the main advisory networks.
    779W
    Information on these changes and on existing rights is also available on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/er. Small firms and other employers can also register with businesslink.org to receive e-mail updates on changes to employment law.

    Wind Farms
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply, 17 October 2002,Official Report, c. 891W, on wind farms, when she expects the UK windspeed database to be available on the departmental website; and whether her Department is collaborating with the ODPM in respect of brownfield site availability. [77384]

    Mr. Wilson
    The UK windspeed database has now been made available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/windspeed/online.html

    My officials are collaborating with the ODPM on revisions to planning policy guidelines concerning renewable energy projects. The final planning policy statement should be made available in the first half of 2003 and will apply to all areas of England, including brownfield sites.

    Information on brownfield site availability in England by region is contained in the ODPM Statistical Release BF-2002 of 12 September 2002, which is on the ODPM and National Land Use Database websites.

    Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) encourages brownfield development wherever feasible. The Wales Planning Research Programme 2002–03 proposes further research on brownfield land following the completion of an earlier project, "A Feasibility Study to Establish a System for Monitoring the Supply and re-use of Previously Developed Land".

  TRANSPORT

    Air Transport (Manchester)
    Mr. Keith Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation meetings have been held in the Manchester area regarding the future development of air transport in the UK; and which(a) organisations, (b) hon. Members and (c) other people were invited to the meetings. [77081]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: A public exhibition on the potential impacts of growth at Manchester airport was held on 14 October in Knutsford. The exhibition was open to anyone who wished to attend and was publicised in the local press and on the local radio stations. In conjunction with this, a number of key people from the areas most likely to be directly impacted by growth at Manchester were invited to a breakfast briefing. The invitees included the relevant MPs from the immediate area, MEPs, Council Leaders, local authority Chief Executives, Chairs of the Planning and Transport Committees and Chamber of Commerce Chief Executives. A further public exhibition will be held on 15 November at The Village, Cheadle.
    780W
    In addition, officials from this Department and the Government Office for the north-west have met with the Manchester Airport Air Transport Forum and the Manchester Users' Consultative Committee. They are also participating in a number of topic workshops for both the north-west region specifically and the North of England as a whole, to which a wide range of stakeholder groups have been invited. These include representatives from, inter alia, airports, airlines, local authorities, transport providers (such as the Highways Agency, Railtrack etc.) local business fora, regional and national environmental groups.

    Birmingham Airport
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will withdraw the option for a second runway at Birmingham Airport. [77098]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government intend to publish an air transport White Paper next year which will set a policy framework for aviation and airports in the UK over the next 30 years. In support of this White Paper we are consulting on a range of options, including the development of a second runway at Birmingham. We are inviting views on the arguments for and against providing different amounts of new airport capacity at different locations, including several options in the Midlands.

    It is our aim to ensure that any development is sustainable and achieves a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. All responses received will be considered carefully before taking any final decisions on the policies for the White Paper.

    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the viability of and (b) the need for lengthening the existing runway at Birmingham Airport. [77099]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Our background studies identified airport capacity constraints in the Midlands before 2030. Therefore, we have considered options for development at Birmingham International Airport, on which we are currently consulting.

    Cars (Taxes and Licences)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 21 October, Official Report, column 27W, how many local authorities have joined the scheme in using DVLA powers to wheelclamp and impound untaxed vehicles since the pilot in the London Borough of Newham. [78192]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Following the Secretary of State's announcement on 10 April, Newham, Lewisham, Wandsworth and Croydon have undertaken clamping and impounding unlicensed vehicles using devolved powers as DVLA's partners. Southend on Sea and Hastings have completed all the training and are due to commence operations shortly.

    In addition the DVLA is giving free on-line access to the vehicles record to local authorities seeking information on keepers of those who abandon their cars. 200 local authorities have asked for this facility.
    781W
    The roll-out of this initiative started on 1 October and to date, 19 are confirmed as being on-line. The remainder will be set up as soon as possible.

    Departmental Logo
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much it cost to redesign the Department's logo and subsequent changes to Departmental stationery and documentation following the name change from DETR to Department of Transport; and whether outside bodies were involved in the creative process. [78191]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department has spent a nominal sum of less than 25,000, from within existing budgets, to make the required changes to the departmental logo, stationery, signage and web site design. The work was carried out by contractors under our normal framework agreements for design and print of paper and electronic publications.

    Detrunking Programme
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the detrunking programme will end; and what additional resources will be made available to local highways authorities in(a) England and Wales, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) the City of York to cover their additional responsibilities from that time. [77836]

    Mr. Jamieson
    It is planned to end the current detrunking programme in 2006 and the timing of the integration of the detrunked roads into the local government finance system is currently under consideration.

    Firefighters' Strike
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given by his Department to reducing the national speed limits on roads during the firefighters' strike; and if he will make a statement. [77523]

    Mr. Jamieson
    There are no plans to reduce the national speed limit.

    Health and Safety Commission
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment has been made by and for his Department of the performance of the Health and Safety Executive including recent performance targets; what reports have been published on its performance; and if he will place copies of such reports not readily available in the Library.[Transferred] [76187]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    I have been asked to reply.

    Responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive transferred to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on 24 July 2002.

    The former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) Public Service Agreement for 2000 set a number of targets for the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety
    782W
    Executive, and these are published in the former DTLR 2002 Annual Report. Progress against these targets is reported in the DTLR Annual Report on page 166.

    Further information on progress against performance targets will also be included in the DWP Autumn Performance Report to be published in November.

    Road Schemes
    Mr. Greg Knight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many schemes are in place on motorways in the UK where use is allowed of the hard shoulder during rush hours; and what plans he has to increase this number. [76522]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are at present no instances of the hard shoulder being used during rush hours in England. A forthcoming project on the M42 (the Active Traffic Management (ATM) Project) will trial the use of hard shoulder running at peak periods and at other times to help reduce congestion. The trial between Junction 3A (the M40) and Junction 7 (the M6) and will be subject to rigorous safety requirements. For the devolved Administrations, this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    Road Traffic Accidents
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the Red Cross and St John Ambulance Brigade to discuss third party liability insurance for people who stop to help at a road traffic accident. [77989]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Red Cross and St John's Ambulance Brigade do very good work. If they have concerns about third party liability insurance they should, in the first instance, set them out in writing to officials at this Department.

    South Central Line
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the latest timetable is for the upgrade to the South Central line. [76469]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Negotiations between the SRA and Go Via are continuing towards the new franchise, which will deliver new trains, station upgrades and information systems. A separate substantial programme of track and signalling improvements will now be led by the Authority, to ensure effective completion as early as possible.

    Tonnage Tax
    Mr. Ivan Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which UK shipping companies have benefited from the tonnage tax since its introduction. [77928]

    Mr Jamieson
    This information is commercially confidential and is exempt from disclosure under Section 13 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
    783W

    Tree Removal
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require Railtrack to consult local authorities on removal of trees from the trackside. [77615]

    Mr.Jamieson
    [holding answer 28 October 2002]: No. This is an operational matter for Network Rail.

    Trust Ports
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which trust ports have appointed representatives of local authorities in that capacity to their boards since the publication of the Modernising Trust Ports review. [78170]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department does not hold details of individual appointments made to trust port boards, other than those made by the Secretary of State.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been given to Virgin Trains as compensation for the late completion of the West Coast main line upgrade. [73812]

    Mr. Jamieson
    No compensation has been paid by Government to Virgin Trains. Railtrack and Virgin Trains have a contractual relationship covering the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. Any payments from Railtrack to Virgin Trains under this contract are for delays in the upgrade of the infrastructure and for consequent loss of business.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are in place to ensure that an absent parent pays child maintenance; and what action is taken if they do not make the necessary payments. [74418]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The administration of the Child Support agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. James Wray, dated October 2002:
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. I am replying on his behalf.
    You ask what measures are in place to ensure that an absent parent pays child
    maintenance; and what action is taken if they do not make the necessary payments.
    Where a maintenance application is actioned we will normally try to contact the non resident parent by telephone with a view to both obtaining the information that we need to make a maintenance assessment and reminding the parent of their maintenance responsibilities.
    If all necessary information is not provided we will follow up in writing, at interview and then by taking criminal proceedings and/ or by establishing an interim maintenance assessment.
    784W
    If payment is not made and the non-resident parent is in employment we will usually seek to recover maintenance through the employer by a deductions from earnings order. If the non-resident parent is in receipt of certain benefits then we can make a maintenance deduction from there.
    If payment is not made and the non-resident parent is self-employed we will seek a liability order through the Magistrates Court to establish the debt. We can then take proceedings which could include applying for a third party debt order, a charging order, bailiff action, removal of a driving license and for committal to prison.

    Cold Weather Payments
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the outcome was of the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme. [78550]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Following advice from the Meteorological Office, the annual review of the Cold Weather Payments scheme has now been completed. Amending regulations were laid on 10 October and will come into force on 1 November, in time for the beginning of the winter period.

    In addition to the amendments necessary due to Royal Mail postcode changes, 10 postcode to weather station linkages have been changed on the advice of the Meteorological Office following representations made by hon. Members.

    Cold Weather Payments are separate from, and in addition to, Winter Fuel Payments which are paid to eligible people from age 60.

    I have written to each of the hon. Members affected by the changes.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many DLA application refusals there were in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those refusals were later successfully appealed against. [77853]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested is not available in the format requested.Such information is available in the table.

    Number of rejected Disability Living Allowance Claims for the past 10 financial years

    Number of DLA applicants rejected on first application

    1992–93

    208,730

    1993–94

    213,440

    1994–95

    256,410

    1995–96

    255,280

    1996–97

    276,125

    1997–98

    255,710

    1998–99

    208,200

    1999–2000

    190,390

    2000–01

    206,145

    2001–02

    192,320

    Note

    Initial claim rejected information is available only at national level.

    Source:

    ASD Information Centre 100 per cent. data taken from 100 per cent. extract of monthly management information system and rounded to the nearest five.
    785W
    The information requested regarding successful appeal against refusal is not available.

    Health and Safety Executive
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are employed by the Health and Safety Executive; what its annual budget was for each year since 1997–98; what its projected budget is for next year; and if he will make a statement on its role and terms of reference. [75614]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The number of people employed by the Health and Safety Executive and its annual budget for each year since 1997–98 was:

    Year

    HSC/E settlement (£)

    Staff in post1

    Cash settlements

    1997–98

    180,957,000

    3,932

    1998–99

    182,228,000

    3,880

    1999–2000

    186,855,000

    3,937

    2000–01

    191,409,000

    3,894

    Resource settlements from 2001–02 onwards

    2001–02

    2 198,233,000

    4,050

    2002–03

    3 202,973,000

    4,217

    1 As at end of year (31 March)

    2 Plus AME £12,377,000

    3 Plus AME £14,212,000

    Notes:

    1.All figures include the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL). HSL is an in house agency of HSE.

    2.HSC/E settlement figures represent expenditure net of income. Capital budgets are included.

    3.From 2001–02 Government Departments moved to a resource based supply as part of the move to full resource accounting and budgeting (RAB). There is however a transitional period for 2001–02 to 2002–03 during which period certain expenditure (e.g. depreciation, notional capital charges) are to be dealt with as Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) and will not appear in the departmental expenditure limit (DEL).

    4.The figures above from 1997–98 to 2000–01 are on a cash supply basis; and from 2001–02 on a resource supply basis. Additional budgets for AME budgets are shown separately.

    HSE's projected budget (net of income) for 2003–04 is £216,727,000 plus 14,998,000 which would have been recorded against AME in the transitional period (total £231,725,000).

    The Health and Safety Executive is empowered to undertake, on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission, any of the functions of the Commission as it is directed. It is also required to give effect to any directions given to it by the Commission. Section 11 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 details the general functions of the Commission, which must be seen in the context of the general purposes outlined in section 1 of the Act. All of these functions may be undertaken by the Executive.

    Maternity Benefits
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are available to individuals not entitled to maternity benefit because of an insufficient contributory history. [77854]
    786W
    Maria Eagle
    We introduced reforms in 2000 so that entitlement to Maternity Allowance no longer depends on the payment of national insurance contributions. Qualifying conditions for both Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance are based instead on a woman's recent employment and earnings history.

    Maternity Allowance is now paid to women earning at least £30 a week, but below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions (currently £75 a week). As a result, up to 16,000 more low paid women a year can receive improved financial help during their pregnancy.

    Sure Start Maternity Grants, worth£500, are also available to help those mothers on low income in greatest need.

    Pensioners Resident in Hospitals (Benefits)
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the lengths of time which elapse before benefits are reduced for a pensioner resident in hospital. [77852]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We have already announced our intentions to extend the length of time certain benefit recipients, including pensioners, may stay in hospital before their benefits are reduced. For these people the period will be extended from six weeks to 13 weeks and we hope to introduce this to coincide with the introduction of the State Pension Credit.

    Widowed Spouses Pensions (Remarriage)
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the loss of widows' and widowers' pension entitlement on remarriage. [77846]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Bereavement Allowance and Widowed Parents Allowance are available to both men and women of working age who are widowed. The predecessor benefits, Widow's Pension and Widowed Mother's Allowance, were available to women only up to a maximum age of 65. Entitlement to these benefits ends if a widow or widower remarries. This is because they are intended to provide financial support in widowhood and are designed to help the widowed spouse maintain him or herself and any dependant children in the absence of the deceased spouse's income.

    If a widow or widower remarries they are treated, for benefit purposes, in the same way as members of any other married couple. Other social security benefits or tax credits may be available to help support the new family depending on their circumstances.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Strategic Investment Board
    Valerie Davey
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor's Strategic Investment Board's Annual Report for 2001–02 will be published. [78493]
    787W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Copies of the Strategic Investment Board's first Annual Report, covering the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 March 2002 have now been published. Copies are now available in the Library of the House and via the Lord Chancellor's788W
    Department's website at www.lcd.gov.uk. This provides full details of the Board's achievements for that period and its recommendations for future investment strategies for the public Guardianship Office

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Animal Health Functions: Devolution to Wales
Lord Livsey of Talgarthasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in preparing to devolve further functions on agriculture and rural affairs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the National Assembly for Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, agriculture and rural affairs are already largely devolved matters. In the light of the foot and mouth outbreak the Government are in discussion with the Welsh Assembly Executive on the case for further devolution of animal health and welfare functions to the Assembly.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome his response. While we know that infection of animals knows no boundaries, does the Minister agree that as a result of the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic experience indicates that more decision-making powers by the National Assembly of Wales could have shortened the length of the outbreak in Wales through greater deployment of local knowledge and input, as it did in Scotland? Does he also agree that there is a need to devolve some DEFRA veterinary functions to Wales in order to make animal disease control more effective?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the matter as the noble Lord put it. There were questions of administrative responsibility, and possibly therefore legislative power, in relation to secondary legislation which needed clarifying. By and large the DEFRA administration, the State Veterinary Service and the Welsh authorities acted quite well together during that period. It was a very difficult period for all concerned. So I am not sure that a change of function would have altered the time taken to deal with the outbreak. Certainly, it raised questions.
The one point I make is that the State Veterinary Service will continue to be a GB function. It still is in Scotland, despite the further degree of devolution there is in Scotland.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we welcome the concessions proposed by the Government in relation to the Animal Health Bill. Is the noble Lord aware of
106
the intense dissatisfaction among farmers with the 20-day rule? DEFRA is indeed being blamed for its inflexibility by the Assembly Ministers in Wales. Is it not possible to bring the review forward from the new year, because the confusion and hardship are bringing the rule itself into disrepute?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I am aware of a significant degree of disgruntlement with the rule in Wales and in certain other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the rule was introduced on the soundest veterinary and scientific advice. We have modified it significantly, in part due to the representations of the farming community and in part due to points raised by the Welsh authorities, so that during this very difficult breeding season there are relaxations in the rule.
Nevertheless, there is still concern that the rule interferes with the normal process, but then the normal process did actually spread the disease rather rapidly. Whatever happens, we shall not return to a situation where there is no movement regime—as prior to 2001. How far we can relax the present regime in time for the spring movements is under consideration. The assessment should be available at the turn of the year in time for that.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a clear impression in Wales and in the UK generally, I think, that the foot and mouth disease was dealt with more effectively and efficiently in Scotland than it was in Wales. That was due largely to much greater use of local knowledge and local decision making. Is there any reason why the Welsh Assembly should not have the same powers in that regard as the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without unravelling the whole devolution settlement, the answer is, "Yes there is." The Scottish Parliament has the power of primary legislation in this field. The changes I was talking about do not reopen the devolution settlement in relation to giving the Welsh Assembly primary legislation in this one area. What the noble Lord suggests would open a much broader issue which I am not prepared to go into now. In relation to the practical application of administration and where the power should lie on that, I am very willing to look at the possibility of the Welsh Assembly taking on further powers which would then help to deploy that local knowledge.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether timber growers in Wales suffer from massive cheap imports and from the closure of local sawmills in the same way that we in England find it almost impossible to sell many grades of timber?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a question on animal health; I am not sure how we got on to timber. The issue relates to animal health, as the noble Lord, Lord

107
Livsey, made clear. However, in relation to timber—which I am prepared to answer—the situation is clearly similar in England and Wales. It is not clear to me that any change in function—and the Welsh Assembly has a serious role here—would help the Welsh timber industry any more than the English timber industry. We both face the same international competitive problem which has its domestic knock-on effects on the viability of sawmills. But I do not think that devolution has much to do with that.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, reverting to the Question, while of course a further case for devolution can and no doubt will be made, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the handling of the outbreak of foot and mouth in Wales by the agriculture Minister, by the veterinary service that he sorted out and indeed by the National Assembly, was seen to be extremely successful? Whatever the case for further devolution, the present arrangements have worked extremely well.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, by and large that is true, but there is some question as to who took responsibility at any given time. There were times when Welsh Ministers took political responsibility. Administrative responsibility rested with DEFRA. There was some difficulty with that arrangement. Certainly, all the authorities worked extremely well together.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Question imply that Wales can pursue a different programme from England in Europe, thus receiving advantages and disadvantages separate from those in England?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one would have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, what the Question implies. The constitutional position is certainly not that Wales could have a different relationship with European regulations than that of the rest of the United Kingdom—in the area of animal health or any other. While we may want to achieve a degree of flexibility in the application of those rules, the rules will be the same.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the existence of no power of primary legislation makes administrative devolution to Wales so difficult in this respect?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not what I said. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who asked why we could not have the same powers as Scotland, I said that that would reopen the settlement, because Scotland has primary legislative powers. Provided that we work out the detail and reach consensus, it is certainly possible to alter the administrative arrangements under the present settlement. We are engaged in discussion on that with the Welsh authorities.

Bermuda
2.44 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a constitutional conference will be held before any amendment to the Bermuda constitution is made following the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there are no plans at present for a constitutional conference. The Government have the matter under consideration and no options have been ruled out at this stage.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but has not the boundary commission recommended important changes, including a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament and a change from two-member to single-member constituencies, using powers given to it by a change in the constitution brought about by Order in Council? Surely, before its recommendations are implemented wholly or in part by another Order in Council, bringing about another change in the constitution, there should be a constitutional conference. That would be in accordance with precedent and would quell the fears of those who feel that an unfortunate precedent would be set if there were no constitutional conference. In future, when more important proposals are in the offing, such a precedent might then be used to deny a constitutional conference.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who I know has a long, important association with Bermuda. As I said in my Answer, no options have been ruled out at this stage, so it would be premature to consider an Order in Council, for instance, at this stage.
I remind the House that we are at the second stage of a two-stage process deliberately put into effect by the Government precisely because of the concern expressed by the noble Lord. As he will know, the first stage was to set up and task the boundary commission. Under the second stage, which we are now in, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will read the boundary commission's report; in consultation with legal advisers and other Ministers, he will read the report of the 10-hour debate that has just taken place in the House of Assembly in Bermuda; and, considering the advice of the Governor of Bermuda, will then take a course of action.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was in Bermuda earlier this year, when concern was expressed on all sides—political and nonpolitical—about the possibility that there would not be a constitutional conference?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I was aware that the noble Baroness had been to Bermuda, and know of her long and keen association with Bermuda. As I said

109
to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, concern has been expressed from various quarters about change to the constitution bringing about both the new number of constituencies and constituency boundary changes. Although, as I said, our minds remain open on constitutional conferences, referendums and many other matters raised by noble Lords, we want to proceed cautiously, with the fullest consultation. Because of the interest that she takes in the matter, the noble Baroness will know that there has been a great deal of consultation with the population of Bermuda during the whole process.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it must be the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful. Is the Minister aware that a substantial body of opinion in Bermuda claims that the changes now being sought are fundamental, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, precedent has always been that a constitutional conference be held to consider such matters? How do the Government intend to decide between the various options available? Will due weight be given to the representations that, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge, have been made by organisations holding that point of view?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we will give due weight to all the representations that have been made from all quarters. The noble Lord mentioned a precedent. He will, perhaps, know that on only two of the six previous occasions on which there has been constitutional change in Bermuda was a constitutional conference called. In that sense, there is no precedent. However, we rule nothing out and nothing in.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his willingness to concede. We are both much too ready to give way to each other. I will not begin to compete with either of my noble friends in their expertise and knowledge about the territory of Bermuda.
In several answers, the noble Baroness has valiantly presented the fact that no option has been ruled out and that minds are still open. Would it not make sense for the Secretary of State to be more forthcoming? It is clear that there is continuing anxiety in a territory with a long political history that is of some economic importance. It would make sense to concede the constitutional conference that has been requested.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have had the opportunity to read the correspondence between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and Ministers. I know that he takes a keen interest in the matter.
110
It would be premature for the Foreign Secretary to make a decision before he had officially received the report of the boundary commission, the official advice of the Governor of Bermuda and the transcript of the 10-hour debate in the Parliament in Bermuda. There has been a great deal of concern, as reflected in questions from noble Lords in all parts of the House this afternoon, but there has also been, in some quarters, a great deal of enthusiasm for boundary change, in the narrow sense in which we are discussing it.
Some people in Bermuda feel that change would bring about fairer representation of voter numbers. For instance, each constituency would have approximately 1,100 people per elected MP, rather than the previous uneven distribution. Proposed constituency boundary lines would be more reflective of the population's distribution than those based on the historic parish divisions. So, concern has been expressed, but there has also been enthusiasm for the proposals.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on to the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He has eagerly anticipated it for the past five years.

Firearms Licensing
2.53 p.m.
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the central register of persons who have applied for or have been granted a shotgun or firearm certificate, as required by Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which came into force on 1st October 1997, has not yet been established and when they expect to comply with this statutory requirement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the central register is being designed, developed and implemented on the police national computer by the Police Information Technology Organisation, using its own internal resources. In order to deliver the project, a decision was taken to seek external expertise to provide interfaces between existing local firearms systems and the national database. The existing suppliers of those systems were invited to respond to an invitation to tender, but their responses did not provide a satisfactory solution.
Having reviewed the options, PITO recently issued a non-binding expression of interest for a retender to provide a single firearms licensing management system and to utilise the interface with the PNC. It is unlikely that the register will be operational before summer 2004.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It strikes me that an expression of interest five years after Parliament's decision is rather inadequate. Does the Minister recollect that, in April

111
2000, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which, in those days, was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, said:
"We are appalled that the national database of certificate holders … is not yet in immediate prospect … We regard this system … as absolutely central to the safe and effective operation of the firearms licensing system"?
I have heard numerous expressions of commitment on the matter from Ministers, including at least three from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, over three years. If the Government are unable, after five years, to produce something required for the national registration of firearms, people's confidence in their ability to tackle crime—let alone terrorism—may wear a little thin.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I feel that I am guilty as charged, but, by way of response, I offer a plea in mitigation. I am aware of the noble Lord's long commitment to the subject and of the excellent reports produced by my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, in his time as chair of the committee.
There is a fundamental desire to get the matter absolutely right—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the history of such matters suggests that that is the right approach. There is an absolute commitment to get the matter right. Work has been steady and has proceeded as one would expect it to do.
In fairness, work on the subject has had to have regard to the need to develop concurrently a link with the National DNA Database and the criminal records on the PNC. There was also a need to freeze all new applications to allow an essential upgrade of the PNC infrastructure in order to maintain continuity of service to police forces. That important work had to be undertaken. That is an important part of the explanation for a delay that, I agree, is unacceptable.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his kind reminder of my interest in the matter.
Is my noble friend aware that, two years ago, the police national computer steering committee told the other place that the database would be up and running in 12 to 15 months? It is not. The Police Information Technology Organisation—son or daughter of the steering committee—has taken the matter no further forward. Do the Government still believe in the high importance of the database? We need a record of everybody who has been granted and has applied for a firearms or shotgun licence. How much public money has been spent so far in making so little progress?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am, of course, most grateful to the noble Lord for his questions; they are unfailingly helpful in this matter.
112
The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the system works. As I said, we must ensure that we get it right. It has a high priority, but several other applications on the PNC had to take precedence. I shall mention them because it is important that they should be in the public domain. There was the National DNA Database link, which was delivered to budget in November 2001, within two weeks of schedule; the persistent offenders register, which was also delivered on schedule, in June this year; and the violent and sex offenders register, which was rolled out in the summer and is on target for delivery in 2003. All those things had to come before the firearms certificate database, and we should consider that.
We must get the priorities right. There is a commitment to the task, and a retendering process is under way. The noble Lord asked about the cost of the procurement exercise to date. So far, £21,000 has been spent on preparing, unsuccessfully, the tender documents.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister not convinced that his department is trying to set this up slightly on the cheap? It does not sound a great deal of money for something which seems to be absolutely crucial. Will he give the House an indication of whether relevant offences under the Act have gone up or down over the period of this unintended five-year trial?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have some statistics on these matters, bur first we are fortunate in this country to have a low rate of armed crime by international standards. It runs at about 0.46 per 100,000 people. There has been an increase in firearms crime over the past few years. I am happy to make available to the noble Lord as much data as I possibly can, but in correspondence rather than going over a lot of statistical data from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

Nuclear Test Veterans
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from the Nuclear Test Veterans Association regarding compensation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Nuclear Test Veterans Association has made many representations over a number of years on behalf of its members regarding compensation, although no such representations have been received since 4th June 1998. I understand the Nuclear Test Veterans Association has indicated that it has further new evidence that supports its case, which I invite it to present for independent review.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply about frustrated nuclear test

113
veterans. That is why they have not been writing recently. Do the Government still insist that epidemiological studies show no excess illness or mortality? Is that still the Government's position? Will he confirm that other countries, notably the United States, France, Fiji and New Zealand, have very different schemes and view the problems of nuclear test veterans very differently? Have the Government had discussions with those other governments to see why they are so generous in comparison with ourselves? If they have not had discussions, can some be initiated so that we can start treating our nuclear test veterans in the same way those other countries do?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the House will agree that the country owes its thanks to all those in the Armed Forces who were concerned with the nuclear tests in the 1950s. My noble friend asked about the Government's current attitude. It is the same attitude shared by all governments of all political persuasions over many years. In response to concerns from the nuclear test veterans about their health two independent studies have been carried out on behalf of the MoD by the National Radiological Protection Board in association with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. The results of those studies were published in 1988 and 1993. They showed that, in general, participation in the test programme has had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Both reports were reviewed by the British Medical Journal. A further study is being undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board into the incidence of other cancers and other causes of death among test veterans. The results of this study are expected in 2003. I repeat: if there is further new evidence that the veterans association has, we will look at it and we invite it to present it for independent review.
As far as other countries are concerned, our view is that we have not consulted with them yet. Each country has its own way of looking at this. What we are concerned about is to get this right.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, why is the Ministry of Defence so reluctant to acknowledge illness among the troops? Has the Ministry of Defence ever done a cost-benefit analysis? In my own experience the Gulf veterans' case has cost millions of pounds; millions in medical research; and millions in legal aid. Would it not be much more sensible to say that these men and women are ill and that they should be compensated for that illness and allowed to go and find medical treatments wherever instead of all these—I was going to swear, but I shall not—epidemiological studies which seem to prove nothing?
Lord Bach: My Lords, these are independent studies accepted by peer groups over many, many years. I do not accept that the Ministry of Defence is under an obligation to compensate those who are unfortunate enough to be ill unless that illness is attributable to their service. If it is attributable to their service, we pay
114
them a war pension. I very much dispute, with great respect, the noble Countess's suggestion that we are not generous in this regard.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister says that we should give thanks to the servicemen even though we gave them no health protection during the test. Will he state whether, if the MoD reverses its position in the light of the new study being undertaken, compensation will be due not just to the veterans but also to their children and their grandchildren? Many of the veterans are complaining that their children and even their grandchildren have suffered long-term illnesses due to the veterans' exposure. If this the case, and if the MoD is willing to reverse its position, which does not seem to be about to do, will compensation be paid to the grandchildren?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the vast majority of British nuclear test veterans whose task was to provide logistic support for the tests were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, either deliberately or accidentally. They were mustered into areas which were known to be safe from the effects of the blast heat and any immediate or residual radiation. As regards the allegations about descendants, I refer the noble Lord to the Seventh Report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment which points out, contrary to recent media reporting, that,
"there is little evidence that the radiation received by survivors of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to cancer in their children".
Having made those comments, if there is evidence that is in the possession of the veterans association. I ask it again to show it to us and we will consider it.

Mersey Tunnels Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a purely procedural Motion for carry-over purposes, as is the next Motion on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 24th October.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Development Agency Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to

115
do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session the agent for the Bill deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to those stages; and
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Animal Health Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inspection of vehicles]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9, line 11, at end insert ", excluding personal luggage and bags"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the Bill stands, an inspector accompanied by a constable can demand to examine "anything on a vehicle". The aim of such an inspection is to check that the provisions of the Act or of any order made under the Act are being complied with. This we obviously support. But under Clause 8 of the Bill—"Inspection of vehicles"—proposed new Section 65A(1) states:
"If each of the conditions in subsection (2) is satisfied, an inspector may stop, detain and inspect any vehicle".
The amendment seeks clarification of that. I understand what "stop" means and what "inspect" means, but can the Minister clarify the use of the word "detain" in this context?
116
Subsection (4) of the proposed new section states that a vehicle includes the items listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I am concerned in particular with paragraph (d), which states,
"anything on a vehicle",
and the amendment seeks to insert the words,
"excluding personal luggage and bags".
I do not wish the amendment to be taken as providing a way round the provisions in the Bill which will enable anyone to hide infected material and not be caught—that is not the intention of the amendment—but, when driving vehicles, many ladies I do not know about men—will carry handbags with them. As someone who has suffered heart attacks, I always carry drugs with me. My concern is that as the Bill stands the word "detain"—if it means what I think it means—could lead to my bag, and therefore my medicines, being detained under that particular injunction. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is suggesting, but, as drafted, the amendment would prevent the stopping and inspection, and therefore the inspector would be unable to look into bags which were in a vehicle. That would be a serious restriction on his powers should it involve someone who was prepared to move around infectious material. I do not think that that is the noble Baroness's intention.
As to the meaning of "detain", clearly any action to detain a vehicle or anything on it would need to be reasonable and proportionate. The inspector would have to show that he had reasonable cause to assume that there was something infected or potentially infected within, in this case, the handbag. The normal carrying of a handbag would not be affected by these provisions whereas, were the amendment to be carried, there would be a significant inhibition on the inspector's ability to look at what could be infected material.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. There seemed to be a little looseness in this part of the Bill and I was anxious about that. Having heard the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 39:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"BIOSECURITY
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that all persons in her employ or contracted to her Department shall be fully conversant with current biosecurity measures before they carry out any duties on any premises where there are susceptible animals on her behalf.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to advise all livestock keepers of current biosecurity measures in the case of any outbreak of infectious disease specified in the inserted Schedule 2A in section 10 of this Act."
The noble Countess said: My Lords, this is a relatively simple amendment but none the less a very important one. It is designed to cover some of the points on biosecurity that were discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Noble Lords will recall that many reports of officials and contractors giving scant regard to biosecurity when passing from farm to farm or when transporting diseased carcasses for disposal came to the fore during the recent foot and mouth disease epidemic. There were also reports of farmers and dealers failing to behave responsibly at its height. I am sure that we would all acknowledge that these failings should never be allowed to recur.
When there is an outbreak of any infectious disease it should be instinctive to try to prevent that disease spreading. Unfortunately, not every person in charge of farm animals or responsible for dealing with some aspect of the outbreak is equipped with the necessary knowledge. Indeed, during the recent foot and mouth disease epidemic, there was a great deal of conflicting advice as to how the disease was transmitted, under what circumstances animals or their corpses remained infective, which disinfectants were effective, what should be disinfected and so on. It is almost impossible for each and every farmer, dealer and haulier to inform himself or herself of the current scientific practice.
DEFRA already sends information to all those concerned with livestock on a regular basis. Up-to-date advice and information on biosecurity could easily be provided from the centre. There could then be no excuse for a failure in biosecurity on the basis of ignorance, although I appreciate that, in law, ignorance is no defence. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to ensure that all the people I have mentioned are told what is required of them at the time that it is required.
Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B are grouped with my amendment. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 39A, which follows my amendment by placing a duty upon all people working on or visiting infected premises or designated areas to observe the rules. This, I believe, is reasonable and redresses the balance—the "asymmetry", as my noble friend Lord May put it—between the negligent farmer and the negligent official.
Amendment No. 39B also imposes a duty on the Minister—although I believe, in the light of the numerous amendments we have had from the Minister, that that Minister should perhaps be the Secretary of State—and creates a new offence. It would also help to create a more even-handed approach.
I suspect that the Minister may well compare us to children in the playground shouting, "That's not fair". I know that all too often life is not fair. When we have the opportunity, we have a duty to try to make life seem a little fairer. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, Amendment No. 39A:
Line 9, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty of all persons working on or visiting any infected premises or any designated area to employ current biosecurity measures at all times."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 39. I do not need to add to what the noble Countess has said and I shall move directly to Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B.
Chapter 16.1 of the Anderson report states:
"There were claims that vets and government officials breached biosecurity. DEFRA informed us that they investigated all such claims. In most cases, they were shown to be groundless. However, it seems likely there were some breaches of tight biosecurity by officials and contractors".
The main point of Amendment No. 39 is that the Government should take responsibility for ensuring that officials and contractors are trained in the use of current biosecurity measures and that the farming community is aware of what those measures comprise. Having gone that far, it seems advisable to state in the Bill that anyone inhabiting, working on or visiting an infected or designated area has a legal duty to use current biosecurity measures at all times. This is what Amendment No. 39A seeks to achieve.
This may be even more pertinent if the Government accede to pressures to keep rights of way open in any future outbreak. Should they do so, it may be that visits to the countryside will increase as the great British public seek to support it in its time of need. That could be counter-productive, but that is an argument for another day.
As to Amendment No. 39B, if the Government are unwilling to accept a duty to communicate current biosecurity regimes to all those affected by an outbreak, it is to be hoped that they will accept this amendment. It slightly waters down the specifications in Amendment No. 39, which has been moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Instead of imposing a duty, it requires all those acting in an official capacity to take all reasonable precautions. The wording implies that there could be a defence for failing to observe a strict biosecurity code but specifies the nature of punishment if the defence fails.
We believe that recommendations 60 and 61 of the Anderson report intend rather more positive action in relation to vets and other officials than is implied in Clause 10, headed "Deliberate infection of animals". During and after the 2001 outbreak, there were clear implications that if farmers failed to maintain adequate biosecurity it was deliberate, but if an official did so, it was due to "pressure of work". If this legislation is to mean anything, it must make it clear that everyone affected by the outbreak of an exotic disease is bound equally by the rules and by their presumptions. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I welcome any provision to strengthen biosecurity on farms. I speak as someone whose area was in the middle of the foot

119
and mouth outbreak. All the local farms were very conscious of the importance of biosecurity. They had gates erected across the end of the roads; no one was allowed in, and hardly anyone was allowed out; children did not go to school; and the post had to be delivered to a box at the end of the road. It would have been very galling indeed had anyone in an official position come on to a farm without taking the proper biosecurity measures. It is very wise to include such a provision in the Bill: it would make doubly certain that this could not happen. During the last outbreak, farmers were very worried that someone might enter a farm not having taken the necessary biosecurity precautions of disinfecting and so on.
It is right that this proposal should be on the face of the Bill. Anyone employed by the Government, those in local government and the general public should be aware of the seriousness of wandering about on a farm during a foot and mouth crisis. The remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend indicate that this is a worthwhile addition to the Bill. Any additions in terms of biosecurity are bound to help in any future outbreak of foot and mouth.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to seek clarification. I should have wished to support Amendment No. 39A for the reasons given, but I do not think that it has been moved.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the amendment has been moved and I have put it to the House. So we are at the moment debating Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 39. There is no doubt, as my noble friend has said, that during the course of the foot and mouth crisis biosecurity measures were breached on all fronts. I suspect that that was inevitable given the extreme heat of the moment.
It should be borne in mind that the Minister has made a commitment to reviewing the compensation rates that farmers are likely to receive in future. I do not think that it is any secret that his department's intention is to reduce those rates: I suspect that the rate of payment will depend on the level of biosecurity to which a farmer has adhered. There will be additional sanctions on those farmers who have not adhered to proper biosecurity measures. That being the case, it seems equitable and fair to introduce into the Bill a commitment on all persons employed by the Minister's department to abide by the same levels of biosecurity. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, it is a right balance. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 39A and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 39B, if I understand the slightly complex procedure.
120
I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on again bringing this issue before the House. We debated it in some detail in Committee. She used the word "balance". That word has arisen time and again during our consideration of the Bill but it is one with which the Minister does not seem to want to engage. The idea is crucial, particularly in this area. Surely the duty of observing proper biosecurity measures during such outbreaks should be placed on everyone, not merely on those who look after the livestock.
That said, we welcome the second part of the noble Countess's amendment, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide adequate advice. Such a provision is crucial, and we support Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to it. There are no further arguments to be put forward from these Benches. The arguments are very clear and in my view overwhelming. I hope that the Minister will make some concessions on this issue.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, were it not for the widespread experience of what went on during the epidemic, I do not suppose that anyone would have thought such amendments necessary. Indeed, I should have been rather surprised had they been proposed. However, in the light of that experience, I should find it surprising if the Minister did not in all the circumstances agree that it would be very unreasonable not to accept them.
The amendments are so obviously needed, and their meaning is absolutely clear. The first merely requires those acting officially to be fully conversant with the biosecurity measures in force. The second states:
"It shall be the duty of all persons … visiting any infected premises or any designated area to employ current biosecurity measures at all times".
In other words, people must practise what they preach.
I feel slightly sorry for the Minister. He has had a most ghastly Bill to introduce. He has to sit there and listen to people fulminating against this kind of stuff. Naturally, from time to time, he must look either angry or bored, but never amused. He is doing his best to smile now, but I do not think that he has anything whatever to smile about. I should be extremely surprised if such clearly needed amendments were now rejected. It would be one more instance of the Government saying, loud and clear, that they know better and that everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault. It is not a view that we share on this side of the House.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, this is a very sensible amendment. It is applicable not only to foot and mouth disease, but to all the highly contagious diseases covered by the Bill.
During the foot and mouth outbreak, many farmers were concerned that they should have the authority to control the movement on and off their premises of those who had been to other premises that might be infected. This amendment would at least provide the owners of premises with some degree of authority to control such movement. These highly contagious

121
viruses are largely transmitted via the movement of humans, either on foot on in vehicles. I strongly support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend Lord Peyton that he need not waste much sympathy on the Minister. It was, after all, his own idea to introduce the Bill, so any wounds are self inflicted.
I support what has been said in this debate, particularly about balance. We should remind ourselves that much of the rural community lost trust in DEFRA during the foot and mouth disease epidemic. If those most affected by the legislation are to accept it, they need to be fully reassured that officials, contractors, vets, the Army and others involved in outbreaks are as conversant and as fully aware of the biosecurity requirements, and subject to the same laws, as farmers will be. I strongly support this group of amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, are right. I feel that the Bill is necessary for the future control of the disease, which is why I sometimes find some of the comments in this House a little misplaced and, at times, irritating. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, never ceases to amuse me, even when he is making a serious point. Given comments made in the past few minutes, I shall put on the record that, first, the Bill does not place sole responsibility on farmers. Throughout, it places responsibilities on others involved with livestock. Secondly, regardless of what is on the face of the Bill, it is the responsibility of anyone employed by, or acting on behalf of, DEFRA or other government departments to act within the biosecurity guidelines. Thirdly, the words that the Baroness quoted from the Anderson report are correct; that is to say, the majority of specific claims that officials or contractors were spreading the disease were found to be groundless. Cases in which there was evidence were thoroughly investigated.
The question is whether these amendments add to those general responsibilities. I recognise the reference to the mistrust of DEFRA and other concerns in the rural community, misplaced though they might be. I do not think that these amendments as drafted will achieve their intended purpose. Amendment No. 39 does not define "current biosecurity measures". Amendment No. 39A does not indicate the appropriate sanction if the provision is contravened. It is inappropriate to create an offence related to biosecurity that is targeted solely at officials; it must be a general offence. I recognise the concern, which has been discussed several times during the Bill's passage, that DEFRA officials do not appear to be subject to the same requirements as others.
Having criticised the amendments as tabled—they are not enforceable as they stand—I have concluded after some difficulty that the Government should table an amendment on the matter. I propose to table one at Third Reading, and I can outline what it would cover.
122
It would provide for consultation on biosecurity guidance to DEFRA staff and those working with livestock, and for the publication of that guidance. It would then be a requirement that the guidance be in place, otherwise DEFRA staff could not exercise their functions under the Act. That guidance would need to be kept up to date and maintained. As with other codes of practice, the Act would have to refer specifically to that code of practice so that it would be enforceable.
Failure to comply with the guidance would not, of itself, lead to criminal or civil liability, but the guidance would be admissible in any court proceedings against DEFRA officials, those acting on its behalf, or others in breach of the code of practice. That is more in line with what happens in respect of other codes. It would refer specifically to what is meant by biosecurity regulations and would then provide a remedy by its admissibility in court cases against officials or others.
I appreciate that it is awkward for the House to consider the matter when I have not yet tabled the amendment. I seek the indulgence of the House to take at face value my commitment to table an amendment at Third Reading. The difficulty is that if we pass this batch of amendments, I cannot proceed at Third Reading. It would be up to another place to amend Amendment No. 39. I hope that the House will give me the benefit of the doubt in this respect. I undertake to come forward as rapidly as possible with an amendment before next Monday.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that commitment. Everyone around the House takes him as an honourable man; we always do. We accept his word that he will table an amendment at Third Reading. We have had to drag him to the Dispatch Box over weeks to get this done. I do not know what his department is doing. The matter should have been handled weeks ago. It was an obvious issue to be addressed. It was raised at Second Reading and consistently during the passage of the Bill. It puts the Minister in a very difficult position. He should not have to apologise for something that should have been done weeks ago. If my words add to the strength of the amendment that the Minister brings back, I hope that I have given power to his elbow because we have been coping with an unacceptable situation throughout the passage of the Bill. I accept the Minister's commitment to it; I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 39A.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 39A be withdrawn?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords., it is very unusual for one to approach the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with a reprimand. Unfortunately, on Report, after the Minister has sat down—and he clearly had done—and the mover of the amendment has begged leave to withdraw it, the noble Lord cannot ask the Minister a question.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to explain one thing to the noble Baroness, who was

123
explaining a lot to me. It is quite a well known practice for Ministers, when they have sat down, to be told that they have not done so, and for something else to be added.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 39A be withdrawn?
Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, by leave, withdrawn.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I express my profound gratitude to the Minister for coming this far to meet us, albeit a little late, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. Will he undertake to consult us when drafting the amendment and not send us a letter at the very last minute to say what he has done. That would be much appreciated, and at this late stage it would help to get it right. If given that undertaking, I would be very willing to withdraw Amendment No. 39.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, am I allowed to speak now? I do not want a reprimand from my noble friend Lady Farrington. I think I can give an undertaking as far as is feasible. We are only talking about between now and Monday. I shall endeavour to get it to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in the debate.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I should briefly point out that I am a noble Countess. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 39.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39B not moved.]
Clause 10 [Deliberate infection of animals]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 10, leave out line 5.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40B, C and D. The amendments are all part of a single argument that the Bill sets too high a minimum punishment for failing to observe full biosecurity routines. Your Lordships may think it strange that I put that forward, but we need to look at the 1981 Act and the proposals in the Bill. If anyone were caught deliberately not doing what they should do, I would be the first to say that they were in the wrong. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall explain where I am coming from.
We are not talking about people who intend to spread infection. We are concerned with those who fail to do what they ought to do for any one of a number of reasons connected with human nature. It is possible to conjure up a number of hypothetical questions or situations in which farmers or officials might break the rules for reasons that are acceptable to them, but not to a court. Here is one example. Anderson put the issue well on page 74 of his report:
124
"Many people sustained extreme working patterns, often 12 or more hours a day seven days a week for long periods. They absorbed a great deal of emotion from farmers and others who were in considerable distress".
Long hours of work cause fatigue and so too does prolonged worry and grief. Anyone—a farmer or an official—tired out by the strain of the situation may move on to autopilot in carrying out routine tasks. Unfortunately, moves and actions that have become automatic will not always encompass new actions demanded by a fresh set of circumstances.
New Section 28A(1) inserted by Clause 10(1) states:
"A person commits an offence if … he knowingly does anything which causes … an animal to be infected".
New Section 28B then lays down the punishments on conviction of an offence. Our amendments would lower the minimum sentences. There is no need for the option of disqualification from keeping any animals when there is the ability to specify whatever animals the court wishes.
We are concerned that some of those caught by the provision may well be farmers reliant for their livelihood on the keeping of animals. We therefore feel that it should be possible to apply to the court at intervals of less than a year to have the ban lifted. In Committee I was rightly taken apart by one or two Members who did not share that view. Any livestock farmer banned from keeping animals loses his job and, by the nature of agricultural cycles, risks being unable to restart for much longer than a year unless he can apply within that time.
We are also concerned that a farm is not like a normal home. It is quite likely that junior members of the family will start small with one or two animals of their own. Moves currently afoot elsewhere will stop any person under 16 owning an animal. This means that many farming children will look after animals that are still officially the property of the farmer. This could apply to other animals such as dogs, cats and horses just as it does to sheep, cattle and pigs.
Having thought about the issue since Committee, we do not think it right that a farmer's children should be made to suffer in such circumstances for a lapse in biosecurity by a parent. Nor do we think it right that a wife or husband should be unable to continue with farming because their spouse, the joint owner of the livestock, may have been banned.
The 1981 Act makes clear that "an animal" is anything, other than a human, that the Minister decides. I can get my papers and come back with the reference. It was originally argued in Committee that the provision would apply only to infected animals, but under the 1981 Act the Minister has the right to decide that it applies to any animal other than the two I have specified. That is only a small point, but it is why I beg to move the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. At col. 1315 on the first day of Report, a week ago today, I raised a problem that seemed to me to occur with the provision in the Bill that covered

125
anybody on the premises of a farm who appears to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises. I made something of certain situations that might occur. I think I mentioned dogs and fish, but the point could perfectly well be extended to cats and horses as well as a number of other animals.
I was shot down by the Minister, who said that,
"we were working on the basis of the Animal Health Act 1981 in which animals are defined as animals being susceptible to the disease. That does not include horses, fish or dogs".—[Official Report, 22/10/02; col. 1316.]
Since then, my attention has been drawn to Section 87(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981, which says:
"'The Ministers may by order for all or any of the purposes of this Act extend the definition of 'animals' in subsection (1) above so that it shall for those or any of those purposes comprise—

(a) any kind of mammal except man; and

(b) any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal".

We need clarification on what the noble Lord has in mind when he talks about animals. The response that he gave a week ago seemed clearly—although I accept probably inadvertently—not to conform strictly with the possibilities of the Animal Health Act 1981. While we are talking about disease, I must point out to the Minister that Section 88(2) of the 1981 Act says:
"The Ministers may by order for all or any of the purposes of this Act extend the definition of 'disease' in subsection (1) above so that it shall for those or any of those purposes comprise any other disease of animals".
The Minister tries to tell us that we are dealing with only certain types of animals or certain types of disease, but the parent Act clearly allows the Minister of the day to include and embrace any sort of animal under the zoological definition of animal, as well as any disease known to veterinary science. We are entitled to a definition from the Minister of exactly what is the Government's understanding of "animal", which is the issue at the centre of the lead amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about animals owned by children, which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned, and specifically about goats. As a child in the war I owned goats and I milked them. They were not in the noble Baroness's list.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the creation of a better definition of pet because we need to define as accurately as possible the thing to which we are referring.
I should also like some clarification of the six-month period. Anyone who knowingly and deliberately seeks to infect animals clearly deserves a summary sentence. However, there may he extenuating circumstances which result in a marginal decision by the court. During the most recent outbreak, for example, some people living on one farm worked on another farm, as they did almost every day of their working lives, and they were not properly cognisant of the fact that they should not have been travelling. Although such circumstances may be considered by the court, it is also important to recognise that those who keep animals depend or the breeding cycle. A one-year disqualification could preclude them from operating
126
their farms for at least three years, whereas a six-month exclusion might limit the period in which stock cannot be produced to 18 months.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we should remember who we are talking about: these are not people who have accidentally been caught up in the effects of the disease. As proposed new Section 28A(1) states:
"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse … he knowingly does anything which causes or is intended to cause an animal to be infected with a disease".
I cannot think of anything that would make a farmer angrier than the thought that a neighbour had deliberately infected his animals with disease.
Throughout our discussion of the Bill, there has been real and understandable concern about the farmers affected by these provisions. However, we must also remember the tens of thousands of farmers whom the department intends to protect by these actions. We should be thinking about them, too. Do we want to be seen to be falling over backwards to be lenient to those who deliberately infect animals with disease? We are talking about those sorts of people. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has given various examples, but, if she reads the Bill, I think that she will see that the courts will have the power to vary an order to leave out pets if necessary. Nevertheless, we should remember that these people, if convicted. are guilty of the cruellest and possibly most serious offence imaginable to farmers. Why should we appear to fall over backwards to be lenient to them?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, for once I find myself in total concurrence with the noble Lord, Lord Carter; perhaps he is pleased to hear it. As he said, we are dealing with people who have committed the offence of deliberately infecting animals. As far as I am concerned, they do not deserve to keep animals.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter and to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Amendment No. 40A seeks to ensure that a disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals, following a conviction for deliberate infection of a disease, does not apply to "any" animals. As my noble friend Lord Whiny pointed out in Committee, and as noble Lords have recognised, as matters stand, "animals" are defined in the Animal Health Act 1981—which this legislation amends—as cattle, sheep, goats, swine and other ruminants, and so do not include animals that are most likely to be kept as domestic pets such as cats and dogs. Any amendment to the definition in the 1981 Act could be made only by order. Section 87 of the 1981 Act and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983 also are covered by that. I hope that that offers some reassurance to noble Lords.

127
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the issue of other diseases. The disease control orders define "animals" as "susceptible animals" to those diseases. The provision,
"(a) any animals, or
(b) any animals of a specified kind",
is based on the corresponding precedent in the Protection of Animals (Amendment) 1954 Act, subject to the definition of "animal". The courts would still have the discretion to specify to which kinds of animals, within the definition of "animals", a disqualification would apply. The courts would make a decision based on the circumstances, taking all relevant factors into account.
Therefore, if one of the many individuals who keep sheep or pigs as pets were to be convicted of deliberate infection, the courts would have the discretion to include only specified kinds of animals—for example, animals kept for a commercial purpose—thereby not preventing someone from keeping a farm animal as a pet in future. I think that that was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, we believe that it is desirable to keep the blanket exclusion so that the courts retain the power to disqualify an owner from keeping or dealing in any animal if the offence is deemed severe enough to warrant this. I am sure, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar said, that all noble Lords would want to keep that as one of the range of options available to the courts.
Amendment No. 40B would allow earlier application—by an individual disqualified from keeping animals—to reduce the period of disqualification, whereas Amendment No. 40C would allow more frequent subsequent applications. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, we cannot see any good reason to do that. The current arrangements effectively allow one application for review of the disqualification per year, and that ought to be sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, raised this issue. We believe that disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals is a very severe sentence, imposed only as a result of the extremely serious offence of deliberate infection. It is entirely reasonable that such a sentence should be reviewed only annually. Notwithstanding the extra burden the amendment would place on the courts, these disqualification provisions are in line with similar legislation.
Amendment No. 40D would have the effect of allowing a farmer who had been disqualified from keeping or dealing in animals due to a conviction for deliberate infection to continue to have joint custody or control of animals. This amendment significantly weakens the deterrent to deliberate infection. Disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals is a very severe sentence, imposed only as a result of the very serious offence of deliberate infection. I am sure that noble Lords who cast their mind back to the tragedy of the foot and mouth disease outbreak will agree that deliberate infection demands very severe action. Disqualification will be imposed only as a result of such action, and it would be wholly
128
inappropriate to allow an individual convicted of this offence to continue to be involved in the control of animals.
Amendment No. 40D could enable an individual to continue to manage or have control over animals—including potentially on their own farm—following a conviction as long as they did not have sole custody or control of animals. That is unacceptable to the Government, as I hope, on reflection, it is to your Lordships. I am sure that it is also unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of those keeping animals, all of whom would be appalled by people committing this offence. For those reasons, the Government feel it would be inappropriate to accept these amendments.
4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I restate what I said in Committee; namely, that we, too, are concerned that deliberate infection should be sat upon. But, like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I am not clear what animals are covered by the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has kindly gone through the matter carefully and I shall read Hansard carefully. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40B to 40D not moved.]
Clause 11 [Penalties for certain summary offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 40E and 40F not moved.]
Clause 12 [Prosecutions: time limit]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 40G:
Page 11, line 36, leave out "conclusive" and insert "substantive"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a certificate by the prosecutor as to the date on which the evidence came to his knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact. The date in question is,
"the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to his knowledge".
As I read it, the net effect of all this is that the prosecution has the right to decide when it has sufficient evidence and it then self-certifies the date on which that position was reached. However, the self-certified date may not be challenged; in other words, it is conclusive.
What is to stop the DEFRA legal team from assembling the evidence, sorting out the court dates and then, perhaps weeks later, passing that evidence to the lady or gentleman who will present it in court and who will certify conclusively the date on which the handover took place?
It should surely be possible to enter an appeal against a court hearing on the grounds that the evidence was all there weeks before the certified date and that the prosecution should be dropped because the six month limit has been broken. We do not feel that such a challenge should be undertaken lightly, hence our proposed substitution of the word "substantive".
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, kindly wrote to me, following my questions on this topic in Committee, and assured me that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be involved in prosecutions brought under the Animal Health Act 2002. He stated that it was most likely to be DEFRA legal personnel who would self-certify and prosecute. That may be reassuring to some but I wonder whether part of the outcome of the promised review by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, of the work of DEFRA may be the transfer of specialist duties to departments or agencies that in future may be set up to carry them out.
We have been assured time and again that unnecessary wording is to be eschewed when drafting legislation. What is the purpose behind a clause which sets a time limit and then qualifies it in such a way as to make it meaningless, to say nothing of unchallengeable? Will the Minister explain why, having set a three year prosecution limit, this further six month provision has been added? I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend said. I seriously wonder what was in the mind of the Government when they inserted the word "conclusive". Does not the word "conclusive" mean that the Government are not prepared to accept the possibility that valid evidence to the contrary might be in existence? This is a deliberate attempt to shut out the truth—so it would appear to me.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment proposes to substitute the word "substantive" for "conclusive". It does not concern who carries out the prosecution, the time-scale or the other matters that the noble Baroness raised, most of which I believe I covered in my letter.
As I stated in Committee and in my letter, certification by a prosecutor of the date on which evidence was brought is the normal, well precedented procedure. It is still the case that if the court was uneasy for whatever reason about the declaration of certification, and believed that it had been made in bad faith, it would be able to consider the evidence behind that, irrespective of whether or not it had been deemed conclusive proof. In other words, if there were sufficient doubts, the court could re-open the matter. Any decision to prosecute would be made in accordance with the code of Crown prosecutors. The purpose of that code is to ensure that fair and consistent decisions are made with regard to prosecution. As I say, the term "conclusive" is well precedented. There is case law to support the meaning of "conclusive". As I say, a court could re-open a case were subsequent doubts to be raised. However, there is no such precedent for the use of the term "substantive" which is, of itself, a relative term. To substitute the word "substantive" for "conclusive" would open up a whole new range of issues when "conclusive" has
130
operated perfectly satisfactorily in other parallel procedures. Therefore, I do not wish to accept the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response although, obviously, I am disappointed. I heard what he said. If the word "conclusive" constitutes the normal legal jargon, which I think is what the Minister indicated—he nods his head to confirm that—at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 13 [Annual review of import controls]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new C lause—
"REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
In section 80 of the 1981 Act (annual return to Parliament) in subsection (2) for the word "and" after paragraph a) there is substituted the following paragraph—
"(aa) contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales (acting jointly) think appropriate as to the measures taken to prevent the introduction of disease into England and Wales through the importation of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1);"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to an amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greaves, that was passed in Committee. I stated at the time that the amendment was accepted that its wording would need to be tidied up. The amendment that I have tabled is intended to maintain the intention of the noble Lords' amendment while retaining flexibility as regards the content of the report.
I appreciate that my amendment looks somewhat different from that of the noble Lords. I have written to them explaining why that is the case. I am advised that it is better to present the amendment in the way that I have done. Indeed, when I asked my advisers to consider whether we needed to alter the amendment, I indicated that if a government amendment was necessary it would have to address, as far as was practically possible, the intentions behind the original amendment in the name of the noble Lords.
The primary intention of the earlier amendment was for the report to detail the checks taken to detect illegal imports, to provide a risk based analysis and to propose action. It should, therefore, include the following: first, an explanation of the work undertaken to prevent the introduction of disease into Great Britain through the importation of animal products, including information on where responsibilities lie for the enforcement of the rules on imports. Secondly, it should mention the outcome of the checks and inspections carried out, details of what was seized or surrendered, which was imported contrary to the relevant rules, by reference to volume, the nature of such items and where the items were introduced from—sometimes it is not always possible to identify their place of origin—and whether they were destined for personal consumption or

131
commercial consumption. Thirdly, the report should contain an analysis of the results of the checks and inspections, comment on future proposals and further action to be taken with a view to reducing further the risk of disease being imported, indicate why further action is proposed, and refer to the inadequacy or otherwise of existing legislation and proposals for legislative change.
I believe that the amendment covers those items and those referred to in the noble Lords' amendment. Any differences reflect solely the practicality of reporting on specific issues. I have listed the information that can be practically collected. It meets, I believe, the intent of the noble Lords' amendment.
I am advised that all the points that I have outlined now and in writing to the noble Lords are covered by the government amendment and that that is the best way to place the requirement for the report in legislation. The drafting is broad and flexible to allow further information to be included in the report should it become available to us. I hope that your Lordships will accept my reassurance that all the items I mentioned would be included in such a report.
Animal health is a devolved subject in Scotland. We will continue to work closely with each of the devolved administrations to minimise the risk and to reflect any overall concerns relating to Great Britain in the report. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, Amendment No. 42A:
Line 8, after "taken" insert "by government departments and agencies and other public bodies"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining his amendment. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43.
I accept that many countries where foot and mouth has been and is endemic are getting it under control. The efficacy of the vaccine used in many South American countries and elsewhere is improving, but there is no room for complacency. The wording of the Minister's amendment is too complacent.
No one thinks that the foot and mouth virus invented itself from thin air. It must have come from somewhere. Throughout history we have mostly been able to determine where it has come from. In the previous outbreak 34 years ago, the virus was traced to a specific estancia in South America. It is strange that on this occasion, when it became obvious where the disease came from, we did not take the tough measures that should have been adopted for such an outbreak.
It is some 20 months since the disease was officially acknowledged. In that time we have been told repeatedly that the European Union does not encourage the checking of meat imports from European Union countries, even if in transit. I note that the report of the European Parliament currently before the Commission recommends tougher measures. Those measures will therefore change and I hope they will be fully acceptable in this country.
In that time, meat has continued to enter from countries where the disease—and, occasionally, other exotic diseases—is endemic. The Minister gave me the shattering figures some months ago. Over 108,000 tonnes of beef entering this country during the outbreak came from countries where the disease is known to be endemic. I know he will tell me that the regions that it came from are safe. But it is difficult to appreciate that in those regions many wild animals cross and so diseases are difficult to control.
I turn to illegal imports. I understand that in that time a grand total of two sniffer dogs and a team of handlers have been trained to work the baggage carousels at Heathrow. I suggest that Guide Dogs for the Blind would not be the power that it is had its record been similar.
The amended import report is therefore unacceptable. The interests lie in imported material rather than home-grown products. It suggests that we can continue as before, whereas it must be in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers to take tougher measures. I am sure that many noble Lords read the report on illegal meat imports produced in the other House by a team who gave the matter a great deal of consideration. I hope that the Minister will comment on it in his reply.
In their original report to Parliament, the Government had included a review of the activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, the customs union, police authorities and other relevant public agencies. We would like to see those bodies clearly charged in the Bill with the responsibility to prevent the importation of infected meat and foodstuffs. We want to see clarified the fact that there are imports besides drugs and those which cheat the Treasury of tax revenue that are not wanted here, have no right to come in and should be apprehended as quickly as possible by those government agencies responsible for import control.
We ask the Minister what was wrong with the original amendment to necessitate its truncation. Will he be satisfied with the phyto-sanitary measures being considered under the WTO? That will be a major issue in the WTO recommendations as we move further towards globalisation.
Amendment No. 43 refers to the preparation in consultation with interested public and private bodies of the annual report referred to last week and mentioned by the Minister in his letter. That would place a requirement for an annual report in the section of the Animal Health Act 1981 dealing with the figures, where expenditure and numbers of animals are shown in tables against diseases and ports of entry.
We would like to see a fuller report: more descriptive and capable of engendering questions and informing the public. We would prefer to see such a report specified in the Bill in the area to which it relates. The risk assessment needs proper reporting.
In 1981, when the original Act was passed, the volume of air transport of persons and goods was less than one-third of today's. Figures are available to all noble Lords in the Government's air transport

133
consultation document. The mind boggles when one sees the figures: 60 million people move through Heathrow alone each year. In 1981 in many countries ordinary people did not have the opportunity to come here as they do today, nor indeed did people from here have the opportunity to travel elsewhere. The cost of travel was much higher and wages and salaries were much lower. The danger of importing diseased meat and other foodstuffs was correspondingly lower. There was no need for a clause such as that we suggest.
However, there is a need now and we propose that it should be in the Bill to amend the relevant section of the 1981 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A. Amendment No. 42, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would delete Clause 13, which forms a substantive part of the Bill as it is currently drafted. The substance of our amendment on imports now forms that clause. In Committee, there was support for that amendment from all quarters of the Chamber. I thank the Minister sincerely because on that occasion he agreed to the amendment and it was rightly added to the Bill. The new amendment—Amendment No. 42—rightly involves a report to Parliament containing,
"such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales … think appropriate".
The words "think appropriate" do not appear to be appropriate on this occasion. I am obviously glad that the National Assembly for Wales is included in the provision. It is intended to prevent,
"the introduction of disease into England and Wales through … the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1)",
of the 1981 Act. In that Act, "things" are specified as,
"animals and carcasses … carcasses of poultry and eggs; and.… other things, whether animate or inanimate",
that appear to be able to transmit disease. That section also mentions provisions made with respect to imports. It also refers to,
"vessels, boats, aircraft and vehicles",
and to,
"persons and animals and other things which have been … in contact with imports".
Those provisions failed in 2001 because of a lack of enforcement and co-ordination. We all know what happened.
The amendment that we tabled in Committee and which now stands in the Bill means that the clause is up to date. It refers to all of the relevant bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, the police, customs, local authorities and others; those specified bodies are responsible for enforcing import controls.
Proposed new subsection (1)(b) of the clause states that the report will,
"identify the nature, origin and quantity of … animal products".
The provision is very specific. Paragraph (c) states that the report will assess order-making and paragraph (d) states that it will,
"assess the effectiveness of any action taken … under section 10".
134
Section 10 goes hand in hand with the amendment that we tabled in Committee and which now stands in the Bill. Finally, paragraph (e) refers to,
"further action…on the basis of advice … by … scientific advisers",
and to risk assessments to reduce disease and importation. In short, the clause spells everything out; it is a catch-all provision. The world, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, has moved on since 1981. Illegal food is introduced in many different ways; for example, in sandwiches, containers and holdalls.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"It may be for the benefit of the Committee if I make it clear that, as has already been said, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Some marginal tidying up may be needed, but I accept the principle of what the noble Lord says".—[Official Report, 7110/02; col. 41]
My interpretation of "marginal" and that of the noble Lord's department are two vastly different things. I do not blame the noble Lord because I believe that those comments were made in good faith. I expect that some undercover things have been going on in the mean time.
Will the Minister rely entirely on the failed import control system in the 1981 Act? As was demonstrated in 2001, it is the biggest loophole in terms of keeping animal disease out of this country. To be fair. I believe that the Minister has been nobbled. He agreed in good faith in Committee that our amendment was all right, and I thank him for that. I do not believe that he should be blamed for what happened; I blame his department for the proposal to leave out Clause 13 from the Bill. That proposal is not a minor drafting change; it is sabotage. Why is it sabotage? Because of the lack of import controls and because co-ordination between government departments does not currently properly exist. Amendment No. 42 gives no guarantee and involves inadequate enforcement.
In view of those inadequacies, we have a trade-off between an inadequate import control system and the enforcement of a 20-day rule on the farming community. We know that a risk assessment is taking place; that is a very good thing. However, that assessment has been the cause of some delay and it could be used in certain circumstances as a limp excuse, although I do not believe that that is necessarily the case.
I beg to keep Clause 13 in the Bill. If there is a vote, I urge noble Lords to vote to keep Clause 13 and to vote against the government amendment because Clause 13 received support from all sides of the Chamber when it was considered on 7th October.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. As he said, in Committee the amendment received support from all round the Chamber. After all of the Written Questions, Starred Questions and letters to DEFRA, I am amazed that the Minister has proved so insensitive to the views on import controls and the need for total control over the system.

135
There has been a great deal of heel-dragging about control at airports. We hear about the lack of advertisements and the lack of questions being asked of people coming into this country. We are aware of comparisons with the approach in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The government amendment is totally unsatisfactory. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and oppose that of the Minister.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, concur with all that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said. Frankly, any watering down of the original amendment, which is now in Clause 13, would, in the context of this very serious problem, be highly irresponsible.
I shall try to put into context the question of illegal importation of meats. A video was recently produced by the National Pig Association. Some noble Lords may have seen it but, for those who have not, it is worth quoting some of the examples. First and foremost, it is presumed that the black market in illegal meat imports is now totally out of control. At Heathrow Airport alone, there are apparently 5,500 flights per week but in 2000, only 14 were properly checked. On each occasion, major quantities of illegal food products were found. Those are chilling figures. I am talking about rats, bats, monkeys and pieces of gorilla. As was discussed at the last stage of this Bill, the bushmeat industry has now become a very substantial black market business. Clearly this presents a real risk to both animal and human health.
Professor Joe Brownley of the Royal Veterinary College says in the video that illegal imports are coming from countries where a range of diseases exists—many of which we do not fully understand. The professor also maintains that a large amount of poultry is coming into this country. My noble friend Lord Plumb talked about the legal importation of meats that are not being properly scrutinised. Poultry is clearly one example. The difficulty of course is that producers in this country are being undercut by people from abroad, who are not subjected to the same level of standards as our producers. Unless imports are properly scrutinised, the prospect of diseases coming in is obviously enhanced enormously.
It is not just a question of imports. There are British ports where large amounts of illegal meat are brought in through containers. Clive Lawrence, chief executive of Ceil Logistics—a company that specialises in handling food imports—has called for the Government to introduce one agency. He maintains that there are far too many Government agencies at the moment, responsibilities are split between them and there is a high degree of overlapping. He has also called for proper biosecurity surveillance equipment to be installed. To the best of my knowledge, no such equipment exists in this country. He claims that security at Heathrow has been relaxed in recent months and that unapproved carriers are being used to move animal products in open-top vehicles on open
136
roads. He describes the situation as a smugglers charter, with a real risk of spreading potentially lethal human and animal diseases.
As I understand it, a six-man team and two sniffer dogs were scheduled to take up positions at Heathrow by the beginning of September. To the best of my knowledge—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—they have not as yet arrived. We are only talking about two sniffer dogs. I am bound to ask whether two sniffer dogs will actually be able to cope with an average of 219,178 bags that arrive at Heathrow each day.
We clearly have a very serious situation indeed. I understand the Minister's commitment to getting this right. He has said so before and I do not doubt him in any way. But we are far from achieving even a reasonable situation. We have a crisis that needs to be addressed. Quite frankly, if Clause 13 as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is not on the face on the Bill and we do not have an annual report of the substance that Clause 13 produces, we are selling ourselves short on a very serious issue. Going around the country and talking to farmers as I do, the question of importation is to them the most important issue that needs to be dealt with. I hope that we do not compromise on Clause 13. I believe that it should remain as an integral part of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I would like briefly to support and associate myself with what has been said about the Government's unease or inability to do anything effective about import controls.
I am sure that what the noble Baroness has to say is very interesting but even if this has already been said, I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to the fact that there is real anxiety and upset that the Government have so far not even attempted to do anything effective about import controls.
I would particularly ask the Minister what there is about import controls that other countries can manage and we cannot. Before one goes into the United States, Australia or other places, one has to certify that one is not carrying certain foodstuffs. As far as I can see, we make absolutely not attempt to do that at all.
I accept that convention in your Lordships' House requires that when Ministers try to do their best, those on the other side of the Chamber allow the emission of a sort of gaseous gratitude to ooze across in the direction of Ministers. I hope that the Minister is not rejecting my offer of some gaseous gratitude oozing across to him because I am afraid that that is all that he is going to get.
The second thing that I am concerned about is the amendment. Just now the Minister argued with great eloquence that conclusive did not always mean conclusive—it meant what it was always taken to mean. I did not understand that. I was not quite clever

137
enough to follow him. If that really is the practice, it is little short of terrifying to me that we should now be asked to approve an amendment that says
"contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales (acting jointly) think appropriate as to the measures taken to prevent the introduction of disease into England and Wales".
I would hate that kind of verbiage to become incorporated as a regular feature of future Bills that come before your Lordships, but that is what the Minister is threatening us with this afternoon. Just in passing, I draw your Lordships' attention to the event that the draftsman obviously has in mind of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales all sitting down jointly—it must be jointly—and deliberating as to what the statement would be. That seems to me an unlikely and unbusinesslike way of going about things. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this really useless piece of verbiage, which in no way can be taken to be a fulfilment of what the Government have promised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question. We have heard about meat coming in. What exactly is the procedure if illegal meat is found? Is it sent off to a laboratory where any disease is detected? A most extraordinary number of strange tropical diseases is now emerging.
The other matter that I just want to mention concerns the dogs. I have spoken about this before. I was told firmly by the Minister that two dogs were to be used for a pilot scheme. A dog's concentration span is 20 minutes. Therefore, to use two dogs would be just impossibly small. We would need about 200. There are beautifully—perhaps that is the wrong word—expertly trained dogs, which are used for finding dead or missing people. They could be used to find this illegal meat at airports. They are used here and I have met some of them. Perhaps the Minister would let us know—because it is our right to know—what is being done about testing the meat which is found.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I have spoken on many occasions in this House about the lamentable security in this country as regards preventing the importation of highly contagious diseases—especially those mentioned in the schedules to the Bill. Reference has been made to the United States, where, when one enters the country, at least one is asked to make a declaration that one is not bringing in meat or meat products. In this country, nothing is said to individual passengers informing them that that is not permitted. It seems, and has always seemed, to me that it is no wonder that highly contagious diseases enter this country. With our lamentable security arrangements, it is a wonder that it does not occur more often.
I want to say a few words in defence of sniffer dogs. Yes, there are two at present, but I correct the noble Baroness in that the work cannot be done by any sniffer dog. Dogs must be trained specifically to detect meat or meat products. Such training takes time and,
138
following it, the dogs are highly efficient. I agree that two is probably an insufficient number but, with due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that we need 200. However, the dogs are highly efficient and, as some noble Lords may know, they are used effectively in New Zealand to detect the import of meat and meat products. Therefore, we need to beef up any means which are used to prevent disease entering this country. That is important for the biosecurity of our national herds and flocks and, indeed, of all the animals in this country. We need a strong system that will prevent disease entities coming in. I believe that the original clause would achieve that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I remind him that Heathrow is not the only airport. We also need to bear in mind Manchester, Birmingham and all the other airports. If the noble Lord does his sums, he may realise that 200 dogs are better than two.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I accept that point.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I echo the question raised by my noble friend Lord Plumb: what was wrong with the original clause in the Bill? Why does it need amendment? When the noble Lord explained why his department had seen fit to change it, I did not understand what was better about the amendment that we are considering as opposed to the clause as it stands in the Bill. Like the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I am at a loss to understand the thinking in the department.
After so many questions, letters, Starred Questions and debates, the department is still using words such as,
"contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales … think appropriate".
It is exactly that type of phraseology that sends out alarm bells to those who will be affected by the Bill. Ultimately, in order to instil some confidence if the Bill is to be enacted, we should retain the original clause. I believed that it had been accepted by the Minister in Committee and I think that it should remain in the Bill. It is a very good clause and I do not believe that the amendment improves on it. It certainly weakens it and is sabotage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of substantive points have been made about the nature of import controls and about what needs to be done and what is under consideration. I agree, at least in part, with many of those points. The question of how to strengthen the import control regime has largely led to the Government conducting this thorough risk assessment. It is why we allocated significant additional resources to checks and controls; it is why we implemented the pilot scheme to see whether sniffer dogs can operate in a system with a high volume of passenger throughput; and, to address the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, it is why we asked the

139
Cabinet Office to engage in a detailed examination of whether we need to change the jurisdiction of the various authorities involved in that. We take the matter seriously.
However, the point at issue in this amendment is the nature of a report which is required irrespective of the precise import regime at any given time. Neither my amendment nor the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, alters the nature of the import control measures. I accept, as I have done frequently, the need to follow through and strengthen those. However, here we are discussing the nature of a report.
I believe that the items specified in the noble Lord's original amendment, which is now Clause 13, need to be covered in the report. Some of them are easier to deliver than others, but the amendment that we have tabled would be more flexible. It would allow the Government to report on other aspects of import control, including proposed changes in the regime, and it would therefore enable the House to consider the situation in the round. However, if Clause 13 stands as a result of the amendment agreed to at the earlier stage, its prescriptive nature would limit the area covered by the report.
I could have added some other items and made marginal changes, which is what I thought I was doing when we discussed this matter in Committee. However, I am strongly advised that the best way to ensure flexibility and breadth in the report is to table an amendment in the form now before your Lordships. Therefore, we are seeking a broader and more flexible report which will probably cover, at least at the points where the issues are live, a number of the matters raised in this debate.
I do not understand Amendment No. 42A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. He may not wish to see my amendment at all but, in so far as his amendment applies to my amendment, it would severely limit the effects of my amendment. It would restrict the report to the activities of government agencies, whereas, as has been one of the problems in this area, we need to know what other people are doing and, in particular, we need to know what the shippers, airlines and airport authorities, which are not government agencies, are doing. Therefore, I do not consider the noble Lord's amendment to be an improvement on mine. I believe that my amendment would broaden the impact of the amendment tabled in Committee and accepted, at least in its principles, in good faith by me at that time.
I recognise the strength of feeling in the House about this matter. But, for the sake of having a rounded report, which, after all, is an annual event and which I imagine will certainly be the subject of debate in your Lordships' House year after year until noble Lords are satisfied with the degree and effectiveness of the import controls, I believe that we need a broader report, as required under my amendment.
140
Therefore, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment or alter it or to revert to what was a very good but inadequate amendment agreed in Committee. I commend Amendment No. 42 to the House.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which, frankly, I do not believe adequately covered many of the points raised. I rather liked the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, reminding the Minister of his comments a week ago when he talked about marginal tidying-up. In my opinion, marginal tidying-up needs to be strengthened and not weakened. I fear that the amendment which we are now considering and which replaces the amendment that I believe we could have supported means almost a deletion rather than a strengthening of many of the points put so well to the Minister and to the House during this debate.
There are many other issues upon which I do not wish to spend time, although they are extremely important. My noble friend Lady Masham raised the issue of meat testing. We need to know how the latter is dealt with when such imports are detected by sniffer dogs. I have seen sniffer dogs at work, and know how effective they can be. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there is a limit to the amount of time they can work, so there needs to be an adequate pack of dogs to enable the work to be dealt with throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that the current test will prove to all concerned that this is one way, as has been found in New Zealand and in other countries, of trying to control the import of products that can lead to the trouble with which we have been faced during the past year.
In his reply the Minister said that his amendment would make the whole position more flexible. I do not believe that flexibility is needed; the process needs strengthening. The lack of enforcement must be made clear. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, co-ordination is most important. My amendment refers to the agencies that should be responsible for such matters. Surely they could find out what the shippers are doing as regards what is being imported into the country. They should have the responsibility to make contact with the various people involved. Frankly, they are the people who should be made responsible for dealing with the problem through coordination. I wish, therefore, to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, it may be of assistance to the House if I remind your Lordships that the Question I am about to put pertains solely to Amendment No. 42A. Once that has been disposed of, I shall then put the Question regarding Amendment No. 42. The Question, therefore, is that Amendment No. 42A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, be agreed to?
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 182; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ackner, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Addington, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Higgins, L.

Ampthill, L

Hogg, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Hooson, L.

Attlee, E.

Howe, E.

Avebury, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Barker, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jacobs, L.

Biffen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blaker, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blatch, B.

Jopling, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Kingsland, L.

Bowness, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Britian of Spennithorne, L.

Laird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Byford, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

London, Bp.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Luke, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lyell, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Cox, B.

Maddock, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar, C.

Crickhowell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cuckney, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marsh, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L,.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Noakes, B.

Elles, B.

Northbourne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elton, L.

Northover, B.

Ezra, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Fearn, L.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fowler, L.

Palmer, L.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peel, E.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Geraint, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goodhart, L.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Reay, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

142

Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Rennard, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Renton, L.

Swinfen. L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Taverne, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tebbit, L.

Roper, L.

Tenby, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Russell, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tope, L.

Sandberg, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sandwich, E.

Trumpington, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Waddington, L.

Selborne, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharman, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Walmsley, B.

Sharples, B.

Watson of Richmond. L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Weatherill, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wigoder, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gavron, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Goudie, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Barnett, L.

Gregson, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Billingham, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harrison, L.

Blease, L.

Haskel, L.

Borrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bragg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brennan, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brookman, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Irvine of Laing, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Carter, L.

Chan, L.

Islwyn, L.

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jeger, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jones, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Crawley, B.

Layard, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Elder, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Filkin, L.

Morgan, L.

Fitt, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gale, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

143

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Orme, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Paul, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Peston, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Turnberg, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Varley, L.

Radice, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitaker, B.

Richard, L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins, B

Sheldon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.04 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 42, as amended by Amendment No. 42A, be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents", have it.
Amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
Before section 15 of the 1981 Act (requirements on certain persons relating to animals infected with disease) there is inserted the following section—
"14A NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
(1) The appropriate authority must prepare a document (the national contingency plan) indicating the arrangements the authority intends to put in place for the purpose of dealing with any occurrence of—

(a) foot-and-mouth disease;

(b) such other disease as the authority by order specifies.

(2) After preparing a draft of the national contingency plan the appropriate authority—

(a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as the authority thinks are representative of those having an interest in the arrangements;

(b) must consider any representations made to the authority about the draft by such persons and organisations;

(c) may amend the draft accordingly.

(3) After the appropriate authority has proceeded under subsection (2) the authority must—

(a) lay the plan before Parliament (unless subsection (9) applies);

(b) publish it in such manner as the authority thinks likely to bring it to the attention of persons who may be affected by the arrangements.

(4) The appropriate authority must from time to time (but not less frequently than at intervals of one year) review the plan and if the authority thinks it appropriate revise the plan.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to a revision of the plan as they apply to its preparation.
(6) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument.
144
(7) The instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (unless subsection (9) applies).
(8) The appropriate authority is—

(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;

(b) the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales acting jointly in relation to Wales (except for the purposes of subsection (1)(b));

(c) the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)

(9) This subsection applies to a plan prepared in relation to Wales.
(10) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) (except the making of an order under subsection (1)(b)) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 deals with the national contingency plan. I indicated at an earlier stage that I accept the argument that the Bill needs a reference to the important national contingency plan, which is central to the recommendations of the two inquiries—the Anderson inquiry and the Royal Society inquiry.
The latest version of the FMD interim contingency plan was posted on the DEFRA website on 3rd July. That will be updated and a further development of that plan will be established through the mechanisms set out and will follow very much the recommendations of the Royal Society and of the Anderson inquiries. We shall review those plans regularly.
The development of contingency plans requires, most importantly, the training of staff and practice in implementation of the plans. There was criticism in the reports that we did not have sufficient dry runs of those plans and that we did not consult widely enough. We are addressing both matters.
The FMD contingency plan applies to the Secretary of State in relation to England and the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales acting jointly in relation to Wales.
Animal health is devolved in Scotland, although Scotland will also have its contingency plan. We are keeping in close touch with the Scottish administration.
In pursuance of the new clause I anticipate that the full-scale contingency plan will be in a form suitable for laying before Parliament in the spring of 2003.
That is the work the Government are engaged in. The purpose of the amendment is to place on the face of the Bill all those requirements—to prepare, to consult, to involve and to test. The plan will be laid before Parliament and must be updated at least annually. Therefore, we directly meet the concerns expressed both in the reports and in the House that while this activity has involved priority and resources, the level of awareness, the level of preparation and the level of understanding of how we would deal with a future outbreak needs to be enhanced. That is why continuous review of the contingency plan is built into this amendment.
Contingency plans have not previously featured in legislation. Given their importance in our armoury of weapons to fight future disease, their establishment—

145
quite uniquely in this Bill—and report to Parliament is appropriate and is indeed recommended specifically by the Royal Society report. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, Amendment No. 44A:
Line 6, leave out "prepare a document" and insert "make an order"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44B, 44BA, 44BB, 44C and 44E.
I start by speaking to Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB, which are new issues. Amendment No. 44BA states that as well as sending the consultation draft on the contingency plan to persons and organisations that the Secretary of State thinks he or she ought to send it to, it should be placed on the appropriate authority's website. At the moment that would be DEFRA's website, but that may change in the future.
The reason is in order to put the matter firmly in the public domain. When consultation documents are sent out to people by the Secretary of State, they get into the public domain. But they get there by accident. Often they are put on the website and so placed in the public domain. So why not state that in this day and age the website is the appropriate place for such vitally important documents to be made available to anyone who wishes to see them formally? That is the purpose of Amendment No. 44BA.
Amendment No. 44BB is equally important. It provides that, rather than merely taking account of the responses to consultation on the draft made by persons and organisations to whom the Secretary of State has seen fit to send it, the Secretary of State should consider all representations, from whomever they come. That would mean that if any members of your Lordships' House should decide to take part in the consultation, but had not been picked out by the Secretary of State as people to be consulted directly, our representations would nevertheless be considered. It is likely that the Secretary of State would think that we were people whose responses to the consultation should be considered, simply because it would give him an idea of what we might raise later in the House.
The principle is clear. On an issue such as this, the Secretary of State should have to take account of any citizen of this country who wants to contribute to the discussion. No one should be fobbed off by the Minister's officials simply because he is not listed. That is the purpose of those amendments, which set out important principles for how the Government should undertake public consultation at the beginning of the 21st century.
The other amendments in the group, including Amendment No. 44A, raise the same point that we debated last week in relation to the slaughter protocol. I still think that I was right then and am right now, but I accept that I lost the argument in your Lordships' House, so it would be a waste of time to repeat it today. I therefore do not intend to press Amendments Nos.
146
44A to 44E, but I should be most interested in a positive response to Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 44B. The new clause proposed by the Minister is certainly welcome. However, as in our previous debate, we feel that it is not entirely adequate.
Foot and mouth disease hit us, metaphorically, out of a wet and windy winter sky, without warning. There was a contingency plan. It was inadequate, as was quickly shown. It was too small; it was unrehearsed; it required resources that were unavailable—for example, disinfectant that was effective in 30 seconds rather than 30 minutes.
We fear that subsection (1) of the new clause promises more of the same. The plan shall exist for foot and mouth, but not for any of the exotic diseases listed in Schedule 2A, unless and until the Secretary of State decrees that that shall be so. DEFRA is concerned with the environment. As such, it cannot possibly be ignorant of climate change. global warming and their possible consequences. It must surely be aware of the warnings from overseas and from United Kingdom experts of faster and further spread of exotic diseases.
Earlier this year, I hosted a meeting at which specialists on animal tropical diseases told horrific tales about the spread of Blue Tongue, African horse sickness and of the nasty bugs that can now survive in northern climes. They claimed that Blue Tongue is now endemic in New York State. Surely the national contingency plan should cover all the diseases in Schedule 2A, or we may well rename it the "national certainty plan". I have already made representations about the use of the negative resolution procedure in the Bill, and oppose its inclusion in the government amendment, as elsewhere.
Amendment No. 44B will expand the national plan to include all the diseases in Schedule 2A. It will ensure that all those diseases are studied regularly and steps to prevent their importation into the UK considered, set out in black and white and contained in the national plan. It will also expand the Secretary of State's role to include implementing the national plan in the event of an outbreak of any exotic disease, and monitoring that implementation. The thinking behind those measures is that in 2001, implementation was at least as faulty as the plan.
I turn again to the Anderson report, which states on page 37:
"Contingency planning is not just producing a written document. Rather, it is about putting in place the systems, processes and culture to respond effectively to crises".
On page 70, it states:
"At the same time, communications from senior management downwards also appeared to have difficulty reaching their target recipients. The message that FMD was an overriding priority did not filter through effectively to the rest of the department. A human resources manager at DEFRA told us that the department had a 'silo mentality' and individual groups and managers not

147
directly involved with the outbreak remained focused on their own targets. There was no incentive for them to release staff to help in the fight against FMD".
Those are not my words but those of the report so ably compiled by Mr. Anderson.
I am sure that we all feel that what happened in 2001 must never happen again. We have tabled the amendment to ensure that it will not. The law should lay down the Secretary of State's responsibility to ensure that it does not. Amendment No. 44B adds significantly to the measures proposed by the Minister in Amendment No. 44.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we have added our names to Amendment No. 44B, which fleshes out the requirements of the national contingency plan—in particular, the need for a three-yearly review, although perhaps that should occur more frequently. That review will address a wide variety of diseases—and strains within those diseases, which is important in the context of the 2001 outbreak. The amendment also provides for steps to prevent incidence, the immediate implementation of a contingency plan at the start of an outbreak and the monitoring thereafter of the plan's implementation. The investigation, recommendation and implementation of vaccination programmes as an option is also important, whether in emergency circumstances or circumstances of permanent control. That is necessary to flesh out the Bill's provisions. The amendment is worthy of our support.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, I have from time to time mentioned Scotland. The Minister has said that powers are totally devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and that we must just hope that the Scottish Parliament will legislate. That is just not happening. Agriculture is a United Kingdom issue.
No one knows better than I, living in the midst of the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease, right on the Border, how crucial it is that England and Scotland should operate together. However, although there has been an inquiry in Scotland, no steps have been taken, so far as I can see, to implement anything approaching the legislation that we are dealing with in this Bill. Judging by the forecast in the newspapers of the legislation to be dealt with between now and next spring, when there will be an election to the Scottish Parliament, there is no room for further legislation on the matter. That means that it will be at least a year before we get any changes in Scotland in the regulation of foot and mouth disease. That is not good enough.
I would like the Minister to say that he has had some firm assurance from the Scottish Executive that it will implement in legislation similar conditions to those in this Bill designed to prevent another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is no use the Minister saying that the Scottish Executive has discussed the matter and will do something about it: we want to know when and how. It is a United Kingdom issue. Anything that happens in Scotland is likely to move over to England
148
and vice versa. We cannot sweep it under the carpet, and the Minister should be franker and tell us what has happened in the discussions with Scotland and when it will implement something relative to this Bill.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that the United Kingdom—as opposed to Scotland, England and Wales—is required by EU legislation to produce a foot and mouth disease contingency plan and that it must be approved by the European Commission. The Minister will tell me whether I am wrong, as it may bring in the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, that the foot and mouth disease plan should relate to the United Kingdom. I understand that, for beef sales, Scotland is not regarded as a separate country. In other words, Scotch beef cannot be sold on the Continent. Perhaps the Minister will clear that up.
I am pleased to see the proposal that a national contingency plan should be in the Bill. I support all the amendments, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. It is about time that we had a little more democracy in the consultation. We hear over and over again that the relevant stakeholders have been consulted, but it turns out that, most of the time, that means the NFU. The NFU is not as representative as people might think. It is a good insurance company, but I "hae ma doubts"—as my father used to say—as to how representative it is of the interests of small farmers and others.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Minister has explained the situation in Scotland and will, perhaps, explain a little more. What about Northern Ireland? It is still part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Byford. I also support, in general, the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, I am puzzled as to why foot and mouth disease has been separated out from other diseases. We are dealing with a wide spectrum, and, although foot and mouth disease is an awful disease—we have experienced that—there are other diseases that are even worse, such as rinderpest, African swine fever or peste des petits ruminants. Such diseases should be on that list. Will the Minister comment on that? Other than that, the amendments are appropriate for what we intend to do.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there could be two weaknesses in Amendment No. 44B. I shall be interested to hear the noble Lords who spoke to the amendment comment on that point later in the debate. At paragraph (a), the amendment refers to,
"a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A".
That information is already available internationally in reports from the OIE and so on. We do not have information from countries that do not report and,

149
thus, break the rules. By definition, there is no evidence if the diseases are not reported. The amendment seeks,
"a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence"
which is already available. The things that we need to know we cannot find out; they are not reported.
My second point relates to paragraph (b), which refers to,
"the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A".
Are we going to use the resources of DEFRA and taxpayers' money to show what we are doing to prevent rinderpest and Rift Valley fever? Every disease listed at Schedule 2A is to be reported on, as are the steps taken to prevent it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will, I think, respond on Amendment No. 44B, and I will be interested to see whether she can answer those points about the waste of taxpayers' money.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that it is in order for me to reply now; the noble Baroness and the noble Lord can speak afterwards.
I shall answer one or two points of fact. To the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, I say that the intention is to develop a contingency plan for foot and mouth disease that would, in its essence, provide a core that could be extended to other diseases with particular attributes that are slightly different. The core contingency plan would be that developed for foot and mouth disease, and the timetable that I outlined is for the development of that plan.
I was asked about contingency plans in Scotland and the relationship to EU requirements. It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to ensure that a contingency plan exists for the whole of the United Kingdom, but that plan need not be all in one piece. Responsibility for animal health is devolved—completely for Northern Ireland and Scotland and partly for Wales—and it is important that that legislative and administrative framework is reflected in the arrangements that we put in our contingency plans.
We must work closely with our Scottish colleagues, but they have responsibility for developing the contingency plan in Scotland. Likewise in Northern Ireland, where some degree of cohesion with the Irish Republic on matters such as animal movements is also necessary, there is a responsibility on the Northern Irish authorities—whoever they may be at any given time—to ensure that there is a contingency plan there. As a whole, it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to deliver those plans to the European Union. I hope that that explains the position to some extent.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how can somebody be responsible to Europe for something over which they have no control? The British Government are responsible to Europe for the contingency plan for foot and mouth disease—or whatever it is—but that
150
matter is devolved to Edinburgh. If something is totally devolved, how can Ministers in this Government be responsible for it to somebody else?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are responsible for reporting to the Commission the form of the contingency plans in the United Kingdom. The Commission must examine those plans. We are not responsible for carrying out all the activities et out in the plans because some of those activities are devolved. I know that many of your Lordships do not like it, but that is the nature of devolution.
We have a responsibility for external purposes to ensure that our commitments to Europe are fulfilled. They are fulfilled by ensuring that all the Administrations in the United Kingdom fulfil their responsibilities. In that context, the United Kingdom must fulfil responsibilities for England and Wales. The noble Earl has a philosophical problem with devolution; he has never come to terms with it. We could go over the matter many times, but we will not take it further now.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I understand where he is coming from and his attempt to tidy up the contingency planning. It already appears on the website, as will any future development. Indeed, most areas of government consultation are on the website. However, if we specify a requirement in this piece of legislation and do not specify one elsewhere, there is an argument for any government department other than DEFRA which wanted to be recalcitrant on the issue to say, "It is not specified in the legislation whereas it is in the Animal Health Act and therefore we do not put it on the website". Means of communication change over time; therefore the best means of communication is the best requirement that is on government. Currently, that requires a website.
As to who we should listen to, it is open to everyone to write in. It is also open to the Secretary of State to take into account the opinions of people other than those who are specified in the legislation. But the legislation specifies those who are representative of interests involved. If we were also to put on a par those who are not representative of those involved, we might be in some difficulty. If, for example, farming interests were represented through the National Farmers Union or the Farmers Union of Wales, and another group which shall be nameless claimed to speak for farmers, we would be putting it on a par. That is not a sensible way of behaving. The group could write in and put forward its views, some of which might be sensible. However, the group should not be on a par with the representative organisations. There is a danger in the noble Lord's second amendment that that would be the result.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for which Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches indicated support. There are a number of problems with it. My noble friend Lord Carter pointed out that much of the information is already available and therefore it is not an additional

151
requirement on the Secretary of State. However, the second proposed subsection provides that the Secretary of State shall,
"investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes".
It specifies only vaccination programmes. I have been at pains to point out to the House that any system of dealing with any future outbreak of the disease involves the culling of diseased animals and the option in certain circumstances of culling rather than vaccination. The amendment could be read as indicating that vaccination programmes will always be implemented, not only in emergency control but also for permanent control of such diseases—admittedly in particular circumstances. However, it implies preempt routine prophylactic vaccination. As the noble Baroness will know, the Royal Society said that it should be considered more seriously as information and research develops, but it is not currently recommended.
That may be an exaggerated interpretation of paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List, but the noble Baroness will accept that the last two phrases are ambiguous and exclude any measure of control other than vaccination. That would not be appropriate to write on the face of the Bill. We need flexibility.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister's interpretation of the distinction he draws between "emergency" in paragraph (a) and "permanent" in paragraph (b) is solely related to subsection (1) to put in place for the purpose of dealing with any occurrence. The only interpretation to be given to this is the distinction between emergency on the one side and any other occurrence on the other. It is a valid distinction and it is the essence of the distinction of my Amendment No. 44CA.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that continually in the debate the noble Lord is trying to draw a distinction between an outbreak which causes an emergency and other outbreaks. However, if there is an outbreak of any disease in Part 2A in the schedule, it is an emergency.
Paragraph (b) at the bottom of the page is ambiguous not because it distinguishes the emergency situation but because, as I read it, it relates to a programme in particular circumstances of prophylactic vaccination. It is using vaccination for permanent control. That suggests to me routine vaccination. At the least it is ambiguous. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. I accept that this is a wider issue than simply the Bill. It is a question of how the Government consult on a whole range of issues. However, the argument that, because means of communication change, legislation should never refer to websites is not
152
strong. It would be a brave person who suggested that websites are not going to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. However, I recognise what he says.
On interests, he says that those who are not representative of the interests involved should not be "on a par" with groups which are recognised as being representative. However, the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in relation to the NFU and the recent foot and mouth outbreak is relevant. One has only to talk to farmers in the Pennines and the Lake District to find that many do not believe that the NFU was representative of them. Indeed, many of them are not members of the NFU. That is not to denigrate the NFU in any way; it is to state that the people speaking on behalf of farmers were from wider groups than that one organisation. The noble Countess made the point that I tried to make; that experience of the foot and mouth outbreak indicates that many people wanted to have their views taken into account but, rightly or wrongly, felt that that was difficult. They felt not only that the Government were not listening to them but that there were no proper channels through which they could communicate their views to the Government.
The Minister may say that that was not the case, but that was what people felt. It seems to me that in a democratic country such as this, the Government in their consultation process should be under a duty to take account of opinions from anybody anywhere. The question of whether a person has a legitimate opinion is, when it comes down to it, for him or her to decide and not for the Government to decide.
The Minister made a commitment that the contingency plan would be published on the website. I notice that he is nodding from a sedentary position so we have that on the record, which is useful. He also made the commitment that the letter, e-mail or whatever from anyone making representations would at least be opened and read. In reality, that is all one can ask any government to do.
I want to comment briefly on the Minister's response to Amendment No. 44B. It is the whole argument about balance within the Bill. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford were present, I am sure that he would make the point much more eloquently.
The Bill is slaughter, slaughter, slaughter all the way through. Whenever we talk about slaughter and ask why there is no balance with vaccination, the Minister says, "It is not necessary. It is in other legislation. It is in our minds. We do not need to have it written down. The fact is that it is all slaughter in the Bill does not mean that that is necessarily what we are going to go in for". Yet when people try to put vaccination in the Bill, the Minister says, "If we even mention the word 'vaccination' anywhere in the Bill, it will mean that we are being forced to do that and nothing else". He said that the wording of the amendment means that the Government must always implement vaccination. Yet it clearly states:
"The appropriate authority may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes".

153
I should like the wording to be stronger than that, at least as far as concerns investigation. I should like it to be "shall investigate". But it does not even say that; it simply states that the Minister "may investigate, recommend and implement".
Including those words would bring balance back to the Bill and give those who own and manage livestock more confidence in it. The Minister is overstating the case when he suggests that it means that vaccination will always be implemented. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 44A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, Amendment No. 44B:
Line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The appropriate authority shall include—

(a) a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A;

(b) the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A;

(c) the incorporation of the steps identified in paragraph (b) into the national contingency plan;

(d) the implementation of the contingency plan upon the outbreak of any disease;

(e) the monitoring of the implementation of the contingency plan.

( ) The appropriate authority may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes—

(a) for the emergency control of any disease listed in Schedule 2A in any animal species; and

(b) for the permanent control of all such diseases in animals in particular circumstances."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have listened very carefully, and with slight disappointment, to the Minister's response to my Amendment No. 44B. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for pointing out that those two little words in my amendment—"may investigate"—do not make a final commitment to vaccination being the only way.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, told me that there is already a three-yearly review of the world incidence of disease. I should like to see that incorporated into the Government's national contingency plan. The Minister may be able to confirm that it is there already and that I do not need to worry about it—but I cannot see it there, and it should be. Although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it should be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, then challenged me— in a friendly way, I trust—in relation to my seriousness in wanting to consider each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A. I think it is important that we do so. He does not believe that it is and he said that it will cost the taxpayer a lot of money. If the Government had used the powers that they had in the first place, they would not have wasted between £3 billion and £5 billion on the recent outbreak. What we are trying to do—what we
154
must do—is to ensure that these matters are in the national contingency plan, which we all agree is important, and on the face of the Bill. I do not know how much it will cost, but it will certainly not cost £5 billion if it helps to keep disease away in the future.
The Minister will perhaps remember that when I spoke to my amendment I remarked that climate change and exotic diseases are becoming much more prevalent and much nearer to us. I thought that that would have underlined and highlighted the reason for the amendment. Although on this occasion the noble Lord was serious in what he said to me, I reject what he said.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 44 as it is my only chance to speak to that amendment before I finally return to Amendment No. 44B. I should draw the Minister's attention—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment No. 44B, can she explain her interpretation of paragraph (b) in relation to permanent control?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it means what it says. The proposed subsection states:
"The appropriate authority may investigate"—
it does not say that it has to investigate—
"recommend and implement".
I cannot define it more clearly.
As to Amendment No. 44, the Minister was critical of my including and specifying vaccination in my amendment. I cannot see the word "vaccination" anywhere in Amendment No. 44. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I have read through the amendment many times and "vaccination" does not appear once. I believe that it should. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 44B.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 179; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Addington, L.

Bowness, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Ampthil, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Attlee, E.

Byford, B.

Avebury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Barker, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blaker, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Boardman, L.

Coe, L.

155

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Moynihan, L.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Naseby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Noakes, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Northbrook, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dholakia, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Emerton, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fearn, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Flather, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plumb, L.

Fowler, L.

Prior, L.

Freeman, L.

Razzall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rees, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roper, L.

Greaves, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Henley, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hooper, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sharman, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Sharples, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kilclooney, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Strange, B.

Laird, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Taverne, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tebbit, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lucas, L.

Tope, L.

Luke, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Tugendhat, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

McNally, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mar, C.

Walpole, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Marsh, L.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Monson, L.

156

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Islwyn, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Layard, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Chan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Radice, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grenfell, L.

Thornton, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turnberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whiny, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winston, L.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 44B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, agreed to accordingly.
5.56 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 44BA to 44C, as amendments to Amendment No. 44, not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 44CA:
Leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
"( ) The appropriate authority may only implement the national contingency plan to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency but not otherwise by order exercised by statutory instrument on affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford. In moving it, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44CB, 44DA and 44DB as consequential, but I shall not deal with them in any detail so as to save time.
The shape of the Bill has already changed beyond recognition. Account has been taken of these changes in tabling this amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for his wide concessions, which met the essence of the argument deployed in Committee on 8th October [at cols. 167 to 175 of the Official Report]. In case it is worrying my noble friend Lord Peyton, this is not a dollop of unctuous ooze; it is a genuine and rare expression of gratitude. For the record, the reference is to Amendment No. 211 in Committee.
This concession is applied in the Minister's Amendment No. 53. This would be wholly achieved if Amendments Nos. 53B and 53C, as amendments to Amendment No, 53—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—were to be accepted by the Minister. Amendment No. 53C is crucial as affecting this and all other amendments. It involves the question not only of reasons but of representation, so that there is an opportunity to seek a stay of execution or judicial review. That is the only aspect that has to be further considered in relation to the concession.
If this position were accepted by the Minister, it would be otiose for me to re-table at Third Reading my Amendment No. 211 in Committee. I am advised that, if those concessions are made, there would be no object in doing so. If they are not made, the amendment will be re-tabled.
Amendment No. 44CA seeks to ensure that implementation of the national contingency plan may not be had by the executive other than to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency; and that Parliament, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether there is or is not a national emergency such as warrants implementation of the plan. In other words, the amendment seeks to retain for Parliament what is essentially the business of Parliament, which would, if so advised, inhibit resort to the provisions of Amendment No. 53C and representation.
The proposals of this plan are not only welcome; they are essential. They must provide for implementation in a state of national emergency, which is operated by order under a statutory instrument. That could involve the imposition of substantial fines and imprisonment if not complied
158
with. In those circumstances, the power must lie within the control and remit of Parliament, not the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion. The use by the Secretary of State of his discretion to implement the plan at any time other than in a national emergency, albeit that the plan was laid 12 months ago and was not annulled by Parliament, affords absolutely no realistic or satisfactory safeguard against error or misuse of the executive power of preventative slaughter to deal with any occurrence in the circumstances of any particular case. That is the essential justification for this amendment. To put it shortly, we have moved away from the business of protest and shock that was manifested during the earlier stages of the Bill. We have entered an irenic domain of constructive discussion.
In those circumstances, I hope that the object of this amendment, which is to inhibit the proposed delegation of power by Parliament to the Executive to implement a national contingency plan other than in a national emergency for the sake of administrative convenience, will commend itself. That is not acceptable, nor is it within our ordinary concept of the unwritten constitution. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I read the amendment with care and listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. The wording of the amendment gives it a meaning that is the complete reverse of what the noble Lord intends. As I understand it, the noble Lord intends that if the Government wish to implement the national contingency plan in a national emergency, they will not have to come to Parliament, but that in every other circumstance they will. By any reading of the English language, his amendment seems to say the complete opposite. It says:
"The appropriate authority may only implement the national contingency plan to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency but not otherwise by order exercised by statutory instrument on affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".
His wording seems to mean that in a national emergency the Government would have to come to Parliament to have an affirmative resolution passed, which is completely impractical, given the speed required to deal with the national emergency of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, when the Government must exercise their powers within hours.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I must have confused the noble Lord, but I hope not the House. It is perfectly plain that, first, this plan can be exercised only in a national emergency and must be exercised by the Secretary of State with the authority of Parliament. All the other measures in the Bill operate at any other time. It is totally unnecessary to have this plan, other than for use in a national emergency. For the reasons that I have given, it should in those circumstances be for Parliament, and not the Secretary of State, to say that there is a national emergency. I am sorry that I confused the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we can now be clear that the noble Lord proposes that in the event of a national

159
emergency—the outbreak of foot and mouth disease—whether or not Parliament is sitting, an affirmative resolution must be passed by both Houses in a situation where the Government must operate within hours. One of the criticisms of the Government during the last outbreak was that we did not impose immediately a movement order on every animal in the country. If that is what the noble Lord means, he has helped the House by making clear his suggestion, which I think is impractical.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I can help. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in reading the amendment, has inserted a comma after "emergency" and another after "otherwise". Those commas do not appear on the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, must be very experienced in drafting legal documents. He must know what he is saying; after all, he has been in the business all his life. It is perfectly clear that he is proposing that if there is no emergency, an affirmative instrument is required, and if there is an emergency, it can be dealt with immediately. It looks perfectly straightforward.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, there seems to be some confusion. I read the amendment in the same way as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, did, and I was happy to support it. Perhaps the Minister will comment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must confess to being slightly confused. I thought that the noble Lord was proposing that the powers could not be used except in a national emergency, which has to be declared by Parliament. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. As my noble friend Lord Carter indicated, much of the criticism of the Government during the last epidemic was that they did not act instantaneously on receiving confirmation of the disease. As I said to the House previously, had we had to come back to Parliament, we would not have been able to act instantaneously. This House had a report on the day of the confirmation of the outbreak from my noble friend Lady Hayman, but the other place was not sitting on that day.
If we interpret the amendment strictly, Parliament could not have acted in the timescale that all the inquiries and much of the commentary criticised the Government for failing to work within during the last outbreak. The question of a national emergency is not appropriate in this power. It is an emergency if any of the diseases under Schedule 2A breaks out in this country. The contingency plan is designed to deal with that emergency.
There may be arguments about what should be in the emergency plan. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has argued for some other safeguards at other points of the Bill. However, that is what it is designed for. There is not a subset of currencies that is pre-national emergency or non-national emergency. It is an emergency when this kind of disease breaks out. The contingency plan is designed to deal as rapidly and as effectively as possible with that. That is what the
160
inquiry suggests we do. Whichever interpretation we put on the wording, the amendment cuts across that. I hope the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said and waited for what might have been said. We have now reached the stage at which, on the state of the debate as it stands, I have to decide whether there is apparent support for the amendment. It appears to me that there is not, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44CB to 44E not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 44, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"VETERINARY INVESTIGATION CENTRE NETWORK
In the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 5(1) (veterinary services and therapeutic substances)—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Veterinary Investigation Centre Network and the State Veterinary Service are adequate to deal with future large scale outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to expose the current state of the veterinary investigation network and to urge the Government to do something constructive about it.
The amendment will spare the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because a lot of what I have to say covers actions taken well before his time, but I am very concerned about the present situation.
On 27th March 2001, when I was in the other place, I tabled a Question to the Under-Secretary of State in what was MAFF, asking him to list the veterinary investigation centres that were closed between 1980 and 1997. The list reads a bit like John Betjeman's poem about the closure of stations during the Beeching era. The same applies to research centres. The reply said that in 1986 the veterinary investigation centres closed were at Cardiff, Chester, Gloucester, Leeds and Moulton, Northampton. In 1991 centres at Bangor, Lincoln and Wye in Kent were closed. In 1993, centres in Cambridge, Norwich and Worcester were closed. During that time, two centres were opened. In 1980 there were 24 veterinary investigation centres in England and Wales and in 1997 there were only 14. There was a net closure of 10 investigation centres. No veterinary investigation centres were closed between 1995 and 2001.
On 30th March 2001 I asked another question in the other place to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about how many vets were employed by his ministry, running from 1971 to 2001. The answer was that in 1980 there were 580 state veterinary surgeons in the service, but by 1997 there were only 289. That is a reduction of 291 veterinary surgeons over that time. By 2001 there were 220 vets in the field out of a total of 286. The total number of state vets halved during the approximately 20 years that I have referred to.
I am extremely critical of the decisions that were made to reduce the veterinary investigation centres and the number of vets in the field. That was a negation in protecting UK livestock and animal health. It goes a long way to explain how and why insufficient preventive measures, personnel and veterinary laboratory facilities were available. The situation in England and Wales was inadequate at the start of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.
Of course, there were other factors involved, including changes in farming practice, the activities of dealers and other activities going on at the time. However, the rundown of the State Veterinary Service was a major contributing factor in the initial sluggish response to the 2001 outbreak. The disease could have been controlled far earlier. Will the Minister review the current state of the State Veterinary Service in the light of what I have just said and ensure that it is well resourced and can deal sufficiently with future outbreaks as soon as we know that they are starting?
Amendment No. 47, tabled by the Conservatives, is also in this group. It mentions the funding of research into the diseases listed in Schedule 2A and the viability of permanent vaccination programmes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will address much of that.
On 20th May 1998, I asked a Question in the other place to the Minister of State—now the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—about the closure of research facilities that MAFF had in place during the 1980s and 1990s. The Answer was very interesting. The list included: 1981, Great House Experimental Husbandry Farm, Rossendale, Lanes; 1989, Rosewarne Experimental Horticulture Station, Camborne, Cornwall; 1989, Lea Valley Experimental Horticultural Station, Hoddesdon, Herts; 1989, Luddington Experimental Horticulture Station near Stratford-upon-Avon; 1989, Liscombe Experimental Husbandry Farm, Dulverton, Devon; 1990, Brogdale Experimental Horticulture Station, Faversham, Kent; 1991, the Cattle Breeding Centre at Shinfield, near Reading, Berkshire. I know from my professional career that the Shinfield centre was an outstanding research station in world terms.
I also got a list of laboratories closed in the period specified, although some of the work was transferred to other facilities. The research stations where laboratories closed were: Shardlow in Nottingham in 1980; Bangor, north Wales in 1985; Cardiff in 1985; Bristol in 1988; Leeds in 1993; Wye, Kent in 1993; Starcross, near Exeter in 1993; Reading in 1995; Newcastle in 1995; Cambridge in 1995.
It was a stripping out of the State Veterinary Service. It is no wonder that we cannot respond adequately to disease outbreaks. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I had sufficient foresight to table those Questions four years ago. The closures seem to account for much of our inability to prevent disease and to tackle outbreaks. The culling of the State Veterinary Service and of agricultural research stations has indeed added a whole new dimension to the word culling.
I also tabled a Question on the number of redundancies in the scientific sector. Although the Question could not be answered, I know for a fact that many of the very capable scientists whom I know personally lost their jobs. I also know that research funding at Pirbright has been reduced over the years. It is no wonder that we are not ready to cope with disease outbreaks when they occur. As we know, during the 2001 outbreak, much of the testing was done at Pirbright, one of the few places where it could have been done. Amendment No. 47 is not my amendment, but I thought that I should provide that background.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 45, on the Veterinary Investigation Centre Network, and I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 47, on research. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, very clearly said, the amendments would simply prod the Government into making adequate arrangements to deal with future outbreaks. The noble Lord also provided some startling figures on the gradual reduction in the number of centres. Like me, many of your Lordships will be familiar with those well-known centres and with their work. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept that we need a review into this issue, to ensure that we are prepared to take action when action is necessary. Although one hopes that it will not be necessary, there have been many developments.
Since the beginning of the outbreak, there have been persistent reports, which we have all heard, about very odd reactions, and very strange comments have been heavily reported in the press. For example, a picture seems to be emerging of flocks of sheep that are about to lamb being several times more vulnerable than other flocks to foot and mouth disease. There are similar stories about flocks that have been rounded up and vaccinated. We could dwell on such stories all evening, but the truth of those stories needs to be investigated. We need thorough research and not mere anecdote.
Such a task cannot be left to the private sector. The private sector does much to advance our knowledge and to improve our collective lot, but it is motivated by reports to shareholders and issues such as return on capital. It cannot be expected to devote a great deal of attention to the highly speculative aspects of particular diseases. We therefore believe that the Government must fund research into the aspects of disease control that do not offer financially acceptable prospects of success and in relation to which data access is difficult.
We also believe that the Government should gather together and review available research into permanent vaccination programmes. That is why we emphasise, as we did last week, the importance of vaccination to live rather than vaccination to slaughter. We must consider much more thoroughly the possibility of vaccination—on a ring basis, of course—in a future outbreak. We routinely protect all sorts of animals against a host of diseases without apparent ill effect to them or to us. As the UK becomes more vulnerable to a range of exotic bugs, it is important that someone looks closely at the means of keeping them under control. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, reminded

163
us very clearly last week, for various reasons, routine vaccination is performed to prevent disease and so that food can be classified as completely safe to the consumer.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 45 and 47. They may be probing amendments, but it is a very important probe.
This year, I attended a presentation of the tropical veterinary school in Edinburgh. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was going to chair the presentation, but unfortunately she was ill. The presentation was most interesting. It was attended by a senior African veterinary officer who said that the school was their lifeline, and that many veterinarians in Africa had died of HIV/AIDS. The tropical veterinary school in Edinburgh is yet another body that is under threat of closure. If we want to do something useful to support developing countries, one of the most important possibilities would be to train people in this field of veterinary science.
I was at a DEFRA presentation which I think the Minister also attended. I sat next to a man from DEFRA and I asked him what he felt was the most important aspect of the overall problem of foot and mouth and other diseases, to which he replied, "More research facilities". I feel that the Government must take this issue seriously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that this is an extremely important issue.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 45. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has given a very detailed account of the loss of VI centres and of personnel in the State Veterinary Service. The losses have occurred over the past decade; they did not happen immediately. The effect has been to reduce our national capacity for surveillance of all types of disease.
The Veterinary Investigation Centre Network used to be the jewel in the crown of the state service, attracting some of the best people in the veterinary profession. The closure of so many facilities has had various consequences. Farmers wishing to send their animals to a centre, for example, have to contend with much greater distances, with return trips totalling perhaps more than 100 miles. Farmers are not always willing to do that. Farmers may also have to pay for post-mortem examinations, but, farmers being farmers, they may not wish to pay the heavy fees levied upon them.
In earlier days some remarkably poor decisions were taken. I do not charge the present Government with that. For example, I refer to a veterinary investigation centre that was situated next door to a veterinary school and a public health laboratory. I declare an interest as the dean of the school at the time. Yet despite the close association of those centres, the authorities decided to close down that facility and replace it with one in Bury St Edmunds which was not near any centre of excellence.
164
Similarly, the State Veterinary Service has been whittled down to the level indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. Some 200 or more members of that service have disappeared. One cannot maintain a service that is geared up to deal with an emergency situation. It would not be wise to determine the manpower that would be needed to deal with another outbreak of foot and mouth disease and try to maintain that as a standing force. That would not be realistic. We must rely on the private sector of the veterinary profession—I refer to the local veterinary inspector service—to help to deal with serious outbreaks of disease. The Royal Society of Edinburgh made a sensible proposal; namely, to create a corps of territorial reserve officers composed of retired people who have experience of dealing with foot and mouth disease and, indeed, many of the other diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. The Royal Society of Edinburgh indicated that those people might be paid a small retainer. They would be able to deal with outbreaks of those diseases. They could respond to such outbreaks as necessary but they would not be part of a permanent service.
The number of personnel in the Veterinary Investigation Service—that is now the Veterinary Laboratories Agency—has decreased. Being an agency, the VLA must generate funds; that is why it has to charge fees for diagnostic and investigation purposes. The number of personnel has been decreased due to a false sense of security. We have not had any serious outbreaks of disease in this country comparable to the foot and mouth outbreak. That has certainly not been the case as regards the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. I hope that we never do have such outbreaks but we must be aware that they are not very far away. We cannot compromise our situation by any further reduction in the number of personnel in either the State Veterinary Service or the VLA. Many people in the veterinary profession now realise that we have reached a point where numbers are below the critical level with the result that serious diseases entering the country will not be detected. I very much hope that the Minister will comment positively on that matter and that he will give an assurance that the Government will take it on board.
As regards Amendment No. 47, research needs to be conducted into the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. However, effective vaccines already exist for many of those diseases. We look forward to the global eradication of rinderpest due to a highly effective vaccine. However, were rinderpest to enter this country, we should first slaughter out the infected premises and then use a vaccine. It would be no use trying to vaccinate before that step was taken as rinderpest is a highly contagious disease. Although we need to carry out more work as regards vaccination, we should use that information with a degree of caution and not consider that vaccination is the total answer to the control of some of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the debate on Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 introduces a strong sense of déjà vu. Noble Lords may recall the Barnes report on market led research—the emphasis at that time was on market led research—that was issued in the early 1990s. That research was extremely elegantly described by the Minister at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—who said that if farmers want it they will pay for it, but if they will not pay for it they do not want it. I said at the time that the description seemed to me to apply much more to the oldest profession than to agricultural research. However, research was run down, as was the Veterinary Investigation Service, as we have just heard. I am sure that that was a factor in the lack of veterinary resources that were available to cope with the outbreak of disease last year.
I am rather puzzled by Amendment No. 47 on research which states:
"The Minister shall fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in the inserted Schedule 2A…experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992".
I am puzzled why the research is restricted to diseases experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992. If we are concerned about research into the diseases listed in Schedule 2A, I should have thought that we should not be concerned solely with those experienced in the United Kingdom since 1992. However, the provision on vaccination in Amendment No. 47 refers to all the diseases listed in Schedule 2A, not just those experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992. The amendment states:
"The Minister shall collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A".
That provision presumably applies to the prophylactic use of vaccine and not to the use of vaccine in the event of an outbreak. I am not sure that that is what the movers of the amendment intended to achieve. I shall he interested to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I hope that this will be my last intervention relative to Scotland. The Minister has a rather cavalier attitude to Scotland; namely, that everything will be all right on the night and that we do not need to worry what the Scottish Parliament will do and so on. However, as far as I am aware, the State Veterinary Service is still controlled by what was MAFF and is now DEFRA. That means that in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth in Scotland the front line troops are still controlled by the authorities in London, as was the case in last year's outbreak. One had to phone the nearest office in Ayr in connection with a foot and mouth outbreak in Dumfries. If anyone answered the phone, one's call was diverted to London. Will that still be the case in the future? Will the State Veterinary Service in Scotland be under the control of DEFRA, as appears to be the case in Wales? That takes some of the ground from under the Minister's feet when he said that that was a devolved matter that had nothing to do with him. He said that it should be left to the Scots.
166
However, as far as I can see, the Scots have no intention of introducing legislation on that matter in the next 12 months.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, were certainly well made. However, I wish to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Soulsby who said—he must be right here—that the costs of maintaining the State Veterinary Service at the level needed to deal with an emergency would be quite impractical. My noble friend suggested that perhaps retired vets could deal with an outbreak in the event of an emergency. However, perhaps my noble friend can explain why vets within the private sector who are still practising could not be brought in. I should have thought that their knowledge would be more up to date and more practical than that of retired vets.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are on Report. Questions could have been put while the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, was speaking, but we cannot enter into a debate. Anyway, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would never forgive me if I allowed the rules to be breached in his absence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, made some valid points about manning. Many private vets still work for the State Veterinary Service—a point that has been made before. We need to make sure that the leadership in the State Veterinary Service is up to scratch and that they are able to command in a situation that requires a strong, firm, clear commander. That was one of the problems with the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
I support without exception the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have been told a great deal about research. I am saddened that we are losing our best scientists—in the recent outbreak, Dr Paul Kitchiner, decided to go to Canada at a crucial moment—because the scientific community has been watered down so much.
I read an interesting paper the other day describing the politicisation of science. In order to obtain money, scientists have had to become political and to some extent bow to political masters in the type of research they do. They have also become commercialised, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. In order to make an income they have to charge for their services. That can blight to some extent the way in which they consider and accept other people's research. That problem also became clear with foot and mouth disease.
I suspect that one of the reasons Pirbright would not even consider the American testing equipment was because it has some of its own lined up and does not want to lose its commercial edge. An overall review of the progress of our science is needed. The amendments

167
will help to some extent, but we need to consider outside the Bill what we are doing with animal science and indeed human science.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am a scientist. I have worked on a few problems involving agricultural stations. I also ran the Met Office during a period under the previous regime when the government placed considerable emphasis on economising on government science.
I want to place the debate in context. Since 1997 there has been a substantial increase in the total research budget in the UK. The way the debate has been going suggests that there has been an accelerating reduction in science. That is not the case. In the past five years there has been a substantial increase in research in universities and in a number of major research centres. There has been a considerable concentration of research in major centres of excellence, such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred.
I understand the point that there has been a great reduction in small local centres, some of which were good and some not good, which was the point of the reduction. But many independent observers have pointed out that UK science—as should be the case in all countries—needs to maintain a balance between science in universities and in government institutes so that the science is delivered and the capability is there.
A more constructive approach would be to request that the Government look to see that there is a proper balance between university research and research carried out in a devolved way in a number of centres. I hope that the Minister will reflect in a more balanced way on the situation but also ask his colleagues in charge of balancing the scientific effort to see whether we are keeping a proper balance between the areas of the science budget. Some of the concerns expressed this evening are obviously well founded.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these amendments are unusual. They seek to designate to Ministers levels of staffing and the level of research in specific areas. It would be unusual to find any such stipulation in a Bill.
However, I turn to the merits of the matter. Those noble Lords who have said that over the past 20 or 25 years there has been a substantial reduction in the size of the State Veterinary Service are undoubtedly correct. But that argument needs to modified. For the past 10 years, the number of field vets has not varied greatly.
In an outbreak, we deal principally with field vets and those we can mobilise into the field. There is not a great deal of point in re-establishing the rather hefty management structure for the State Veterinary Service through the former MAFF regions and elsewhere. Some of the losses in the State Veterinary Service have been people who moved across to the VLA and were at the scientific end of the service so are not lost in gross terms.
168
The management of outbreaks is important. The contingency plan will have a unified structure of management of an outbreak. In the early stages of the last outbreak the vets had one management structure, the administration had another and the Army another. Bringing them together would not necessarily mean that a management structure dealing with an outbreak would be composed solely of members of the State Veterinary Service.
The way the amendments are expressed is also confusing for reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. In an outbreak the point is how many vets can be mobilised into the field, not how many are there to start with. We are looking to develop and finalise the contingency plan with the profession. We need to see how in the event of an outbreak we can mobilise the widespread veterinary resources in the private sector, some of whom work in the public sector on occasion, to deal with an emergency situation.
It is not possible to employ a level of SVS permanent staff adequate to deal with future large-scale outbreaks. They would not be adequate in any circumstances; one would always need to mobilise more people. Although it is right to draw attention to the importance of the levels of staffing, the way in which the amendment is expressed is not appropriate.
We are attempting to specify the nature of research. As my noble friend Lord Hunt indicated, if we are talking about government research in total, there has been an expansion in research over the past few years rather than a contraction, as many of the contributions have implied. Parts of the agricultural research budget have indeed reduced over that time. The Royal Society suggests that more is required.
The amendment is directed to "the Minister", which is anachronistic in that we now talk about the Secretary of State. But even if "the Minister" implies DEFRA, much of the state-funded research does not occur within DEFRA. Pirbright, for example, is a BBSRC institute, as are other institutes in this area.
We jointly fund other veterinary research, for example, with the Wellcome Foundation and there is also private sector research. The totality of research does not have a single budget. We accept that more research is needed in a number of areas, including those referred to in this debate. Whether it would be carried out by DEFRA institutions or by DEFRA contract is a second order issue.
Additionally, this is a European problem. There is no point reinventing the wheel in Britain, Germany or Switzerland—Switzerland is not in the EU but it is in the same area. There are centres of excellence in all those countries. We need to develop a European approach to maximise the amount of high-quality research into animal disease. Some such research is delivered outside this country and comes into this country. We have centres of excellence in this country whose research facilities we need to maximise. However, we should not do so in the proposed way. It will not be necessary for British researchers to do research into all the diseases listed in the schedule. It would be sensible to share that out under the European

169
framework rather than to follow the letter of the amendment. I recognise the concerns that lie behind the amendment but it does not propose a sensible way to deliver what the noble Lord envisages as the outcome.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall deal fairly rapidly with a number of points.
I stated that there are currently approximately 220 field vets out of a total of 286 in DEFRA. I am not necessarily harking back to the levels of the 1980s but it would be prudent to increase the State Veterinary Service to a level that could cope with more normal types of outbreak. I do not refer to the "mega" outbreak that we had in 2001, when we had to import, I believe, more than 1,000 vets from countries all over the world to assist. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about increases in budgets and research. That has indeed occurred. I do not wish to give the impression that we denigrate what the Government are doing in that regard.
On research, there was a great move to what was known as neo-market research in the 1980s in particular. It was orientated totally towards the market forces that were operating and fundamental research tended to go by the board. The balance has been disturbed.
The Minister's comments on private research were all very good. We acknowledge that such research has gone on but it is orientated very much towards the profit motive. That is understandable; after all, the companies are in the business for profit. However, it is important to have fundamental research on, for example, different strains of foot and mouth disease, and only state research can carry that out.
The Government must surely take on board the need for a balance between all those factors. I believe that the Minister acknowledged that something must be done in this area if we are not to be caught out again by a catastrophe such as that of 2001. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"TRANSFER OF POWERS FOR ANIMAL DISEASE PREVENTION TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
(1) The powers in the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) for animal disease prevention and control relating to Wales shall be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.
(2) State veterinary staff in Wales and their functions relating to animal disease prevention and control shall be accountable to the National Assembly for Wales.
(3) The National Assembly for Wales shall publish a strategy for animal disease prevention and control in Wales."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the situation involving the Welsh Assembly. I note that other amendments have been modified since
170
the previous Marshalled List; they state that action will be taken jointly between DEFRA—specifically the Secretary of State—and the National Assembly for Wales. That positive development addresses some of the problems experienced during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Wales in 2001. As already stated, there is no doubting the fact that the Minister responsible for agriculture in Wales at the time, Carwyn Jones, did a very good job liaising with DEFRA.
There were, however, a number of pinch points that, frankly, were not acceptable. I mention in passing—I should not really do so only in passing—that the proposal to bury and burn at the Mynydd Epynt site in my former constituency was ill-conceived, particularly because it had to be enforced by the West Midlands police force, among others, to ensure that it was carried out. That caused all sorts of mayhem and there were meetings in the middle of the night between ourselves, the Assembly and DEFRA staff to try to sort things out. Clearly, that can be done in a much more satisfactory manner. I acknowledge the Minister's answer to my question earlier this afternoon about what was happening in relation to the transfer of powers, particularly in relation to veterinary matters, to the National Assembly for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we agree that it is appropriate that animal health issues should be further devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, this amendment is unnecessary as many functions under the Animal Health Act 1981 have already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by way of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. There are ongoing discussions regarding further transfer of functions to the National Assembly for Wales. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions and to impose, by way of this Bill, functions on the National Assembly for Wales that may not even reflect the position that the Assembly itself wishes to reach.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is reassured by my response and that he agrees that, because this is an area that will be subject to change in the not-too-distant future, it would be inappropriate to press the amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I am an ardent devolutionist and would like to go much further, I am also well aware that politics is the art of the possible. I acknowledge that disease knows no borders and that a professional service that has a good reputation is already in place. We look forward to effective cooperation between Wales and DEFRA in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"RESEARCH
( ) The Minister shall fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in the inserted Schedule 2A in section 10 of this Act, experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992, as between species and within each one according to the circumstances of the affected animals.
( ) The Minister shall collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister gave a fairly full response to this amendment. He made it clear that this matter could be discussed outside the Bill, and I accept that. How one might deal with a situation if it arose in future is a matter of concern to all of us. I thank those who spoke in support of the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby speaks with great authority on research past, present and future, as he does on investigations. He made the important point that while we have to rely to some extent on the private sector, the Royal Society of Edinburgh advocated the use of what I call territorial reserves. That is an excellent idea. The noble Lord chaired a gathering a little while ago of about 40 of us, all of whom were involved in a former outbreak 30 or 40 years ago. It was amazing during that discussion how we managed to shed the years and remember very clearly what happened. So there are people who could be available to assist and who, I am sure, would be prepared to assist if needed.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter—I happen to agree entirely with what he said about looking at research as a whole and not from a particular year—is that the wording arises from Schedule 2A and Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, I think that the information that we had related to 1992 on. I see the noble Lord nodding his head, so obviously he approves and agrees with that point.
So I beg leave to withdraw this amendment—
Noble Lords: Not moved.
Lord Plumb: Or not move it, my Lords, in the knowledge—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, as the noble Lord has spoken at some length to the amendment, I must invite him to proceed in moving it in case anyone wishes to reply to what he has had to say. He can of course later withdraw it.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I am happy to beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, amendment proposed, to insert the new clause as printed in the Marshalled List.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 47A not moved.]
7 p.m.
Schedule [Scrapie]:
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"36BA Identification of phenotypic characteristics of genetically susceptible sheep
The Secretary of State must take into account the phenotypic characteristics of any sheep before he applies a restriction notice under section 36C."
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I spoke briefly about this amendment last Tuesday. I mentioned my concerns about all the scrapie section of this Bill. This amendment puts into the Bill the final recommendation of the European Commission's scientific steering committee in its scientific opinion on the policy of breeding and genotyping made at its meeting in July 1999. It states:
"Before embarking on large scale breeding of sheep towards maximal resistant genotypes, according to the different breeds involved, consideration should be given to phenotypic characteristics".
We have seen what has happened in the case of Holstein cattle in this country. The gene pool of these ubiquitous black and white dairy cows has steadily been diminished because a small number of genetically similar bulls have stood at AI over a period of years. The result is that the cows carry genes for heavy milk production—which is of course what they are designed for but unfortunately they also carry genes that shorten their lives, give poor fertility and confer certain mobility weaknesses. They might also have an increased susceptibility to BSE.
Cattle breeders are also finding that when crossed with beef bulls, these cows' calves do not have a suitable confirmation for good beef production—unlike their close and much sturdier relation, the British Friesian.
I do understand concerns about TSEs and about CJD in particular but perhaps we should look at environmental factors in light of the failure of 10 or more years of science to demonstrate the infective theories. I am fearful that by narrowing the sheep genetic pool before we know the long-term effects, we will be damaging irreversibly the genetic advantages that have been bred into the national flock over many centuries. We must not forget that the Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack as a sign that sheep were the building blocks of this nation's wealth over many years.
I would like to quote from Richard Lutwyche, spokesman for the Rare Breeds Survival Trust:
"It really is wrong for the Government to pursue such a definitive policy with a lack of science, especially as it could lead to the loss of our indigenous breeds".
I am not just talking about rare breeds here. We have many indigenous breeds that are not rare. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise briefly-to support the noble Countess. She has spelt out very clearly that

173
it is not just rare breeds that will be affected—it will be the wider flock. Rather than go into more detail, I simply add my support to the comments she made.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I also support the noble Countess. The amendment is not asking for a lot; it none the less highlights the need to consider the phenotype characteristics of sheep before a restriction notice is applied.
There are certain characteristics in many breeds throughout the United Kingdom which can be described as unique. A phenotype is there as a result, very often, of the environmental situation in which those sheep are found. It is particularly important that that is taken into account. We are very happy to support the noble Countess.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be sensible for me to draw attention to my Amendment No. 51, which is designed to allay some of the fears in this area. We have to recognise that the scrapie plan in principle and to a large extent in detail is being developed with the industry and is supported by the industry. That includes some consultation with the rare breed survival trusts. I realise that, in spite of that, there have been anxieties about the potential breeding out of particular rare breeds and other vulnerable breeds. My amendment is intended to cover really the circumstances described in this amendment, not specifically by reference to the way the amendment is phrased but to ensure that before taking decisions which might in any sense endanger the survival of a breed, all such factors have to be taken into account and survival safeguarded.
In practice. the general indication on the genotyping indicates that most breeds are susceptible to being improved within the breed because all breeds have some degree of TSE-resistant strain. The danger can be exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is something that we need to take care of and about which large numbers of people in this House have expressed anxieties during the course of this Bill.
I believe that my Amendment No. 51 deals with the situation and takes into account at least the principle of what the noble Countess is seeking here and indeed what the next amendment is seeking. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Countess will not pursue the amendment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Unfortunately, he does not quite understand what I am getting at. I described to him the problems that have arisen with the Holstein cattle, with breeding from a few bulls. What we are going to get with sheep is breeding from a few rams. It may well be that we will be breeding into sheep a susceptibility to foot rot, for example, or some other disease—maybe swayback in lambs or something like that. We do not know what the genetic propensity of these diseases is: we do know that foot rot has a genetic component to it.
174
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that rare breeds may be bred out, but I am not talking about breeding out. I am talking about the quality of the sheep that are left. I am not happy with the noble Lord's response and I would like to test the feelings of the House.
7.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Livsey of Talgarth. L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Arran, E.

McNally, L.

Attlee, E.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar, C. [Teller]

Barker, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Boardman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Moynihan, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northbrook, L.

Buscombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Palmer, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Elton, L.

Roper, L.

Emerton, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Flather, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sandberg, L.

Geddes, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Selborne, E.

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Tope, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Walmsley, B.

Laird, L.

Walpole, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

175

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wigoder, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Borne, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bragg, L.

Layard, L.

Brennan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie. B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Varley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harrison, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitty, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollick, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winston, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State in exercising his powers under this section shall pay due regard to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one that we moved in Committee, when we had a long and fascinating discussion about sheep, biodiversity and genotypes, and so on, in connection with scrapie. Then, I understood that the Minister said that during the summer he would consider what he might be able to bring back to us. He has not brought anything back in relation to this specific issue. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment again in order to ask him what he considered during the summer and why he has not returned to us on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the reason that I did not bring back the issue in the specific sense of this amendment is that, first, new Section 36C(2) already obliges Ministers to consider the "exceptional circumstances" and whether any restrictions applied are made in accordance with the convention. Secondly, I was returning with a rather wider requirement relating to the survival not only of rare breeds but of any vulnerable breed. That is covered by Amendment No. 51, to which I referred a short while ago.
At their most recent conference in 2000, the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed that it was important to recognise that there is potential to improve the management of various aspects of diversity through participatory breeding and selection strategies. Therefore, it is not as though the convention prevents or seriously constrains in that respect; only if circumstances might threaten biodiversity in a direct way or threaten the survival of particular species would this come into play. But, in any case, those would be the exceptional circumstances under the Bill as it stands, and that will be augmented if the House accepts my Amendment No. 51. Therefore, I did not consider it necessary to bring forward a specific amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that elucidation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 14, line 5, at end insert ", including whether or not the sheep are kept for commercial purposes"
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which could perhaps be known as the "pet sheep" amendment. I wonder whether the Minister remembers the Committee stage debate on the matter when I pointed out to him that not all sheep were kept for commercial breeding purposes. I reminded him that some people kept pet lambs that grew up in the garden, never went anywhere, and were not going to be eaten when they died. Has the Minister reconsidered whether such sheep that are not kept for "commercial purposes" can be saved? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision outlined in the amendment could be taken into account if there

177
were exceptional circumstances where the pets were unlikely to hamper the general breeding process; in other words, they were unlikely or certain not to engage in the breeding process. In that case, there would be no reason for any culling, or otherwise, of the sheep. However, if they were potentially engaged in breeding purposes, if I may express it that way, sheep subject to breeding restrictions but kept as pets could be sterilised or castrated and still kept as pets in line with the general approach to the breeding out of TSE susceptible strains.
I can say that such considerations would be taken into account. There would be some circumstances in which Ministers would not pursue the elimination of pets, or adopt other measures, to restrict breeding. However, as a general requirement, I do not believe it is sensible to insert such a provision into the Bill.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I just wanted to hear him say those words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 14, line 31, at end insert—
"(10) For the purposes of subsection (2) exceptional circumstances include circumstances in which the imposition in relation to the sheep of the restrictions and requirements of subsections (7) to (9) is likely to cause the extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have trailed this amendment during the past 20 minutes. It relates to the concerns that were expressed in this Chamber right from the early stages of the Bill. We considered most carefully how we could address those concerns to safeguard the future of rare and other vulnerable breeds.
The amendment would specifically require the Secretary oaf f State to consider whether imposing breeding restrictions on a genetically susceptible sheep would be likely to affect the survival of its breed. This would be done as part of the consideration of the "exceptional circumstances" for not imposing a restriction on the sheep. If, when we activate the provisions of the Bill, we find that there are breeds whose survival would be likely to be affected by breeding restrictions—that could apply to rare breeds, or other breeds; for example, breeds with low numbers of animals of acceptable genotypes—we would exempt sheep of that breed from those breeding restrictions. The amendment would cover the rare breeds, but also other vulnerable breeds. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, Amendment No. 51ZA:
Line 5, leave out from "cause" to end of line 6 and insert "the number of breeding ewes and active rams to fall below that required to continue the breed"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining his amendment. We do not disagree with his amendment, because we are obviously grateful for the fact that he has come
178
forward with this proposal. However, as we said earlier, we need to seek greater clarification. Amendment No. 5IZA seeks to achieve that aim.
Our amendment is designed to ensure that there is some sort of limit put on the level of slaughter. There are many fascinating wildlife programmes on Radio 4, some of which are concerned with breeding programmes to reinstate a particular population, some with the elimination of certain creatures to allow the survival of others, and some with simply taking steps to allow a species to expand to healthier numbers. For example, I was surprised to learn that 30 breeding pairs of a bird of prey are insufficient to ensure their survival from one year to the next, let alone over a period of time.
Survival rates depend on the breed, its natural predators, its location, and a number of other factors that vary from place to place and from time to time. Accordingly, we have not set finite limits but have tried to find words to indicate quite clearly that there will he such numbers and that they should be observed.
As yet, scrapie and genomes is far from being an exact science; nor is it exclusive. It is quite possible that a breed that is highly vulnerable to scrapie may also comprise factors that make it very valuable from other points of view—a matter that we discussed earlier. I believe I said that it would be "stupid" to remove it from the face of the earth for a single failing, particularly one that may be totally harmless to man or to other creatures.
I have been contacted by people within the rare breeds sector. Perhaps I may mention some of the information that I have received. To be listed as a "rare breed", there must be no more than 5,000 in number. In the more unusual rare breeds, the total numbers are often very small indeed—perhaps just one tiny flock. So even a 10 per cent allocation would not be sustainable. How will the Minister define provision to ensure that there are adequate numbers to enable a species of rare breed to sustain itself and continue to live? At present, unless I have misread the Minister's amendment, there seems to be a general ethos behind it but nothing specific in the wording.
Amendment No. 51ZA is a probing amendment designed to find out whether 5 per cent or 10 per cent would be an acceptable level. How do the Government envisage deciding when that degree of sustainability has been reached? The Minister may respond by saying that that need not be specified, but people who have rare breeds are most concerned about the position. Therefore, some guidance in that respect would be immensely helpful.
Amendments No. 51B and 59 have also been included in this grouping. New Section 36D(7 I to the 1981 Act says:
"The Secretary of State may"—
I repeat the word "may"—make regulations. It then goes on in subsection (8) to provide that those regulations "may"—again, I emphasise the word "may"—cover,
"the procedure to be followed on an appeal".
We believe that the procedure to be followed on appeal must be laid down. Therefore, it follows that the provision should state that the Secretary of State "shall", rather than "may", make appropriate regulations.
Similarly, when it comes to compensation, we believe that this cannot be left to chance. The right to compensation, the method of claiming compensation, and the assessment of entitlement to compensation and its payment, should all be open, simple to understand, and easy to implement. This calls for regulations.
There can be no doubt that when we refer to scrapie we do not indicate a disease which has any indications to harm humans. We refer to a disease that certain humans feel just may possibly, if they can find the right ways of teasing it into behaving atypically, be persuaded to mimic BSE. But at the moment the science, as we have agreed before, is very much in doubt. In such circumstances, the Government have surely no option but to compensate farmers and breeders for losses suffered and costs incurred as a result of a legislated national scrapie plan.
Amendment No. 60 relates to a draft order that has to be laid before Parliament and be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, in welcoming government Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51ZA and 51A. Amendment No. 51A stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth.
We particularly welcome the government amendment because it is a direct response to the concerns expressed and the discussion that took place in Committee. In Committee, we had a long and, I think, quite satisfactory debate on the subject. We covered the question not just of rare breeds but of the biodiversity within the sheep flock as a whole, within as well as between breeds. It is gratifying that the Government have responded in this way.
I understand that the National Sheep Association welcomes the amendment and the commitments made by the Minister in Committee. I have had correspondence from the Rare Breeds Survival Trust which welcomes those commitments. I am sure that this amendment strengthens them.
Amendment No. 51A is similar to Amendment No. 51ZA, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It probes what the Government mean by the phrase,
"is likely to cause the extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member".
In many ways, the word "extinction" is the crucial word.
An example that has been given several times during our debates on the Bill, because it is a very special breed, is the Herdwick. It is not a rare breed but a distinctive traditional breed. It plays an important part
180
in the economy and the ecology of the Lake District. It would be possible to have a situation in which the Herdwicks were removed from the Fells but the breed was not extinct—it might be kept going in some kind of zoo. I understand that there is a flock of Herdwicks on the sand dunes at Southport. Under those circumstances, the breed would not be extinct, but it would be an extremely unsatisfactory situation. We seek further commitments from the Minister as to what,
"extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member",
actually means.
There is biological extinction in an absolute form. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, probes what the Government mean by that. How small would numbers have to be before the Government thought that the breed was at risk of biological extinction? There are commercial flocks such as the Herdwicks which, nevertheless—there are many other examples in other parts of the country and indeed in the Lake District—play an important role in the ecology of the area and in the biodiversity of the national sheep flock. So there is what might be called "biological" extinction.
There is what might be called "ecological" extinction—removing the Herdwicks from the high fells in the Lake District. It would prove difficult to find other sheep to replace them on the highest of those mountains. If one sits on the top of Pillar in the middle of summer or indeed on New Year's Day among the snow and a sheep wanders up, there is a high chance that it will be a Herdwick. They are the only animals which thrive and survive on the highest peak fells.
So ecological extinction—reduction of the size of the breed to a level which meant that it could not continue to fulfil its role in that ecological niche that it has—would be a disaster. It would certainly be a disaster for the landscape of the Lake District and many people would consider it to be a disaster in its own right.
There is also what might be called commercial extinction. One can keep animals going in zoos, but they would no longer fulfil the role that they have in the commercial system of sheep farming in this country. The Minister will know that there is a great deal of concern about the future of flocks of sheep on the hills and fells and on the moors of this country; whether they have a future and what that future might be. There is concern about possible reform of the common agricultural policy, and so on. There is a feeling that not everyone understands the important role that those sheep flocks play within the sheep industry and within the breeding and movement patterns of the sheep industry.
So the issue is more than just simple biological extinction and putting a few sheep in a zoo; it is more than reducing some of the main distinctive pedigree breeds to the status of rare breeds. This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain how, if the

181
scrapie part of the Bill comes into effect, these matters will be dealt with. I very much look forward to his reply.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for Amendment No. 51. But I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her Amendment No. 51 ZA.
We are concerned here about genetic vitality—hybrid vitality in the case where rams are used to breed into another breed of sheep. As to genetic vitality, if one has only a few rams with a similar gene pool, one will breed in weaknesses. We know that to be the case with human beings. One can see what happened to the aristocracy. That is why the Government are so keen to get rid of us: we are all thickies because we are so inbred. But that is besides the point. We need to avoid this. So we need to have a large enough flock in order to maintain the vitality of the sheep. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on the question of breeding, I have been dying to point out that there is an old saying in farming that 90 per cent of the breeding goes in at the mouth; that nurture is much more important than nature. In other words, the environment is much more important than breeding. But that is by the way.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, moved her amendment and spoke to the group, she did not mention Amendments Nos. 51C and 51D, but mentioned Amendment No. 60. Those amendments concern replacing the negative procedure with the affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may repeat a point that I made in Committee. We have tried extremely hard to emphasise the importance of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. As Chief Whip, I used to brief very heavily to all departments that they had to produce an extremely good memorandum to that committee and that they needed a very good reason not to accept its views on the appropriate nature of the regulations, be they affirmative or negative.
The committee has looked at the schedule. The committee states:
"We agree that negative procedure would be appropriate".
If we are to ask departments to take account of the committee's view, we as a House should also do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have not taken an active part in debate on the Bill, but I have listened carefully to the debate on this group of amendments. Amendment No. 51A, in particular, moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches, would provide a valuable and desirable reinforcement of the Government's commendable amendment, Amendment No. 51.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the question of what "extinction" means and whether there is a better phrase for it, raised by the noble Lord, Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. First, the whole
182
scrapie plan will be conducted in conjunction with the industry, including the pedigree societies, the rare breeds trusts and so on. We shall therefore be careful at every stage about the effect of what we do on the long-term viability of particular breeds, as well as on the flock as a whole, in minimising and, eventually, eliminating TSE susceptibility.
Clearly, other issues are at stake than bald extinction, but I am not sure that the wording of either Amendment No. 51ZA or Amendment No. 51 A is any better than referring to "extinction". The wording in Amendment No. 51ZA—
"the number of breeding ewes and active rams to fall below that required to continue the breed"—
clearly covers a central aspect of potential for extinction, but it is not the only one. Other factors, such as where the animals are, for what they are being used, and so on, need to be brought to bear in assessing the probability of extinction. The amendment limits rather than extends the provision.
Amendment No. 51A is slightly better in that respect, in that it refers to "sustainability", although again it is not entirely clear what that means. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says that he does not want breeds to exist only in zoos. I concur with that, as would the breed societies, although it would be better for them to survive in zoos than not at all. However, that should not be the outcome of the programme. On future sustainability such as the noble Lord described in the case of the Herdwicks, there is no way that the scrapie programme can of itself define where sheep will be deployed in the longer term as various commercial and geographical changes take place.
The aim is not to preserve the flock as it is; it is to preserve a sustainable minimum of the flock to avoid the chance of its extinction. I would expect the ministry—and certainly the societies—to take a precautionary view on what is the danger point and when we approach it. I therefore accept some of the points that have been made, but the amendments do not make the issue clearer. The real guarantee is that the Government will not act except in conjunction with the relevant societies.
On Amendments No. 51B and 59, the purpose of this part of the Bill is to facilitate the making of further regulations—some of which may well relate to an appeal procedure—but there is no requirement on us to make such regulations. The word "shall", inserted by the amendments, would require detailed provision along the lines of the subsequent clause, which would be unnecessary if the powers, and therefore the safeguards, are not needed. So the word "may" is better than "shall" in that context.
On Amendments Nos. 51C, 51D and 60, which relate to substituting affirmative for negative powers, my noble friend Lord Carter made the point that we must agree with the opinion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. So, although I

183
have sympathy with what was said in the debate, especially about the first set of amendments, I hope that the amendments will not be pursued.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and his promise to try to work as well as he can to preserve those breeds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 51ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51A to 51D, as amendments to Amendment No. 51, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 51 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 17, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert—
"(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—

(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;

(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section 36G(1);

(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.

(4) The third condition is that—

(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or

(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

[Amendments Nos. 53A to 53C, as amendments to Amendment No. 53, not moved.]
Lord Plumbmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, Amendment No. 53D:
Line 12, after "absent" insert ", and has been uncontactable for 14 days"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships for too long. This amendment also concerns scrapie. The best thing that I have heard from the Minister is what he said a few moments ago about scrapie—although it will apply to other matters as well—when he said that full consultation with sheep breeders, and so on, with particular reference to rare breeds, is important to him. That is indeed music to our ears. The scrapie programme is different from that for other diseases—certainly that for foot and mouth disease. It concerns an illness that has been present for hundreds of years, often without apparent ill effect. It builds on research that has so far been unable to prove a link with BSE. We are aware that many flockmasters are responding well to the scrapie eradication scheme. It may have its faults, but I hope that it has a great future.
The amendment is intended to ensure that the normal courtesies are extended unless there is an urgent situation in future. It is not necessary that the
184
scrapie programme be carried out at the same level of pressure as the control of an infectious disease epidemic. It is unnecessary to demand instant access to farms, flocks and records. That is why the amendment would insert the words:
"and has been uncontactable for 14 days".
I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the amendment. I said earlier that it would have been better to have had a separate scrapie Bill, but lack of legislative time has clearly prevented that and the scrapie provisions are contained in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, scrapie, not being an infectious disease, provides the opportunity to take a little more time to deal with the situation. It is perfectly reasonable to insert the condition that,
"the premises are unoccupied"
or that,
"the occupier has been uncontactable for 14 days",
because the urgency is nothing like that in the case of foot and mouth disease, where immediate action must be taken.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the situation is not the same as it would be with disease control in normal circumstances and that, therefore, the number of occasions on which the powers—all the powers of entry—would be needed in the context of the breeding programme would be limited indeed. However, one could envisage a situation in which action might be needed rapidly. Without wishing to provoke the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I must say that it is just possible that a case of BSE or some other disease that is not infectious or listed at Schedule 2A but which requires rapid action might emerge in sheep. That is the extreme example.
The more practical example might occur if we were engaged in a programme in a particular area in which the owner of one flock or occupier of one farm was not contactable for up to 14 days and we had to move on to another area. We could regard that as an administrative inconvenience but, on the other hand, it would mean a substantial change in the priorities of the programme. Fourteen days is a bit long to allow an occupier or owner to disappear off the face of the Earth. Indeed, if sheep have been left alone for 14 days, without anybody claiming to be in charge of them, some other questions would be asked.
Had the noble Lord suggested 48 hours, I would have been in more difficulty, but 14 days is a little long.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, are not sheep farmers entitled to go on holidays? They might be in Madeira or the Bahamas—not on the current income from sheep, perhaps. They might be away for 14 days, and somebody else might be caring for their sheep. Is it not reasonable to allow 14 days?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in that case, somebody is designated as being in charge of the animals—a neighbour, a relative or whoever. Somebody could

185
speak for the occupier in those circumstances. It is unlikely that nobody would be able to speak for a flock of sheep for 14 days, so we must ensure that we have the power to act within that period.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but I am a bit disappointed by his response. Obviously, people may be away. The Minister made the point earlier that the carer for the animals must notify that he is the person responsible. If he goes away, he must nominate someone who is responsible. However, it is a matter of concern, and we may raise it again at Third Reading. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 53D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53E, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 17, line 12, at end insert-—
"(6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the person authorised by the warrant to enter the premises thinks that the case is one of urgency.
(7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—

(a) a copy of the warrant;

(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the person authorised by the warrant to enter the premises and any other person entering the premises with him."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, like Amendment No. 53, this amendment reflects earlier discussions on the warrant procedure for other parts of the Bill. It makes the way in which we deal with warrant procedures more transparent, more reasonable and more proportionate. It is virtually the same as exists in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, Amendment No. 55A:
Line 4, leave out "thinks" and insert "has reasonable grounds to believe"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is fitting that Amendment No. 55A should be the last amendment to be moved during this long Report stage. Amendment No. 55 says "thinks", and we would like it to say,
"has reasonable grounds to believe".
I shall say no more about that; we have discussed the word "thinks" long enough during the passage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 55 and Amendment No. 53, which has been approved, are welcome as amendments that tidy up and clarify the area of entry and use of warrants in relation to scrapie. We have had long discussions about that on Report and in Committee, mainly with reference to foot and mouth and similar
186
diseases rather than scrapie. I suspect that we will want to come back to those issues on Third Reading. We may want to come back on scrapie, as well as on the earlier parts of the Bill.
This evening, we give a limited welcome to the Minister's amendment. It clarifies things and provides for a slightly less draconian regime in some important respects. It would be churlish not to welcome it. Having said that, I can say only one word: "thinks". I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar:My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. More importantly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for coming so far in our direction and softening the brutality initially apparent in these parts of the Bill. I am sure that many people will be grateful to him.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess and the noble Lord for their words. We have moved some way towards a better understanding of the intention of the Bill. I hope that some concerns have been allayed, although I accept that not all have.
I have only one argument about retaining the word "thinks", and that is that it appears in other warrant procedures. Noble Lords may not think—they may have reasonable doubts—that that is an adequate argument, but it is at least consistent. Therefore, I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I am glad that he continues to think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 55A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 55 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 17, line 33, leave out "seize and detain" and insert "copy"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words "seize and detain" are unfortunate words to put in a Bill. I hope that they will be reconsidered.
It is a matter of concern. It is inappropriate for anyone to seize and detain a farmer's records. If they are on paper, they can be photocopied; if they are on computer, they can be copied to a floppy disk or printed out. These days, farmers use computers, even though they cannot afford to go on holiday, as we said earlier. Nevertheless, the equipment is there because it is necessary to help them fill in the many forms that they must fill in about movement or keeping stock at all. I hope that, by making this small amendment, the Minister will take out those horrible words and insert "copy" instead. I beg to move.
8 P.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, this is a helpful amendment. Many farmers have problems dealing not only with their normal accounts but with the added

187
discipline of the VAT element. Farmers greatly depend on their cash flow to ensure that their quarterly VAT refunds are paid regularly. With the present state of farming, farmers have problems by being forced endlessly to lend money to government in the event of their records being seized and detained. Many farmers would find it difficult to submit proper VAT statements and returns if their records had been seized and detained. "Detained" means that they would not have access to them.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard. I can foresee farmers being put to serious disadvantage if they cannot gain access to their records because they have been seized by an authorised person, whoever he might be. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment—and I hope that he can—I hope that between now and next week he will give careful thought to the position in which farmers may find themselves with regard to this provision in the Bill.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Perhaps the Minister remembers that MAFF requested detailed records of animal transactions from Longtown market. Not only did it lose them once, but three times. DEFRA officials may take away the records of an ordinary farmer but he will not have kept them in duplicate or triplicate, as did Longtown market and he will be sunk without them. This is a reasonable amendment and I see no reason why the details should not be copied instead of taken away.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. I can understand how "seize and detain" came about because the movement records and ear numbers of the stock are most important in tracking the movement of animals. None the less, I believe that there ought to be a formal way of doing that by copying the records. Many farmers have account packages on their computers and copies are easily obtainable. If there needs to be a verification
188
process that they are genuine, a stamp from DEFRA on the document proving that it is an accurate replication of the original record should be sufficient.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in some ways I wish I could accept the amendment because, in this context as in others, we are bedevilled by the fact that the courts require original documentation. In one sense, the reason is obvious but it is of considerable inconvenience to many people across the board.
The only occasion when the powers would be exerted—it would be rare under this part of the Bill but less rare under the disease control part—would be with a view to court proceedings. If they required the enforcers to produce original documents, the Bill must provide for their potential removal. That is the case in a number of court procedures. Were the legal profession and the courts generally to accept copies, we would not be in this difficulty. However, we are in this difficulty and will be for the foreseeable future, so I cannot accept the amendment despite the reasonableness of the way in which it was moved.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. My conscience will allow me to sleep a little easier tonight because he said that in some ways he would have liked to accept one of my amendments. That was most encouraging, but it is not quite good enough. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall bring it back again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
"(7) If an authorised person enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 36H he must at the time of entry—

(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises)

(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.

  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Lord Chancellor's Strategic Investment Board Annual Report
  Lord Chancellor's Strategic Investment Board Annual Report
  Road Fuel Gases: Duty
  Road Fuel Gases: Duty
  Cross-Channel Smuggling
  Cross-Channel Smuggling
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Section 11
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Section 11
  Home Office: Race Related Activities and External Consultants
  Home Office: Race Related Activities and External Consultants
  Racial Equality in Scotland Code of Practice
  Racial Equality in Scotland Code of Practice
  Private Hospital Beds
  Private Hospital Beds
  Countryside Representatives: Meetings with Prime Minister
  Countryside Representatives: Meetings with Prime Minister
  Lisburn to Antrim NIR Line
  Lisburn to Antrim NIR Line
  Newspaper Industry: Environmental Impact
  Newspaper Industry: Environmental Impact
  BSE
  BSE
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  English for Speakers of Other Languages
  English for Speakers of Other Languages
  HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise
  HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise
  Children Learning English as an Additional Language
  Children Learning English as an Additional Language
  Marina Waters: Flotsam and Jetsam
  Marina Waters: Flotsam and Jetsam
  London Underground Public Private Partnership
  London Underground Public Private Partnership
  Marco Polo Programme
  Marco Polo Programme
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Heathrow and Manchester Airports
  Heathrow and Manchester Airports