Sitting of 3 December 2003

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

  SESSIONAL RETURNS
  Ordered,
  That Returns be laid before the House for Session 2002–03 of information and statistics relating to—

  (1) Business of the House;

  (2) Closure of Debate; Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);

  (3) Sittings of the House;

  (4) Private Bills and Private Business;

  (5) Public Bills;

  (6) Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Orders;

  (7) European Legislation, etc;

  (8) Grand Committees;

  (9) Chairmen's Panel; and

  (10) Select Committees.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Belfast Agreement
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the current state of progress on the Belfast agreement. [141214]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): We believe that the agreement remains the only political framework that is capable of securing the support of both communities in Northern Ireland, and we are committed to its implementation. We are inviting the Northern Ireland parties to participate in the forthcoming review, which will consider how it might operate more effectively.
    Mr. Robathan: It is now five and a half years since the Belfast agreement, in which all parties confirmed that they would
    "achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years"
    of referendums, which were held in May 1998. Is it any wonder that the majority Unionist community is entirely disillusioned with the Belfast agreement? When
    488
    will the Government uphold their own agreement and compel Sinn Fein, inextricably linked to the IRA, to give up its terrorist arsenal?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that decommissioning is an important part of the Good Friday agreement. Of course it is. Attempts were made before the elections, back in October, for further decommissioning. The issue has not gone away and of course we have to address it, but I still believe that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I said that the review will consider how the agreement has operated in the past four years. However, any accommodation for governing Northern Ireland has to take into account the fundamental principles of that agreement: the sharing of power between nationalists and Unionists, based on the principles of consent and of a non-violent democratic Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State knows that the Democratic Unionist party has been in political discussions with the Irish Government for some time. What information have the Irish Government given to the Secretary of State that indicates clearly that, in effect, the DUP wants to work the agreement rather than smash it? Will the Secretary of State say, on the basis of that information and his meetings with the DUP, when we might expect these poachers to become gamekeepers?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend knows that we face challenging and interesting times. That does not mean, however, that all the parties that were elected to the Assembly in last week's elections will not be talking. My meetings over the past couple of days indicate that all parties will be in a position to talk to me about the issues that affect the Good Friday agreement. So far as the Irish Government are concerned, the Taoiseach made it absolutely clear that he is prepared to engage in discussions and negotiations on various issues in the review. I understand, too, from the Democratic Unionist party that, where appropriate, it would not be averse to talking to the Irish Government.
    Mr. David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that recent events have not changed the underlying problem? Indeed, if anything, they have brought that problem into sharper focus. As other hon. Members suggested, the problem is the failure of republicans to deliver the end of paramilitarism and the full decommissioning that the agreement presented. Should not the Secretary of State focus on that rather than re-arrange the details through a review that looks only at the mechanics of the institutions and their operation? Should he not keep the focus on the failure of republicans to deliver peace, wholly and completely? What we need is not just a further act of decommissioning, but the completion of that process and to address properly the winding up of paramilitary organisations.
    Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We cannot avoid the issues that he describes. Of course it is important to deal with issues such as decommissioning, the end of paramilitary activity and the need to move towards a wholly peaceful and democratic society in

    489
    Northern Ireland. Those discussions and negotiations, in which he was involved in October, must resume. At the same time, he knows that under paragraph 8 of the Good Friday agreement we are obliged to hold a conference on reviewing it, but in no way does that diminish the fact that his points are valid.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: However the DUP feels about the Belfast agreement, are not its Members obliged to go along with it, if only because of acts undertaken by the Provisional IRA to end its role in beatings, exiling people, holding arms and racketeering? If that is out of the road, the DUP and Sinn Fein can unite democratically in the Executive.
    Mr. Murphy: More than 70 per cent. of those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly last week support parties that are in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that the fundamentals of that agreement in terms of the accommodation that we need to arrive at are common to many in Northern Ireland, perhaps even those who never voted for the agreement in the first place. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot avoid the issues that he describes—of course we cannot. However, the immediate matter facing us is that we must try to restore the institutions of the Assembly and the Executive, but the issues that prevented the restoration of the Executive are still with us and need to be resolved.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State accept that the process requires the support of Unionists as well as nationalists, and that in last week's elections a clear majority of Unionists voted for change and for an end to the current process, which has failed, stalled and needs to be replaced? Will he not accept the fact of the election: that the DUP won more votes than any other party and more seats than any other party? However much he, his colleagues and other hon. Members may not like that or may choose to ignore it, will he now give an undertaking that the Government will stop isolating, marginalising and excluding the real representatives of Unionism and instead work with us to find a better way forward for Northern Ireland—a stable way forward, an accountable and democratic way forward, one that does not elevate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries are supposed to be brief.
    Mr. Murphy: Of course we recognise that there has been a change in the electoral geography of Northern Ireland. Of course we accept that parties, including the hon. Gentleman's, have now been elected with mandates. However, he will know that with those mandates comes responsibility. The responsibility lies on us all—on his party, on all the parties in Northern Ireland and on the two Governments—to try to ensure that we can restore our institutions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, although times are challenging and difficult, Northern Ireland is a much better place than it was 10 years ago because of what has happened under the Good Friday agreement and others.
    Lembit Öpik: As the longest-serving Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, on behalf of the whole House, I welcome the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to his new role.
    The non-sectarian Alliance party, which held all six of its seats, has repeatedly called for the review of the agreement to commence. Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will begin that review before Christmas? That dialogue with all parties, including the Alliance and the DUP, is much better than back-door unilateral deals which, after all, are in part responsible for the current impasse?
    Mr. Murphy: Yesterday, together with the Irish Foreign Minister, I wrote to all the parties in Northern Ireland asking them to tell me and my colleague in Dublin what issues they felt needed to be addressed in the review and what the process and procedure of that review should be. I expect replies by the end of December, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the review will start when we come back after the Christmas break.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder if there is a system over there in Northern Ireland in which after an election, there is a swearing-in process, and when people have sworn in, they get paid. May I take it that the new Assembly Members will get paid, even though they are going to sit on their hands?
    Mr. Murphy: I am not sure what they are going to sit on—[Laughter.] What is certain is that Members of the Legislative Assembly will be paid 70 per cent. of their salaries, as they were when the Assembly was suspended a year ago. There are two reasons for that. First, when Members are elected to a Parliament, such as our own or the Northern Ireland Assembly, they expect the Parliament to meet; however, for various reasons, the Assembly cannot do so and, for all the reasons that I have just described, we cannot restore it. Secondly, my hon. Friend can rest assured that that is not a permanent solution and that we shall carefully review it regularly.
    Mr. David Lidington: I start by wishing the Secretary of State well in his forthcoming talks with the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties. Although the Opposition have never treated bipartisanship as though it were a blank cheque, we shall, as far as we can, continue to support the Government in the search for a political settlement that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that the failure by both republican and so-called loyalist paramilitaries to complete decommissioning more than five years after the Belfast agreement is in flat contradiction of the commitment written into that agreement to exclusively democratic and peaceful means? Will he give an assurance today that, during the talks and the forthcoming review, the Government will give an overriding priority to securing not only the greater transparency that we all want to see, but a clear timetable for the completion of the decommissioning process?
    Mr. Murphy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he has a great interest in these matters and I wish him well in his new job.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that decommissioning and the other issues to which he referred are an important part of the Good Friday agreement. These issues were dealt with in the joint declaration. They were dealt with by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Mr. Gerry Adams in a succession of different meetings before the election. Those issues have not gone away. It is important to prioritise the issues that the hon. Gentleman has identified. Clearly, the restoration of the institutions depends not solely on these particular matters, though they are extremely important, but also in trying to get an accommodation between parties in Northern Ireland that have been given mandates in the election.
    Mr. Lidington: The Secretary of State referred to this year's joint declaration. Does he recall that in the joint declaration the Government's proposed two-year programme of security normalisation was declared to be conditional upon
    "acts of completion and with positive community support for the police at all levels."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those conditions still apply and that the Government will not withdraw troops or make the other proposed changes to security policy unless those conditions are met?
    Mr. Murphy: We have not reached the point at which we can give any dates or timetables on those condition elements. The hon. Gentleman is right in pointing to the parts of the joint declaration that identify them. Our concentration at the moment must be on the restoration of the institutions, and that is why we will be talking with all the political parties in the days and weeks ahead.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What plans he has to bring forward legislation in the period following elections to the Assembly to deal with antisocial behaviour in Northern Ireland. [141215]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): I am considering measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, and in particular whether something similar to an antisocial behaviour order could be developed that could operate within the different local government structures that exist in Northern Ireland.
    I plan to consult soon on a package of measures, including legislative changes, to tackle antisocial behaviour.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's positive response. Will he give us a guarantee that the package will not be unduly delayed? We must bear in mind that housing associations continue to allocate housing to people who have been moving from one place to another. They are jumping the queue because of their antisocial behaviour, to the consternation and destruction of good communities.
    Mr. Spellar: I take the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He and the impressive delegation from his constituency made those points in detail when they came to see me. I stress, first, that I intend to consult fairly soon. Secondly, the issue is about not only legislative changes, but the administration of the system and making sure that the Housing Executive, housing associations and other Government agencies take these matters seriously at all levels and implement actions in real time to the benefit of well-behaved orderly citizens and their families, who should not have their lives, their family life and their neighbourhoods disrupted by antisocial elements.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that if the acts of normalisation in the joint declaration—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred—are to take place, not only antisocial behaviour, but punishment beating, racketeering and other criminal acts must cease? Will he urge all the democratic parties that took part in last week's elections to support the police to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Spellar: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new Front-Bench appointment? We have made our opposition to all forms of paramilitary behaviour very clear. The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that that is an additional factor in the problems on some housing estates. However, none of that detracts from the responsibility of state agencies to ensure that people who are committing acts of antisocial behaviour and have persistent patterns of offending are dealt with rapidly and effectively for the benefit of orderly families and estates.

    Irish Hare
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What measures he is taking to halt the decline in numbers of the Irish hare. [141216]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is currently considering a number of steps. We have a species action plan to double the number of Irish hares by 2010 and we are reviewing whether the Irish hare should be given protection at all times under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Meanwhile, I am looking at a proposed temporary ban on the killing or taking of Irish hares, and we are encouraging the provision of Irish hare sanctuaries by landowners.
    Mr. Pickthall: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on advancing and strengthening the decision made by Assembly Members in 2001 to restrict the hunting of hares. I welcome the temporary ban, which will mean no hunting or coursing of Irish hares in Northern Ireland, but if and when the scientific evidence again shows that hare numbers are under severe pressure, will she find the means to ensure that the ban is made permanent and the hare is removed from the list of quarry species?
    Angela Smith: My hon. Friend's interest in the issue and his concern about protecting the hare are well-founded. I can assure him that when we look at the

    493
    Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order all scientific evidence will be taken into account. After consultation it will be the appropriate measure to use to end the killing of all hares.
    David Burnside: The Minister will be aware that I used to be retained as a consultant to the Countryside Alliance, as she was retained by the League Against Cruel Sports. From our different points of view, we both admire that noble animal, the Irish hare. Why is she using her personal prejudice, as hare coursing is muzzled in Northern Ireland? No animals are killed and a professor and a doctor of biochemistry from Queen's university, Belfast say that
    "hare coursing clubs benefit the Irish hare population".
    The Minister is showing personal bias against country people—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is getting far too noisy again, and it is important that I hear the Minister's answer.
    Angela Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman declared his personal interest. My interest concerns the welfare and numbers of the Irish hare. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman misquoted Professor Montgomery, who did not say what was cited. In fact, it was Professor Montgomery who first asked the Department to consider removing the Irish hare from the list of quarry species. However, all those matters will be considered in the light of scientific evidence. There is no way in which I could allow the netting of hares for hunting and coursing following the Assembly's decision to protect the Irish hare.

    Broadband
    Judy Mallaber: What plans he has to encourage the take-up of broadband services in Northern Ireland. [141217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): Invest Northern Ireland is currently undertaking a major programme to encourage the take-up of broadband services by small and medium-sized businesses, including the provision of both practical advice and financial support to businesses.
    Judy Mallaber: Getting businesses to take up broadband is extremely important, but at the moment, while 22 per cent. of businesses in the UK have taken it up, the figure is only 12 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how he intends to raise that figure to the welcome target of 20 per cent. by 2005?
    Mr. Pearson: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in telecommunications issues, and is right that at the moment we lag behind the rest of the UK in broadband take-up. We have a clear strategy on take-up, and there is a financial package that provides up to £5,000 of installation and first-year running costs to businesses.
    494
    We have a major programme of awareness events to promote broadband, and we currently have a tender to ensure that we improve access to broadband. At the moment, only 65 per cent. of companies have access to broadband, which is a significant problem, but we are sorting it out.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Minister in a position as yet to indicate who will be the successful tenderer to provide broadband internet services across Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the talent and ability of locally based companies in Northern Ireland should be harnessed by the successful bidder so that broadband is rolled out, and so that all our councillors, for example, can be contacted by e-mail and so on at their local councils?
    Mr. Pearson: I obviously cannot disclose the results of the tender exercise, which is still in its final stages. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly, when the evaluations have taken place. Obviously, we are bound by EU procurement rules, but I am keen to encourage and support Northern Ireland indigenous businesses. A number of them already provide broadband services across the region, and as a Government, we are certainly committed to providing support to them as they go forward.

    Devolution
    Helen Jackson: What assessment he has made of the prospects for reinstatement of devolved government in Northern Ireland following the elections to the Assembly. [141218]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As the Assembly election showed, the main parties and the great majority of the people who voted for them want to see devolved government. The future of devolution now depends on engagement among the parties. We shall provide all the help we can to secure a basis on which the Assembly can be restored and a functioning Executive quickly established on a stable and inclusive basis.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I congratulate all those who have been newly elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he assure me that, as he works with the parties and the Taoiseach in Dublin on how to restore the devolved institutions, he will draw into those negotiations and discussions all those who have been newly elected and are indeed drawing 70 per cent. of their salary, so that they have a job to do?
    Mr. Murphy: I can give my hon. Friend precisely that assurance. She will know that the way in which the Good Friday agreement was created, and the reason for its success, was that everybody was involved in the discussions and negotiations. All parties in Northern Ireland will have that opportunity to discuss among

    495
    themselves, with me and with the Irish Government how we restore devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal to the House: it is far too noisy, which is unfair to Northern Ireland Members and others who are present.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: As the restoration of devolved government is now less likely because of last week's elections, is it not clear that there is a need to draw lessons from those elections? Is not the most important lesson that a lot of decent, moderate people in Northern Ireland rightly voted for the agreement after receiving handwritten pledges from the Prime Minister, but those pledges have now been broken? Can we have an undertaking that the Prime Minister will not break further pledges and harm the peace process in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is harming the peace process in Northern Ireland—far from it. I think that the commitment that he has made to peace in Northern Ireland is exceptional. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is, of course, more difficult and challenging to restore the institutions, but I also remind him that, compared with the problems, challenges and difficulties of the past, it is still a possibility.
    Kevin Brennan: Is it not the case that the Belfast agreement had the support of the majority of people in Ireland, both north and south, and represents an international treaty, which means that it cannot be renegotiated? Therefore, is it not the responsibility of every constitutional party, including the Democratic Unionist party, as the largest Unionist party in Northern Ireland, to now sit down and form a Government?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right that the Good Friday agreement is based on an international treaty and, of course, on the results of referendums north and south. At the same time, he is also right that all the parties elected to the Assembly last week need to play their part in restoring devolution. He will know that I met the Democratic Unionist party this week, and I believe that further discussions will take place between us.

    Rheumatoid Arthritis
    Lady Hermon: What steps he is taking to increase the availability of anti-TNF drug treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Ireland. [141219]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): Extra recurrent funding has been provided, which has started the first phase of a three-phase project with a view to extending those therapies to 60 more arthritis sufferers by the end of the year. However, the decision on the appropriate therapy for an individual patient is a matter for the clinician concerned, in consultation with the patient.
    Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I welcome it, but will she kindly clarify
    496
    whether the Government have any plans to compensate rheumatoid arthritis sufferers in Northern Ireland for the Government's failure to extend the appropriate National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines to Northern Ireland at the same time as they are extended to England and Wales?
    Angela Smith: It is important to ensure that the NICE guidelines apply to Northern Ireland. We are actively considering that and will make moves to do it as soon as is practical.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our deep condolences to the Spanish and Japanese Governments and to the families of those who were killed in the attacks in Iraq at the weekend. Despite those attacks, both Governments are determined to continue helping the coalition to form a democratic and prosperous country for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people.
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Before the hon. Gentleman asks his question, I should say that I understand that he recently returned from duty in Iraq as a royal naval reservist. I thank him for the valuable contribution that he has made.
    Dr. Murrison: I thank the Prime Minister for that, and I certainly join him in the condolences that he expressed.
    As the Prime Minister said, I recently served in Iraq, where, sadly, the security situation is deteriorating. A fortnight ago, the Minister of State for Defence wrote to me to say that military vehicles in theatre will not all be provided with the vehicle protection kit that is necessary to safeguard our men and women until well into the new year. I hope that the Prime Minister will agree that that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs and that he will do what he can to remedy it.
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, it is important that our troops have all the protection that they need. I think that he would accept that, although the security situation in Iraq is extremely difficult, one thing is very clear: the coalition forces, particularly the British troops down in the south, are doing everything that they can to make life better for the Iraqi people. The irony of the situation is that despite the terrorist attacks, much that is valuable is being done in Iraq for the Iraqi people. That is why it is so important that we continue to fight the terrorists and to

    497
    make progress for the Iraqi people, then to prepare for the handover of power to the Iraqi people, which will give Iraq democratic government for the first time.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's lobby with the National Union of Students? Speaking as an ex-president of that august body, will he take some gently given advice? The biggest barrier to access for people from my community is not debt but the absence of the aspiration to go into higher education, because even when we had the full grant, only 20 per cent. of people from the poorest communities went to university.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government proposals are far more fair than the existing system or what went before, because they abolish the up-front fee altogether and make it a graduate repayment scheme The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right: we need to widen access to our universities and to fund the system fairly. It is important that we manage to do that without putting all the burden on to the general taxpayer, the vast majority of whom have not been to university.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Yet again, I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the Governments and families of those who lost their lives in the most recent tragic incidents in Iraq.
    How many people in the big conversation have told the Prime Minister that they want top-up fees?
    The Prime Minister: Many people, including those in universities, believe that this is essential in order to widen access. This morning, we heard an interesting contribution to the big conversation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own spokesman on higher education, who said in respect of universities:
    "I do accept that there has been under funding, not just under the Conservative government but in the last 7 years as well".
    Now, if we both agree that universities are underfunded, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal of scrapping fees and taking £500 million a year out of universities help either universities or students?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the Secretary of State for Education and Skills shouting at the Leader of the Opposition. It is difficult enough when Back Benchers, who are far away, do that but worse when the shouting is within earshot.
    Mr. Howard: Let me remind the Prime Minister that it is my duty to ask questions on behalf of the country and his to answer questions on behalf of the Government. If he wants to swap places with me, I am happy to do that today, tomorrow, next week, next month—any time he likes. However, for the moment, it is his duty to answer the questions. He did not answer the first question, so let us try again.
    498
    If, in the course of the big conversation, a majority of people say that they do not want top-up fees, will the Prime Minister listen to them and withdraw his proposals?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will always listen to what people say. However, they are saying that we need to fund lifelong education, which includes pre-school, adult skills and higher education. I want to enter into a conversation with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because people have a choice: our proposals, which mean that graduates pay back something that is linked to ability to pay, or his proposals. A day or two ago, the head of Universities UK said about the Conservative proposals:
    "The result would be that, by 2010, more than 460,000 eligible young students would be denied places at university".
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants a conversation, so let us have one. Does his policy stand?
    Mr. Howard: Let me make it clear: this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy on the importance of children from less privileged backgrounds gaining access to university. If the case for top-up fees is so overwhelming, why, only two years ago, did the Prime Minister promise in his manifesto not to impose them? He appears to have forgotten that, at the last election, we both stood on manifestos that promised not to impose top-up fees on students. The difference between us is that I am honouring our manifesto pledge and he is breaking his.
    I want to get back to the big conversation. If, during that, people say that they do not want his foundation hospitals, will he listen to them and withdraw the proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that of course we will listen to people, but we must deal with the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that he was a grammar school boy and I am a public school boy. Many people went neither to grammar schools nor to public schools. Let us consider their interests. Surely it is in their interests to be able to go to university and for university places to be available. He wants to debate policy. Here is the policy choice: if we want to increase the number of people going to university and—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say, "What's the point?" I shall tell them: the point is to offer educational opportunity to all not a few. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that, as his spokesman says, universities are currently underfunded, where does the extra money come from: general taxation or graduate repayment? Let us have a straight answer from him in this big conversation.
    Mr. Howard: The question was about hospitals. Three questions have been asked and none answered. Let us try again. People are interested in the conversation; they want to know where the Prime Minister stands. If, in the big conversation, people make it clear that they want a say on the European constitution, will the Prime Minister give them a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: We have not got the European constitution yet. As the right hon. and learned

    499
    Gentleman may have noticed, it happens at the end of this month. If he wants me to deal with hospitals, let us deal with hospitals. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we will deal with hospitals. [Interruption] He wanted me to deal with it, now suddenly he does not. That is because he does not want to deal with the choices on the NHS either, so let us go to the NHS and the choices. We have a report this morning on the national health service saying that, as a result of the extra investment, we have more nurses, more doctors and more people being treated and treated more quickly. Now, we are in favour of that extra investment going in. Here is another point in the big conversation: is he in favour of it or not?
    Mr. Howard: It really does not bode well for the big conversation if in this quite small conversation the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the questions. If he is not prepared to listen to the answers that he gets on top-up fees or on foundation hospitals or on the European constitution, what on earth is the point of this ludicrous exercise? Does not he realise quite how ridiculous he is beginning to look? If he will not listen to the people, why on earth should anyone listen to him?
    The Prime Minister: But we do listen to people. We listen to them—[Interruption.] Oh yes. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman how we have listened to people. We listened to people after 18 years of Conservative government and let me tell him what they told us. They said they wanted an end to boom and bust economics, and we provided it. They said they wanted an end to mass unemployment, and we provided it. We are talking about the future—things for which we have answers and he has none. We have talked to people about the national health service. They say they want that extra investment going into the health service. We have a report this morning showing that people are getting better treatment as a result. Now, in this conversation—small, I admit, between me and him, and rather closed on his part—is he prepared to commit the Conservative party to matching our NHS spending?
    Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend may be aware of yesterday's major lobby by construction workers from the oil industry, expressing concern about the importation and exploitation of cheap foreign labour in this country. Will he take seriously the concerns expressed? In my view, regardless of what gear he may be in, if we do not take seriously the concerns expressed by the workers, some of us on this side of the House may be looking out our old working gear.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issues in manufacturing industry. Of course, one of the main issues there is to ensure that we have modern apprenticeships where we can get the skilled work force of the future. That is why it is important that the Government are increasing those to about 200,000 modern apprenticeships a year. The other thing for industry is to ensure that we have stability in our economic conditions. The reason we have that stability is low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment.
    500
    The one thing that I would say to my hon. Friend, however, is that I do not think it right to promise people that we can stop jobs changing in this modern economy. What we can do is help people to get new jobs.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Prime Minister and Downing street have made it clear on top-up fees that he is prepared to go to the wire, that he is putting his job on the line and that there is no turning back, can he clarify for Parliament whether that means that whenever this vote comes he will regard it as a vote of confidence in his Government?
    The Prime Minister: I answered that question yesterday. Of course it is important for the Government; all these votes are important for the Government. The important thing between now and the vote is an argument about the alternatives. We have had the alternatives from the Conservative party. It would be terribly unfair and regressive to cut the number of people able to go to university. What is the right hon. Gentleman's alternative? His alternative is to raise the top rate of tax to 50 per cent. That is completely unfair, because there is no way—[Interruption.] Yes it is unfair, because there is no way that he can fund all the commitments that he has out of that top rate of 50 per cent.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister has confirmed the fundamental importance of that vote, when it comes. Therefore he is saying that he is prepared to force his MPs through the Lobby on a confidence vote to introduce a policy in direct contravention of what his party said in its manifesto. Is that the action of a Prime Minister who is a strong leader or, in fact, an increasingly desperate one?
    The Prime Minister: What is interesting about both sets of exchanges is that neither Opposition leader has wanted to argue about the merits of the policy for the simple reason that the longer this argument goes on, the clearer it will be what the alternatives are. We have exposed the Conservative alternative, so let me expose the Liberal Democrat alternative.
    I have recently had an opportunity to examine the Liberal Democrats' spending proposals. They say that they will finance everything they do for students out of a 50 per cent. top rate of tax. Seven of their spending proposals alone—ending prescription charges; free personal care for the elderly; extra pay for doctors and nurses; and commitments on pensions, small businesses and villages halls—amount to more than £12 billion, and that is before we get to their proposals on student finance. They are telling students that, with the money collected from the top rate taxpayer, they will fully restore all grants, abolish all fees, and provide big rises in university salaries. They even have a commitment to pay benefits to students during the summer holidays so that they do not have to take summer jobs. Taken together, those commitments amount to more than £15 billion. It is wholly dishonest to pretend to people that

    501
    they will get £15 billion from top rate taxpayers. Until the right hon. Gentleman has a serious alternative to put forward, he will not have a serious party.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that yesterday Philips LG announced that it was to close the glass factory at Simonstone, at which I used to work before I became a Member of Parliament. The factory is in the Ribble Valley constituency, but most of the workers reside in mine. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while we must fight to save that factory, because of the new deal and what the Labour Government have done, those workers now have a better chance of getting a job when the factory closes next year than they would have had under the Tories 20 years ago?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In any economy, from time to time people will lose their jobs. What is important is that the Employment Service and the new deal provide additional hope for those people, so that if they lose their job, they can at least have some hope of moving on to fresh employment. The solution offered by the Conservative party, which is to scrap the new deal that has helped 800,000 people, would return us to precisely the days when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary and unemployment was more than 3 million.
    Bob Russell: Will there be legislation to ban hunting in this parliamentary Session?
    The Prime Minister: As I said when I was asked this question during the Queen's Speech debate, we have said that we will resolve the issue in this Parliament, and we will resolve it in this Parliament.
    Llew Smith: If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, would this Parliament be right to expect resignations to follow at the highest level of Government?
    The Prime Minister: The reason that we took the action in Iraq was that, as the United Nations itself stipulated last November, it was clear that Saddam Hussein was a threat. It is also absolutely clear to me that weapons of mass destruction are a real issue, not just in Iraq but in the wider world. I believe entirely in the information that was given to us at the time. We will carry on the search for those weapons through the Iraq survey group, which should be allowed to complete its work before anyone makes up their mind.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Given the need to protect investors and encourage personal saving, does the Prime Minister agree that when banks like Abbey National expose customers, such as my constituents Roger and Mary Mayhew, to inexperienced and poorly trained staff who give bad advice and then leave the company, there is a
    502
    special responsibility on financial institutions to protect their customers and uphold the clear verbal commitments that have been given?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have had that experience. In general terms, he is right that there is such a duty. We have tried to put in place a robust regulatory regime for investment advice through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which gives the Financial Services Authority a clear remit to regulate the financial industry. If individuals are dissatisfied with the advice that they receive, or feel that they have had advice from people who are not properly qualified to give it, they can refer their complaint to the independent financial ombudsman service to help to resolve the dispute. I am sure that if that is done they will at least have a process through which to gain redress.
    In general terms, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I understand that new guidance on this subject will be issued in the not-too-distant future.
    Kali Mountford: May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the all-party group on domestic violence and for bringing forward a Bill on domestic violence, which many of us waited decades for? Will he ensure that the systems are robust and will spearhead other legislation so that when victims bring complaints, they feel secure that they will be taken seriously, and that systems are in place to support them through going to court and afterwards, so that they are safe in their own homes?
    The Prime Minister: It is an important measure and I hope that it will gain support from all parts of the House. It amounts to the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for somewhere in the region of 30 years. We are putting nearly £20 million this year into building new refuge places and over £50 million into refuge provision through the supporting people programme. It is worth pointing out that this is one of the key areas of violent crime in the country and that about two women every week lose their lives through domestic violence, so tougher measures together with support is the right way to go. As I say, I hope that recommends itself to the whole House.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Given what the Prime Minister said in response to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does he believe that his own party now believes that the vote on top-up fees is a vote of confidence in him?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. Of course, it is an important vote. I hope that people make up their minds on the merits, but let us have a debate then about the merits of the respective proposals. What is very interesting in this debate is that it seems to me that I am the only one who actually wants to talk about the disciplines imposed by facing up to the future challenges that this country faces. If we are going to finance higher education in a fair way, it cannot be right that the ordinary taxpayer has to do it all. A system that abolishes up-front fees and allows

    503
    people to make a modest contribution, a fair amount, once they are graduates, seems to me a fair way to go. If there are alternatives, let us hear them.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: What more does the Prime Minister intend to do about the scourge of AIDS in the world, given that the statistics in Africa are now reaching epidemic proportions? We need to put more effort into that campaign.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we first recognise the scale of the problem. Some 20 million people have already died. A further 3 million people will die this year of HIV/AIDS. It is a true crisis of international proportions. Not merely are we doubling our funding to UNAIDS but we are the second biggest bilateral donor after the United States on HIV/AIDS and our funding has increased sevenfold over the past three years. It is almost £300 million in this financial year. We have to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we put the support in but also reduce the price of the drugs to treat people in some of the poorest countries in the world. We are working with the drug companies to do that, because with the right combination of measures on prevention and treatment, there is no doubt that we can make a significant difference to the problem.
    Mr. John Taylor: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in the previous Parliament, I introduced a Bill on nuisance high hedges, which his Government have now adopted? Can we look forward to his accepting further initiatives from Conservative Members?
    The Prime Minister: It has to be said that the hon. Gentleman is a remarkably prescient and sensible Conservative Back Bencher and I am delighted that we have done what he suggested a few years ago. That only goes to show that, on the rare occasions when Conservative party people say sensible things, we listen.
    Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in cases of domestic violence, which, as he said, claims the lives of two women a week, it should be the man who is placed in the refuge pending a decision by the court on who should occupy the family home? It should not be the battered woman and screaming children who have to flee the family home away from social networks. When will the criminal justice system put the interests of the victims—the children and the mother—ahead of the interests of violent men and ensure that abusive and criminal men pay the full cost of their action?
    The Prime Minister: The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will allow the man to be evicted from the home in circumstances of domestic violence but also to be put under greater restraint in terms of his ability to get near either his female partner or the children. It is important to recognise also that the Bill will impose far
    504
    stricter penalties for breaches of non-molestation orders. It is the combination of the additional money and the stronger penalties that will do the trick.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The armed forces are doing a difficult and dangerous job, acquitting themselves with great skill, professionalism and courage. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the equipment that they need to do their job properly is being brought into service without the unnecessary slippages and shortcomings highlighted regularly by the Public Accounts Committee?
    The Prime Minister: I am as satisfied as I can be of this: we have made it clear to the military that there should be no cost constraint on making sure that our forces are properly equipped for the dangerous work that they are doing in Iraq. Obviously, issues of logistics—what equipment is purchased and how it gets out there—are left to the military, but prompter action is taken on some of these issues than is sometimes suggested. When issues are raised, we look at them carefully.
    Alan Simpson: I know that the Prime Minister will be well aware of the musical works of Paul Simon. I am not asking for a rendering of "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover", but will he publish the 40 ways that the Department of Education and Skills has identified as possible means of funding the expansion of higher education? If the big conversation is to have meaning, it has to be an informed conversation with the public. By publishing those 40 ways and giving the public a chance to scrutinise and decide for themselves, we might find that they were able to offer us their version of a "Bridge over Troubled Water."
    The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extensive knowledge of Paul Simon's repertoire. Secondly, it is of course important that we have the debate on the basis of the fullest possible information. We are happy to make available the information that we have, but the choice is simple. If we want to expand the numbers going to university and if we believe that universities are underfunded—apparently, that is now the consensus among Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—there are only two ways of paying for that. It either comes out of some form of contribution from students, as well as the additional investment from the state, or it comes from general taxation. [Interruption.] It is perfectly fair to say that it can come from general taxation. But is it fair to ask the majority of the population, who have not been to university—some of whom are on low incomes—to pay even more taxes so that others can go to university? I do not think so, but let us have the debate based on the real policy options and not on some imaginary hypothesis where everyone can get everything for free and there is no difficulty for everyone else.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What is more important to the Prime Minister: developing relations with Commonwealth leaders in Nigeria or coming home early to have his picture taken with Jonny Wilkinson?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I am coming home early not for the rugby reception, but for a private appointment of a different nature altogether.
    Tony Cunningham: A few years ago, I suggested that if we were not careful with sport in this country, we would end up like the United States, which has a small number of highly professional sportsmen and women while everyone else simply watches sport. With the success of the Rugby Union world cup, the European championships in Portugal and the Olympic bid, we have a huge opportunity to promote participation in sport. Will the Government seize that opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend on the Tackle Learning initiative, which aims to engage a series of partnerships involving rugby union, rugby league and effective working and learning for young people. Some 80 centres are involved, 90,000 pupils have gained and there is a target of opening at least 100 centres. As he knows, we are spending about £1 billion on school sport. I can assure him that we will do everything we can to encourage youngsters in sport, but also to make sure that sport is not the preserve of a few
    506
    well-paid athletes and is for ordinary people in our communities. Some will be excellent, some will not, but all enjoy sport.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the National Audit Office, between 5,000 and 20,000 people die from infections caught in NHS hospitals, and that according to the European Commission, the problem is worse in this country, and getting worse at a faster rate, than anywhere else in Europe? Will he therefore turn his attention back from the search for elusive biological threats in the middle east to the real biological warfare that is being fought and lost in dirty wards, and through unclean hands, in our under-managed and demoralised health service?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is not sensible to set the serious issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises against fighting terrorism in the middle east; both issues are important, and they obviously have to be tackled in different ways. Secondly, the question of infections in hospitals is not new, and we are taking action to try to limit this. Thirdly, yes, there are hospitals in which we obviously need to make further changes and to raise standards, but I hope that he and the vast majority of people will accept—I am not sure that many Conservative Members do accept this—that on the whole, those in the health service do a fantastic job in looking after patients. The vast majority of people get excellent treatment within the national health service, and I do wish that occasionally, particularly on a day when the progress of the health service is being laid before people and is so obvious, he would congratulate it on making progress, rather than continually drawing attention to the defects.

BILL PRESENTED
  HUMAN TISSUE
  Mr. Secretary Reid, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Peter Hain and Ms Rosie Winterton presented a Bill to make provision with respect to activities involving human tissue; to make provision about the transfer of human remains from certain museum collections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 9]

  Points of Order
  12.31 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter relating to early-day motions and the listing of names. What advice would you give to a Member who finds that her name is listed on an early-day motion, even though she never put down her name, and that a subsequent correction of the record has been interpreted as a withdrawal of her name, even though no such thing occurred? My name was never put down and I did not withdraw it—what happened was a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I understand that a mistake was made in the Table Office, and that it has apologised to the hon. Lady for any embarrassment that this may have caused. I add that she was right to raise the matter on a point of order, and that it is therefore well and truly on the record.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that today is the exact anniversary of Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. During the intervening year, the Government took the unprecedented step of recommitting it to a second Standing Committee. In the course of those two Committees, proceedings were timetabled to such an extent that large chunks of the original Bill remain undiscussed. Hardly was the ink dry on the second Standing Committee proceedings when the Government announced that they would introduce yet another new policy on Report. That was more than a month ago, yet we did not see the amendments and new clauses that give effect to that policy until this morning.
  You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that all Back Benchers have to table amendments and new clauses by close of play tomorrow; otherwise, they will be starred and will not be debated on Report on Monday. This is a manipulation of parliamentary procedures. What can you do to ensure that Members have a greater opportunity to react to Government amendments, and have due time for consideration and to table their own amendments?
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the House will consider this Bill on Monday and Tuesday of next week. The hon. Gentleman has two clear days in which to table his amendments, and he may wish to seek further advice from the Public Bill Office.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that he was perfectly happy for 40 different ways of funding university education to be published. Could the House authorities assist the Government in publishing that material with great speed, so that it may form part of our discussions in the forthcoming debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The House authorities are busy enough looking after their own affairs without taking up the Prime Minister's affairs. The hon. Gentleman should take the matter up directly with the Prime Minister.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FIFTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 November],
  That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. McFall].
  Question again proposed.

  Public Services, Health and Education
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  12.35 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:—
  'But oppose the proposals in the Gracious Speech that massively reduce the independence of universities in their admissions policy; deplore the inclusion of measures likely to burden the average student with £33,000 debt on graduation by 2010; regret the violation of the Government's 2001 manifesto pledge not to introduce top-up fees; call on Ministers to concentrate on raising standards, improving the credibility of qualifications and ensuring access to higher education on the basis of merit, not ability to pay; further regret the absence of measures to reduce the bureaucracy faced by school governors, head-teachers, teachers, doctors, nurses and NHS managers, and to extend patient choice and reduce the use of centrally-set targets, which prevent the NHS responding effectively to the needs of patients; further deplore the lack of progress on the Mental Health Bill in a form which would protect the rights of people with mental health problems and promote their access to treatment; further regret the lack of prior consultation on a draft of the Human Tissue Bill; and further deplore the absence of measures to promote freedom and decentralisation in the NHS.'.
  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Our great public services, and in particular education and health, feature prominently in this year's Queen's Speech, and they remain at the heart of the concerns of every family in Britain. Only a Prime Minister who is losing touch with reality would need a great conversation to discover the dismay of millions of people at the fact that a Government who promised so much improvement to our schools and hospitals have in the end delivered so little.
  Despite spending record sums, taking more in tax than ever before, and despite the commitment and hard work of thousands of professional staff to whom I gladly pay tribute, the Government are still letting people down. They are letting children down when far too many 11-year-olds leave our schools unable properly to read, count or write. In some schools, far too many children fail to pass a single GCSE. Despite endless Government initiatives, thousands of children truant
  510
  every day. The Government are also letting teachers down by failing to control violence in the classroom: a teacher is attacked every seven minutes of the school day. They are letting young people down because more and more of them are not in education, employment or training. Less than half as many Britons as Germans reach intermediate skill levels. It is a dismal record for a Government who have been in charge for almost seven years and who boasted in advance that their priorities would be "education, education, education".
  The Government are also letting patients down with hospitals cancelling more than a thousand operations every week less than 24 hours before the patients are due to go into theatre. It is no wonder that the number of people forced to pay for operations out of their own pockets has increased threefold since 1997. Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he claimed that there were 24 hours in which to save the NHS?
  I readily acknowledge that much that goes on in our education and health services is good—[Interruption.] Much of it is good, but for a country claiming to have the fourth largest economy in the world, far too many services remain unacceptably bad.
  Let us start this afternoon with the Government's flagship Bill on top-up fees.
  Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is kind to say that some good things are going on in the public services. Let me tell him that when I was a teacher under a Tory Government, what we had was cuts, cuts, cuts. That is his party's reputation, and that is what would happen if the Conservatives ever got into power again.
  Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for a while, he will discover that the Conservative party has plenty of good ideas to improve the education system—and, crucially, to stop the process of Ministers telling teachers what to do every school day.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I have received letters from head teachers in my constituency and throughout Leicestershire, who almost certainly voted Labour in the last election, specifically saying—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Show us the letters.
  Mr. Robathan: I will show the hon. Gentleman the letters if he wants. The head teachers ask me whether the current funding settlement is what the Government mean by "education, education, education" when teachers are being sacked and classrooms are empty as a result.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and his experience is reflected in that of many of my hon. Friends.
  To return to top-up fees, has there ever been a Queen's Speech in which the very first Bill to be mentioned was not a Bill that honoured an election pledge but one that specifically dishonoured such a pledge? What did the Secretary of State for Education

  511
  and Skills think when he read the Labour party manifesto on which he campaigned two years ago? That manifesto said:
  "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees".
  It did not say, "We are not going to introduce them until after the next election." It did not say, "We are about to reverse the policy." It said:
  "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them".
  Two years later, we discover that in fact the Labour Government have exactly the opposite intention.
  Is the Secretary of State proud that the first Bill he will attempt to put on the statute book in his current job breaks the clear promise that he made to his voters two years ago? Can we be surprised that politics and politicians are held in low regard when Ministers behave with such breathtaking cynicism?
  Mike Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that
  "since graduates generally enjoy above-average incomes it is entirely fair that they should contribute directly to part of the cost of their higher education, especially as there will be protection for graduates on below-average incomes"?—[Official Report, 20 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 276.]
  Those are his words five years ago. Does he agree with them?
  Mr. Yeo: I have never had a role speaking on education issues from the Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Five years ago—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have to reference his allegations.
  Is the Secretary of State now clear about his own policy? Each time—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
  Mr. Yeo: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) would actually source the statement that he alleges I made, and if by any chance he finds that he has made a mistake, I hope he will have the courtesy to withdraw his remarks.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Perhaps it would help the House, Mr. Speaker, to say that the source is Hansard on 20 December 1988—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Yeo: Hansard on which day?
  Mr. Clarke: 20 December 1988.
  Mr. Yeo: 1988! I have campaigned at three general elections since 1988. I have been returned by my voters on pledges that I am proud to honour. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking to dishonour a pledge that they made only two years ago. If he wants my researchers to dredge up what he said in 1988 about a range of Government policies I shall be happy to ask them to do so.
  Debating the Government's policy—
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment—[Interruption.]
  512
  Debating the Government's policy on top-up fees—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
  Mr. Yeo: Mr. Speaker, I have just been reminded that the hon. Member for Ilford, South said that my comments were made five years ago, so I hope he will acknowledge that he misled the House at that moment.
  Debating the Government's policy on top-up fees is made harder by the fact that each time a few more Back Benchers sign the early-day motion, the details of the policy change. Last Wednesday, the Bill was the first in the Queen's Speech but seven days later it has dropped back down the list. When will it actually see the light of day? Does the delay prelude a complete withdrawal? Will the Secretary of State clarify the position?
  This time last week, the income at which graduates must start repaying their loans was said to be £15,000. By Friday, on Radio 4, the Solicitor-General thought that the amount was to be raised to £18,000, and now we hear reports that it may be £20,000. No matter how far the income threshold is raised, the burden of repayment will remain. Indeed, because interest is charged, the debt will increase and it will bear especially heavily on those graduates who go into less well-paid public sector jobs—such as, for example, the NHS radiographer who will still have a debt of more than £10,000 10 years after starting work. Deferring repayment also carries a cost. That cost will have to be paid either by universities receiving less money or by the taxpayer covering the shortfall, or both. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain those figures and say how much he expects top-up fees to raise for universities, and how much he thinks the universities will charge.
  Mr. Allen: Did the hon. Gentleman catch the remarks of the chairman of Universities UK this morning? He assessed the result of the Conservative policy not to pursue tuition fees as resulting in 480,000 students not going to university. Does he think that the chairman of Universities UK is right or wrong? What is the real figure that would result from the implementation of Conservative policies?
  Mr. Yeo: I think that the chairman of Universities UK is wrong about that. I will set out how we intend that universities should be funded, and how the students who go to university should be chosen, in due course. However, I am clear that the Bill's approach is fatally flawed. Whatever the sums show, and whatever tinkering is done to the Bill, three facts remain. First, this is a policy on which Labour misled the voters two years ago. If the Government press on with it, families up and down Britain will find it hard to trust anything that the Secretary of State says in future.
  Secondly, the Government will burden future generations of students with bigger debts than any students have ever faced before.
  Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment. At the very time that concern is already mounting about the level of debt that many

  513
  families have incurred, it is grossly irresponsible for the Government to introduce a policy that makes the debt problem much worse.
  I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), so long as she does not dredge up quotations from 1988.
  Shona McIsaac: No, I am not going to dredge up quotations from 1988, as we have plenty more recent ones that we could use. Conservative party policy would deny 800 talented young people in my constituency the right to go to university. How would the hon. Gentleman explain that to them? Given that the Opposition would get rid of the new deal as well, he is basically consigning hundreds of talented and skilled young people to the scrap heap. That is his dishonesty.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would not say that the hon. Gentleman is dishonest. Perhaps the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing that word.
  Shona McIsaac: I certainly withdraw the word "dishonesty". Perhaps I could use the phrase "failure of policy" instead.
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady and allowed her time for such an extended rant, but I want to place it on the record that it is Conservative party policy that every young person sufficiently qualified to go to university should have the chance to do so, without paying tuition fees or top-up fees. It is the policy of the Labour party to burden young people with such huge debts that many who are talented and qualified will be deterred from taking a university course by the prospect of the enormous burden of debt that the Secretary of State will place on them.
  The third reason why the Bill is fundamentally flawed is that it will establish the office for fair access, the new access regulator. For the first time ever, the regulator will have the power to take away from individual universities the right to decide who should study there. No amount of tinkering with the Bill will stop it being bad for students and for universities.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as I want to be helpful to him. I listened with great interest to what he said on the "Today" programme this morning about the need for an all-party approach to this matter. He may remember that I raised that point with the Prime Minister last week, in an intervention in the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was the approach at the time of Dearing, and it is the right approach now. However, does my hon. Friend accept that an all-party discussion of the matter must be without precondition? That must mean that the Conservative party is prepared to abandon its opposition to top-up fees.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose views are well respected in the higher education community. He speaks about wanting a cross-party consensus. There is a cross-party consensus on one thing: a majority of Labour, Conservative and Liberal
  514
  Democrat Members of Parliament believe that this is a very damaging Bill. It will be easier for us to have the debate if we at least accept that there is a cross-party consensus that utterly rejects the Government's proposals. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend, however, that if the Secretary of State announces in his speech that he is withdrawing the Bill, we will gladly discuss with him and the universities how the funding needs of universities can be met. I hope that my hon. Friend will join in that discussion.
  Before we can start, there must be two absolutely clear assumptions. First, there should be no access regulator and no attempt by Ministers to take from universities the power to decide who studies at universities—I hope that I can carry my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on that point. Secondly, there should be no centrally set top-down target for the number of people who go to university. It is quite wrong for the Prime Minister to pluck a figure out of the air—50 per cent. of young people to go to university—when it has no reference to the needs of employers. I have just finished 18 months of shadowing the Department of Trade and Industry. During that period, no employer told me that having more graduates would solve their recruitment problems.
  The premises on which we can have a cross-party discussion are therefore threefold: one is that we have rejected the Bill; the second is that there should be no interference with the freedom of universities to choose their students; and the third is that no artificial target should be imposed by Ministers in relation to the proportion of young people who go to university.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: For six years, I was a lecturer in higher education. I witnessed not only massive expansion in participation but an underinvestment in the sector. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to me that, under his proposals, which would restrict the numbers going into higher education, none of my constituents' families and children will suffer from not being allowed to go to university, particularly those in the most deprived communities, in respect of whom the Government have enjoyed great success by increasing participation?
  Mr. Yeo: I am happy to guarantee the hon. Gentleman that any student who is qualified to enter a university and whom that university wishes to take will be able to go. My concern is precisely about those students from the poorer communities to which he refers. According to Barclays bank, they will face a debt that, by 2010, will exceed £30,000. That is frightening for many people who may be contemplating a degree course; it is also worrying for their parents. If young people are deterred from going to university altogether, they will be predominantly from poorer families—the families about whom Ministers always claim to be concerned, but who in practice are often damaged by the policies of this Government.
  David Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Russell group of universities student admissions from among the 7 to 8 per cent. of young people who go to public schools are seriously disproportionate? On his drive

  515
  from South Suffolk to Damascus, has he thought of other ways of improving that deplorable position, or is he going to plough down the path of reducing even further the number of academically talented working-class young people who go to university?
  Mr. Yeo: Let me say first that I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has signed the early-day motion that criticises the Government's policy. I hope that he will take the opportunity to vote in support of his views when the Bill's Second Reading takes place in the new year. The right way for universities to decide who to accept on to their degree courses is for them to set the criteria, publish the criteria and make their own selection. The wrong way is for Ministers to tell them that they want to embark on some social engineering experiment to manipulate university intakes.
  Is the Secretary of State pleased that, as a result of his policy, the next generation of school teachers will start their careers with a debt equivalent to their gross annual salary? Because of him, after 10 years of work, a teacher will still have to devote 7 per cent. of his or her take-home pay to servicing that debt. It will take 15 years of hard work in the classroom to pay off that debt completely. Does he think that his top-up fees policy will make it easier or harder to attract graduates into teaching? Does he think that he will make it more or less likely that those teachers who start work will be able to afford a mortgage while in their 20s or 30s?
  Mr. David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I must make some progress.
  Another offensive aspect of this Bill is the access regulator. Will the Minister say which universities support the idea of such a regulator? One would hope that after years of telling teachers, nurses and doctors how to do their jobs—with disastrous consequences—Ministers might have learned their lesson, although, sadly, it does not look like it. Ministers fapparently know better than universities too, so they are going to tell them who to let in and who to exclude. That will not be on the basis of who is best qualified to benefit from a university course; instead, we are embarking on an expensive new experiment that is not in the interests of the young people whom Ministers will use as guinea pigs, not in the interests of employers, none of whom is calling for more graduate recruits, and not in the interests of universities, who do not want more students with fewer qualifications, especially when drop-out rates at some universities are already as high as one in three—a failure rate that constitutes an appalling waste of human and financial resources.
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I do not doubt his good will, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench or indeed that of previous Governments. The truth, however, is that over the last 40 years the number of working-class kids going to university has been stable at around 20 per cent. It is incumbent on the Opposition to come up with some answers to tackle that disgrace, rather than wash their hands of it and say that they will leave it to university vice-chancellors, who have had their chance over the past 40 years.
  Mr. Yeo: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is up to the Government to come up with some answers. They
  516
  have been in power for seven years, and have produced a Bill that does not carry the support of the majority of hon. Members. The evidence that Ministers know better than teachers or other professionals does not stack up. The truth is that it is better to rely on universities to judge who will benefit from the courses provided.
  I want to turn to another Bill in the Queen's Speech— the child protection Bill. It is almost a year since the Laming report was published, and almost four years since the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, so the Bill is not appearing a day too soon. We look forward to seeing the details of it, and we hope to give it our broad support. Before that can happen, one important change must take place—the Minister for Children must be replaced. No Member of the House is less suited to the task of introducing a Bill to improve child protection than her. It was astonishing enough, given her disgraceful record as leader of Islington borough council, that the Prime Minister should have appointed her to this sensitive and important job in the first place; the fact that she remains in place now, however, is beyond belief.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear in his speech whether he has full confidence in a Minister for Children who tried to prevent the BBC from exposing her record on child protection issues; a Minister who branded a totally innocent victim of child abuse as a seriously disturbed person; and a Minister who made this extraordinary and totally unfounded attack—the victim of which could not reply because he was unaware of what she was doing—not because she believed that it was in any way justified but solely as a shoddy and ultimately futile attempt to save herself from embarrassment. She then tried to prevent the attack from becoming known, and, when all these disgraceful circumstances finally came to light she refused to give any explanation or apology until she was forced to do so by the threat of legal action. Anything less than a forthright condemnation of the Minister for Children by the Secretary of State in his speech in a few minutes—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he is going too far in this matter. Any criticism of the nature in which he is indulging should be on a substantive motion of the House. I therefore hope that he will move on.
  Mr. Yeo: The child protection Bill is mentioned in the Queen's Speech. As far as we know, the Minister for Children will be responsible for taking it through the House. I am worried that the Secretary of State, like the Prime Minister and the Minister—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should take my advice. I like to give good advice. Of course he can talk about the Bill, but he is referring to an individual Member of the House, which requires a substantive motion. I let him make his case to an extent, but it must now stop. It must cease.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker. What worries me is whether the Government are more concerned about protecting Ministers or children.

  517
  The Government's plans to end free school transport will be set out in what appears to be an innocent draft Bill. According to the Queen's Speech, the Bill
  "will enable some local authorities to pilot new arrangements for school transport".
  At the moment, families with children who live more than three miles from their school are entitled to free school transport—a right that the Government want to remove but do not want to say so. With that in mind, the Bill will refer to road congestion and giving local authorities discretion. As most of the families who will lose their right to free school transport as a result of that policy live in rural areas, no doubt the Secretary of State for Education and Skills does not care about the suffering he will cause. As with top-up fees, however, the children who will suffer most at the hands of the Secretary of State are from the poorest families.
  On health matters, after the mangling that the Government's flagship health Bill received in the last Session, the legislative programme is, not surprisingly, much lighter this year. As that Bill imposed a two-tier health service in which a few hospitals will enjoy the privileges denied to the many, most hon. Members will breathe a sigh of relief that there is not more legislation. The absence of a mental health Bill, however, is a serious omission. Although we have repeatedly said that the Government's draft mental health Bill is not the answer, we desperately need an update to the 1959 and 1983 mental health legislation. Unfortunately, that appears to have fallen victim to the turf war between the Home Office and the Department of Health. The failure to introduce a mental health Bill will heighten the stigma faced by people with mental health problems. They need legislation to protect their rights as well the ability to gain access to treatments. The lack of a Bill means that mental health remains a poor relation to the rest of the national health service.
  The national health service chief executive published his annual report this morning. We welcome the progress that he describes. We congratulate those NHS staff who have contributed to that achievement, but as usual the report tells only part of the story. Although spending on the NHS is up by 37.5 per cent., activity is up by only 5 per cent. Although fewer patients are waiting for very long periods, overall patients are waiting longer. The average waiting time is now nine days longer than it was four years ago.
  Despite the fact that in certain respects the NHS clearly has improved, the trouble is that too often the experience of individual patients, nurses and doctors does not bear out Ministers' claims. The Prime Minister likes to boast about falling waiting times, but he does not mention the fact that the average waiting time for 12,000 patients with chronic renal failure has tripled since 1999. He does not mention the fact that the average waiting time for 19,000 people suffering from atrial fibrillation has increased by a half since 1999. He does not mention the fact that 50,000 children waiting for paediatric surgery now wait a third longer than they had to wait four years ago. He does not mention the 28,000 people who are waiting a third longer for neurosurgery than they would have done in 1999.
  The Prime Minister boasted only last week of the Government's progress on cancer, although he had no answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury
  518
  (Mr. Brazier), who explained that the Government are running down and partially closing a cancer centre in his constituency for the first time in a generation. The Prime Minister did not mention the lung cancer specialist whose patients have suffered such an increase in their waiting times that some patients who were curable can now only be treated but not cured. He did not mention how the target for seeing urgent cancer patients has led to what one surgeon calls
  "unacceptable delays in seeing non-urgent patients".
  He did not mention how the number of patients starting radiotherapy treatment within the Government's target time has fallen by more than a half in two years.
  The claims in the Queen's Speech that the Government will give more freedoms to NHS staff are likely to produce a hollow laugh among hard-pressed doctors, nurses and managers. Which targets do the Government intend to abolish? Do they include the one that has led to patients going blind because the Secretary of State set a target for hospitals to see new glaucoma patients instead of treating existing sufferers, or is it the one that forces accident and emergency departments to leave patients waiting in ambulances or inflatable tents instead of allowing them inside the hospital?
  Against that background, is it any wonder that the number of nurses leaving the register last year was almost twice as high as that for the previous year? Is it any wonder that more than half of family doctors report that recruitment is harder this year, with more than two out of three vacancies for family doctors remaining unfilled after six months?
  Mr. Sheerman: Are the hon. Gentleman's comments on the NHS a result of his personal experience of life? Does he use the NHS? I know that none of his children uses the state system of education. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Yeo: It is because of my children that I know rather a lot about the NHS. They were both cancer patients in NHS hospitals and, for the most part, received excellent treatment. I have also been the chairman of a hospital that treats very sick children, so I speak on the issues with experience and, I hope, authority. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was not worthy of him. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Something is troubling hon. Members, but they must be quiet. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was in order and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) rebutted his comments. That is the end of it.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member makes a remark about an hon. Member's family, that is in order, but when an hon. Member makes a remark about an hon. Member, that is out of order. Will you help me because I do not understand the distinction that you have drawn in your rulings?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps hon. Members should come to the Chair from time to time and I will educate them on the rules of the House, but I am not going to do that during a debate. They must take my word for it. The

  519
  hon. Member for Huddersfield was in order and the hon. Member for South Suffolk had the opportunity to rebut his remarks. It is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Yeo: As for bureaucracy, the Government have recruited administrators at three times the rate of doctors. There are more administrators than beds in the NHS. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State talks of cutting quangos, but has his plan been revealed to primary care trusts? Last week I was sent a cutting from The Gazette in Basingstoke. It is a half-page advertisement no less, under the banner heading of "The North Hampshire Primary Care Trust". It proclaims:
  "A new partnership is being built to co-ordinate workforce development strategy across the health community",
  a process that
  "will be delivered through a workforce development team, which is being created to facilitate workforce modernisation."
  Not surprisingly, previous NHS experience is not essential for any of the six posts advertised: three work force design project managers, one "Agenda for Change" manager, one work force planner and one project manager for the competency and appraisal framework. Let me warn any Labour Members who are wondering whether they will need a new job in two years' time that the latter post requires
  "a good working knowledge of job design and appraisal systems, well developed facilitation skills and a sound understanding of continuous professional development".
  So there is no point the Secretary of State applying.
  The advertisement, which was sent to me unsolicited, was accompanied by a plaintive note asking simply:
  "Is this where all the national health service money goes?"
  I wish I could say that the answer to that question is yes. Unfortunately, however, that is only part of the story. Health Ministers have treated themselves on their own offices to spending that has risen by a staggering 70 per cent. since 1997—a horrifying £1.3 million more than when Labour came into power. Spending on plane and train travel has rocketed by £2 million a year, and while they relax in ever-greater comfort, Ministers have approved the spending of £900,000 on NHS Magazine, only 220 copies of which have actually been sold; the other 61,000 had to be given away. At least, I suppose, we can be pleased that the magazines were distributed; that is more than can be said of "Kismet Road", a medical soap opera in 13 parts made at a cost of £350,000 by the Bradford health action zone, which has been unable to find a single television channel willing to show it.
  Reverting to bureaucracy, I do not wish to stigmatise the North Hampshire primary care trust. In one recent issue, my local paper, the East Anglian Daily Times, carried advertisements for posts at the Ipswich hospital that included a health and safety adviser, a waiting list co-ordinator, an information analyst, three personal assistants—one for the chief executive, one for the director of human and corporate resources, and one to be shared between the directors of finance and performance management and of strategy and service improvement—and two more posts in the smoking cessation department, one an administrative assistant.
  520
  The bad news for the Secretary of State is that experience of office systems and a polite telephone manner are essential.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No. I wish to finish.
  No doubt, there is useful work to be done in those posts, but is it work that hard-pressed doctors and nurses consider a priority? Is it work that will directly benefit patients? Is it work that will improve health outcomes for the people of Britain? Or is it, as many of us suspect, work the need for which arises mainly from the target culture imposed by the Minister and his colleagues—a culture that means that the national health service, after seven years of Labour meddling, has not so much been saved, as the Prime Minister promised, as been swamped by a mass of bureaucrats and red tape? Would it not benefit patients a little more if, instead of all those jobs advertised in Basingstoke, Ipswich and elsewhere for people who will have little or no contact with NHS patients, one, two or three of the posts had been for nurses?
  The Queen's Speech is not just another opportunity missed by a Government who are taxing and spending and failing. It is a speech that breaks Labour's election promises, attacks university independence, threatens families in rural areas, and damages students from poorer families. I urge the House to support our amendment.
  Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard clearly in the intervention by the Secretary of State for Health that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) misled the House in a serious way. Why has the hon. Gentleman slunk away and not apologised to the House for what he has done?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear such a remark. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify?
  Mr. Mackay: You will recall that the hon. Member for Ilford, South intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and gave a quote of some length, apparently from Hansard, that he said was from five years ago. In fact, when we were trying to clarify when it was, the Secretary of State helpfully intervened to explain that the quote was from 1988. You will realise that 1988 is much more than five years ago, so the hon. Member for Ilford, South completely misled the House. Subsequently, the hon. Gentleman consulted civil servants in the box over there and the Health Whip—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been able to make a correction—[Interruption.] Order. The matter has been corrected.
  Mr. Mackay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification. Is it not normal when a serious mistake has been made, no doubt based on information given by the Whips Office, and the House has been seriously misled, that the Member who made it should come here to correct it, and it should not be left

  521
  to other Members such as me, through you, to do so? Where is the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who made the intervention? Why has he slunk away?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not see that any breach of the rules has occurred in this instance.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and your predecessors have often, rightly, told the House that Members have to take responsibility for what they say in this Chamber. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will do exactly that.
  Mr. James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. To bring some calmness to our proceedings, I undertake to read Hansard to find out whether there has been any breach of the rules. A point of order has been raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and I shall investigate the matter.
  Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope it is a separate matter.
  Mr. Gray: It is a separate but related point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell made it plain that the hon. Member for Ilford, South had consulted the civil servants in the box. Is it in order for Back Benchers to make use of the facilities in the civil servants' box?
  Mr. Speaker: That should not be done.
  Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are studying Hansard will you also study the lengthy comments made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and the personal remarks to which you, rightly, brought the House's attention at that time?
  Mr. Speaker: I put a stop to those comments and that is the end of the matter.
  1.16 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I was going to welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his demanding role shadowing both the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I was slightly concerned that the rival for the title "titan of East Anglia" might give us a lot of difficulty, but I advise him to pay a lot of attention to detail and to speechwriting and to put a bit more focus on the real policy debates facing the country as a whole.
  Gregory Barker: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No. I shall not give way at this stage. I shall do so later.
  522
  In his winding-up speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will deal with the points relating to health made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The Gracious Speech contained three relevant Bills and I shall spend a couple of minutes discussing two to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred: the children Bill and the draft Bill on school transport.
  In our Green Paper "Every Child Matters", we indicated that we would seek to legislate quickly in several areas to help to secure better outcomes for children and to ensure that support services are designed around their needs. The Bill will include key measures such as bringing together the planning, commissioning and delivery of all services that affect the lives of children and young people and their families; clarifying accountability for children's services—a key recommendation of Lord Laming; strengthening arrangements for child protection by making local safeguarding children's boards statutory; and requiring all agencies to have a responsibility to promote the welfare of children and young people. The Bill will support joint working by seeking to remove legislative barriers to information sharing, and it will support an integrated inspection framework. It will establish a children's commissioner as a voice for all children.
  We regard the Bill as an extremely important measure and I was grateful when the Leader of the Opposition, in his response to the Queen's Speech on the day it was made, indicated general support across the House for the provisions it contains.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way shortly.
  We welcome all-party support for the Bill, but let me respond to specific comments made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children not only has my total confidence and that of the Prime Minister, but the confidence of all the people working in the field with whom she has been working since her appointment to fashion the Bill and take it forward. In her responsibilities, she has focused on ensuring that we can take major steps to make sure that vulnerable children in our society are protected. Those are the issues facing us in the Bill. To be frank, I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman took such a partisan view, since I know that many Opposition Members—I could name them, but will not do so—think that the policy embodied in the Bill is critical and do not believe that gutter-raking is the right approach to take to such questions.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome the child protection Bill that is referred to in the Queen's Speech. I welcome especially the proposal to establish a children's rights commissioner, which has been argued for by many Members on both sides of the House for a long time. Bearing in mind the fact that the issue of domestic violence has caused concern to Members for many years—I welcome the Bill that is to be brought forward to tackle domestic violence—will the child protection Bill address another aspect of domestic violence, which is the number of children who die at the hands of their parents or carers? At least one child a week dies in that

  523
  way. Will the Bill seek to remove the reasonable chastisement defence, which is used to the detriment of child protection agencies?
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have discussed this matter both informally and formally. My hon. Friend has a long and distinguished tradition and record of campaigning on these issues. I can confirm that the Bill will address the general issues that he is mentioning. I am confident that we will have a full debate on the issue of reasonable chastisement and on how we address such matters in a proper way during the passage of the Bill. We will continue that dialogue. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend is raising these important matters in a correct and responsible manner. They are matters that are legitimately to be considered within the framework of the Bill.
  Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State is right to say that there are important issues to be discussed when we consider the child protection Bill. Is not that all the more reason why it should be piloted through the House by a Minister who is not sullied, who is not tarnished and does not have such a dreadful reputation in this area? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to deprecate the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), when he so scurrilously attacked the children of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not deprecate any remarks made anywhere. People will make their own judgments on the basis of those remarks. However, I say in all seriousness that there are Opposition Members who think that the children's Bill is important, who respect the work that has to be done and who say that the issues involved—how we protect vulnerable children in precisely the way suggested in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—should be debated, rather than focusing, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, and as the hon. Member for South Suffolk did from the Opposition Front Bench, on a scurrilous series of attacks from history.
  I move on to the draft school transport Bill to which reference is made in the Queen's Speech. There has been a degree of misleading reporting, at least on the front page of The Times the day after the Queen's Speech. I shall summarise quickly our approach. First, we hope that the Bill will be published in draft during the third Session, and will then be the subject of substantial debate throughout the country in a variety of different ways. Secondly, it comes from local government of all parties, which have expressed serious concern about how we address the matters that will be raised by the Bill. The Churches have been worried, too, that current legislation is not working quite as it should. That is why we thought that we should take the issue forward in a non-partisan way by means of a draft Bill for wider consideration.
  The approach that we have suggested in the draft Bill is that we shall free up to 20 local education authorities—that will be by their own choice, by the way, so Suffolk, for example, need not be a pilot if it does not wish to be so—from existing legislation to trial new ways of getting pupils to school. It is a deregulatory
  524
  measure to allow local government to decide how it wants to deal with these issues. The primary objective of the schemes will be to reduce car use in the school run. The aim will be to encourage schemes that provide better alternatives for pupils who live one to three miles from school and are not entitled to free school transport, for pupils attending denominational schools, for those in rural areas and for those who want to participate in extracurricular activities, including sport.
  We are seeking to address what I think most people acknowledge is a serious issue of road congestion at times when pupils are travelling to and from school, with its implications for the health of our children, along with a variety of different issues. I say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk in a genuinely open spirit that we desire to address these matters in a bipartisan or tripartisan way, in a cross-party way, with our colleagues in local government of all parties and with our colleagues in the Churches, to see whether we can move forward and allow trialling to find better ways of dealing with the issues.
  I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is entirely possible to campaign on the basis that we have a secret agenda of the type that was described by a headline in The Times the day after the Queen's Speech and by what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. However, that is not a correct reading of where we are. I offer him publicly, in the House, the opportunity to discuss these matters fully before the draft Bill is prepared, to see where we can go in addressing any legitimate concerns, and of course he and his colleagues will have such concerns
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure that we welcome the approach that the Secretary of State has described, although I know that The Times has impeccable sources for discovering these things. Will he explain why it is necessary to have legislation at all when there are provisions in the Education Act 2002 for local authorities and schools to propose innovation, which the Secretary of State may by regulation agree, unless he proposes to introduce something which neither schools nor local authorities would wish to propose?
  Mr. Clarke: The reason is simple. When there has been previous legislation—for example, I think, in 1988, but I am open to correction—there has been controversy in both Houses about these matters arising from rural interests, local government and sometimes the Churches. It seemed to me that rather than simply saying that the power to innovate, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, could apply, allowing me to overrule legislation in some specific way, it would be more appropriate to have a proper parliamentary discussion and to hold discussions with all interests to see whether there is a consensus on what can be achieved. I have had discussions with, for example, all parties in local government, with the Churches and so on, to see whether there is a will to move, and I have to report to the House that there is, provided we can reach agreement. Perhaps we will not be able to get to an agreement. My approach is to seek to see whether we could introduce reform to improve things.
  Anyone with children will know that in many parts of the country the congestion that surrounds school runs is such that we should be working, in my opinion, to

  525
  encourage children to the extent that we can to walk, cycle or go by bus, including yellow buses, when they go to school.
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: We are talking about primary legislation, which I welcome. I represent a large rural area, which has pockets of congestion that raise safety issues. I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that if Welsh local authorities apply as part of the 20 authorities they will also be considered as part of the pilot project. It is an important issue for areas such as mine.
  Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that intervention. I am happy to confirm to the House that it is a matter that we can discuss with the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Executive. If appropriate, and if it is felt to be supported, it could cover England and Wales. We could proceed by the draft route. The nature of the Bill is consultative, which we consider appropriate.
  I turn to the main piece of education legislation in this Session, which is the Bill to reform higher education. The Bill is vital for the future of our economy and society, in a world of global economic competition where the success of our economy, as well as that of our main competitors, will rest upon our ability to ensure that our population is highly educated and highly skilled.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment. I shall give way freely throughout the discussion.
  One aspect of this approach is our policy for skills; we set out in our White Paper one dimension of the means to address the issue. I believe that it is even more important to understand that the future of our universities is central to that ambition and that the reforms that we propose are vital to make that succeed.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  The arguments for the Bill rest on three central pillars, which I intend to articulate. These are, first, that universities need more money; secondly, that it is reasonable that graduates should make a contribution towards the education from which they benefit; thirdly, that that contribution should be levied and repaid in a fair way. That is the structure that I intend to follow, but before doing so I shall give way first to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), and secondly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).
  Mr. McLoughlin: There seems to be some confusion. The Prime Minister says that only three options are available. He says that there is the Government's option, the Opposition's option and the Liberal Democrats' option. There are rumours that the Department for Education and Skills has studied more than 40 different options, and there is an early-day motion asking the Secretary of State to put all this
  526
  information into the public domain. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a big conversation and a true debate on these matters, will he put the 40 different options into the public domain, plus the back-up work that has been done by his civil servants?
  Mr. Clarke: We shall continue to put more information into the public domain. However, it is worth establishing what an option in this context is. In each of the areas that we talk about, whether it is the graduate tax idea, the variable fee idea, the flat fee idea or the tax increase idea—whatever it may be—there is a vast range of different options about how one does it. There is the Liberal Democrat approach of introducing extra tax for those earning more than £100,000. Another option would be to apply that to those earning more than £90,000, £110,000 or whatever.
  There is an enormous range of approaches to each of the main options. We are quite happy to contribute information to the public debate, and have already done so. Many think-tanks working on these issues have produced information, which is also fine. The Library, too, does excellent work in making information available. However, there are relatively few main options, about which we have already published a great deal of work, and I commend the Education and Skills Committee on its work on trying to draw the issues out. We have no inhibitions whatsoever, as the Prime Minister said, about publishing more information, but it is a question of the value of information as people go into increasing detail about the options that need to be pursued.
  Mr. Chaytor: In all the debate on variable fees for full-time undergraduates in the past few months, has anyone, whether inside or outside the House, suggested to my right hon. Friend that we end the variable fees that have always been charged to part-time undergraduates, postgraduates, undergraduates studying directly in further education colleges, undergraduates on courses franchised by universities to further education colleges and students on any other course in further education colleges? If not, why not—[Interruption]
  Mr. Clarke: Or, indeed on apprenticeships. I must tell my hon. Friend that such a suggestion has not yet been made, but I am confident that in the course of our forthcoming discussion a number of such proposals will be made. However, that underlines the answer that I gave the hon. Member for West Derbyshire—there is an enormous range of options. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, and I shall return to it when I come to discuss variability.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his willingness to engage in a conversation with Government and Opposition Back Benchers. If a university feels that it cannot charge the full top-up fee, but continues to charge the current fee of £1,125, how will it get extra money so that it can pay its staff what they deserve?
  Mr. Clarke: That is a judgment for the university. When we discuss variability, I shall use the illustration of a Russell group university that is considering

  527
  charging a zero fee for people doing a physics course, because it wants to encourage people to study the subject and knows that, under the arithmetic of the funding regime administered by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, that is a better option than closing the course. Those choices will be made by the universities, and it is critical that we appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) does, that a university's income comes not only from the fee that we are proposing but from the HEFCE and a wide range of other sources. The judgment that each university makes on each course will depend on balancing those factors.
  David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), but shall then develop this part of my argument. I am happy to give way later as I make progress.
  David Taylor: Earlier, the Secretary of State justified the proposal that graduates contribute at higher levels towards their academic courses by saying that on average they earn more than the national average wage. Does he not think that it is logical to increase the trigger for repayment from £15,000 to £25,000—the national average wage which, he says, graduate earnings will generally exceed.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point later, but it is certainly reasonable to raise the threshold from the current £10,000 to £15,000 for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. The figure of £18,000 has been widely circulated, but one could pick another one. Graduates earning that salary would be paying £5 a week towards their university education, and that is not a ridiculous amount to ask anybody to pay at that time. There is a perfectly legitimate discussion about pushing the threshold up or down a bit and the consequences of doing so. However, I think that we have got it about right in our proposals.
  Mr. Yeo: In his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of a Russell group university proposing to charge no fee for someone wanting to study physics. He said that that might be a way of attracting people to such courses. If he believes that, why does he not believe that charging a much higher fee will deter people?
  Mr. Clarke: There is a balance between those two issues. I repeat to the Opposition what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—the level at which the fee is set is a factor that will determine whether or not people take particular courses. It is only one factor in my opinion, but it is certainly a factor.
  Those are the issues that every university and every individual student will have to assess. There are a number of factors to consider, but I am trying to point out—I was happy to do so when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—that universities
  528
  would be able to vary their fees both upwards and downwards as they saw fit. They cannot do so under the current system.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way now, but shall do so later, as I want to make a little progress.
  I want to address the central argument that the universities need more money to expand so as to meet the future needs of our society and offer young people genuine opportunities. The fact is that, despite rising student numbers, between 1989 and 1997, universities experienced a 36 per cent. cut in real terms in their funding per student. Since 1997, we have started to reverse that decline, with funding per student increasing by 7 per cent. between 2003 and 2006. Moreover, the backlog in university infrastructure is estimated at about £8 billion, and university salaries have increased by only 20 per cent. since 1980, against 60 per cent. for employees at large. We still need more resources to fund the world-class research on which the international standing of our universities rests. More students are seeking university places at the same time as we, with the country's industry, are developing foundation degrees that tie our universities more closely to the UK's economic needs.
  I conclude that universities need more money. At this very first stage of the argument, unless the hon. Member for South Suffolk reversed policy in his interview this morning, we part company from the Conservatives. Their policies completely ignore current funding problems and deny the existence of a problem. Even more amazingly, they want to remove even the existing money from universities. They want to abolish fees altogether, immediately robbing the sector of up to £430 million. The direct effect of that reduction is that the sector would shrink by, we estimate, about 100,000 places. Moreover, in the long term, without the income from variable fees, a further 150,000 potential students—a total of 250,000 altogether—would be robbed of aspiration and opportunity. That is not fair, and it would create great bitterness and alienation in the younger generation.
  I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has resiled from his previous remarks, and said that since graduates generally enjoy above-average incomes it is entirely fair that they contribute to part of the cost of their higher education. I wonder whether his colleagues will do the same. After the last general election, the new shadow education Minister, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said in the House of Commons on 25 October 2001:
  "To call for the scrapping of tuition fees just makes a cheap headline."—[Official Report, 25 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 452.]
  Rather more sharply, the former Secretary of State, Lord Baker, described the Tory position in The Daily Telegraph on 7 October as
  "morally bankrupt and totally cynical".
  The former Conservative party chairman, Lord Patten, described the Conservative position on top-up fees as "intellectually disreputable and pusillanimous".
  Those Tories understand the meaning of Conservative policy. I must tell Tory Members of Parliament in all seriousness that, if that policy is

  529
  retained, it is their duty to explain to their constituents that hundreds of students who want to go to university from every school in their constituency will not be permitted to do so as a result of the policies of the hon. Member for South Suffolk. We are therefore clearly divided from the Conservatives at the outset. If they want policies that address the issues of the future they need to think a good deal harder.
  Pete Wishart: Is the Secretary of State prepared to concede that, if top-up fees are introduced in England, there will be a negative impact on the university sector in Scotland? Does he not think that it would be a disgrace for Labour Members such as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is sitting next to him, to support a measure that has been rejected in Scotland in the full knowledge that it would have a negative impact there?
  Mr. Clarke: First, all Members of this House are equal and should be treated as such. Secondly, and even more importantly, when the Scottish Parliament took its view on these matters, as it is entitled to do, it did not hear people from England saying that it could not do this, that or the other, because we accepted the logic of devolution. I say to those in the Scottish Parliament and to those who support it, as I do, that it is necessary for it to acknowledge that, in precisely the same way, it is the responsibility of this Parliament to take the decisions that it needs to take on these matters.
  Dr. Iddon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Bearing in mind the fact that we are going to broaden the A-level base, possibly to five subjects, and especially taking into consideration the fact that this Government signed up way back in 1999 to the Bologna agreement on harmonisation of higher education across Europe, which will probably result in a three-year plus two-year plus three-year bachelors, masters, doctorate degree structure, how does he propose that the Government should fund four-year or even five-year degree courses? Will not that result in even more debt for students?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct to make that point. The Bologna process was most recently discussed in September at a conference in Berlin, at which the Government were represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). There was very substantial discussion at the conference about the points my hon. Friend makes. It is appropriate to point out that the conclusion of the Bologna process is that other European countries are looking at our higher education system and its relative efficiency, and thinking about how they can move in our direction. For example, the average student in Germany does not graduate until they have reached the age of 28 and four months, which is an extraordinary state of affairs. Other countries look at the three-year, two-year, three-year system that my hon. Friend describes and ask how they can get to that position and achieve this country's levels of course completion, which are high by comparison with those of many universities elsewhere.
  530
  I agree that the Bologna process is important and that we need to consider it, but the twist that I put on the point that my hon. Friend makes is the acknowledgement by other European countries that they need to be moving towards our system, rather than the other way around. A number of other countries, including Italy and France, have variable fees, so they also face issues that they are considering in the same way.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend share my confusion about Conservative policy? Given that the Conservative party continually reiterates the importance of devolving management to schools, hospitals and universities and refers to the autonomy of the managers of those institutions, how can it seek to take away from the management of universities the key decisions and the key ability to raise their own revenue? Why are the Tories supporting a command economy?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am confused by the Conservative position. There is a serious point about what he said: I do not believe that the Conservative position is sustainable even within that party and on its Back Benches. I believe that it will have to address the issue in a very serious way.
  I come now to the second pillar of the Government's case. It is reasonable that, in addition to resources for university courses that come from taxation, including from graduates, it is also necessary to have a direct contribution from graduates. The lion's share of resources for universities will obviously come from taxation, which is right, since society as a whole benefits from the quality of our universities, but I think that it is right that graduates should also contribute.
  The reason, in fairness, is very simple to state. We already spend an average of £5,300 a year on every university student, compared with £1,800 a year for every three-year-old student or £3,200 a year for every primary school child. Universities already get the largest share of the taxpayers' money that is spent on education. The Government believe that priority for new investment must go to areas in which we can make the greatest impact on promoting equality and social justice, which I believe are in under-five and primary education. That is where any extra resources that we have should be focused, so as to equip our country for the future.
  Tom Levitt: I firmly endorse my right hon. Friend's final point. Does he agree that it is not the size of the fee or even its variability that will open doors to access as far as this policy is concerned, but its deferral? I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who said that that principle should be extended to further education as well. Indeed, I said the same thing in a speech in this place last Wednesday night.
  Does my right hon. Friend also agree that debt repayment really would be an issue if people faced the same interest rates that they faced under previous Tory Governments? The fact is that our plan will work because our management of the economy, unlike that of the Conservatives, will keep interest rates low.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree and I shall return to those points in a moment.

  531
  It is on the second pillar that we part company with the Liberal Democrats. I believe that no Secretary of State faced with the choice to which I have referred in spending on education—even a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, should there ever be one—would say that universities had to come ahead of every other demand, educational or not. That is where the Liberal Democrats are quite wrong, as they say that it is wrong in principle for the student to make any contribution. They state that, in principle, the bus driver should pay for the barrister, and they assert that no choices need to be made and that the taxpayer can fill the gap as they seek to abolish fees.
  Ironically, the Liberal Democrats have been helpful enough to confirm that real choices have to be made. They have pledged to introduce a 50p-in-the-pound rate of income tax for those who earn more than £100,000 a year. Their Treasury spokesman at the time, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), made it clear on 2 April that that money would have to be spent "to abolish the burden of student fees". In the same speech. he said that it would have to be spent on cutting council tax by £100 for everyone. In September, he said that the same money would be used to scrap charges for personal care. In the same speech, he said that it would also be used to cut taxes for the lowest paid. The Liberal Democrats stated in their 2001 manifesto that the same money—again, it is the money generated by a 50p-in-the-pound tax on incomes of more than £100,000—would be used to provide a "substantial and immediate increase in pensions". The same manifesto said that the same money would be used to increase investment in the national health service.
  I shall be generous and not cite the more than 60 other spending commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made on the basis of the same pot of money. They all confirm, however, that any Chancellor or Secretary of State faces competing demands for whatever resources come from taxation. That is why, in my opinion, resources from taxation alone offer no guarantee to universities.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Gentleman should review what he has just told us, because in fact, it is not true, and I suspect that he knows it. I want to ask him a serious question: why is it fairer to tax young people earning between £15,000 and £20,000 a year than to tax people earning £100,000 a year, who may also have benefited—indeed, they probably have—from university education?
  Mr. Clarke: I have addressed the argument on the fairness of asking people who earn more than £15,000 to pay for some of the benefits that they have received, and I think that that is entirely reasonable. On the separate argument about how one deals with people earning more than £100,000 a year, there is a debate to be had about the appropriate level of taxation at any given time. However, I do not accept—this shows the misleading nature of the Liberal Democrat proposition—the argument on increasing taxation to 50p in the pound for everybody who earns more than £100,000. If that were to happen—I do not want to argue about the merits of the case now—I do not believe that it would fund the long Liberal Democrat list of substantial spending commitments, including the abolition of fees. The authority for what I have said is
  532
  on-the-record speeches by the former Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, on 2 April and in September, and on-the-record commitments in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been moved from that position for being a bit of a soft Liberal and that others have been put in his place because of their hard and clear position, but I say to the Liberal Democrats genuinely, in the spirit of the big conversation, that they have an obligation to face up to the choices and to stop claiming that the same money can be used for an enormous multiplicity of different purposes, misleading electors throughout the country.
  Mr. Phil Willis: I will respond in my speech to the issues that the Secretary of State raises. Will he explain for the benefit of the House the difference in principle between saying, as the former Secretary of State—now the Home Secretary—and the Prime Minister did in their 2001 manifesto, that Labour has ruled out top-up fees and legislated against them and the comments that he just drew from our manifesto?
  Mr. Clarke: The difference is clear. As the Prime Minister said, our manifesto position was, in effect, that we would not introduce top-up fees before the next general election. That is what we said, and that is the position. Before top-up fees are introduced, the people will have the chance to vote on the hon. Gentleman's proposals, my proposals and Conservative proposals.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is the Secretary of State saying that his manifesto makes the statement on top-up fees with the qualification that it would not be done before the next general election? The manifesto says:
  "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them."
  Mr. Clarke: That is exactly what I have said. The point has been extremely well rehearsed, and that is the position.
  Mr. Adrian FlookThe Secretary of State spoke in warm and glowing terms about the level at which a graduate will start to repay a loan being raised from £10,000 to £15,000, £18,000 or £20,000. Will he remind the House that that level was reduced from £14,000 to £10,000 under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I am happy to say that the changes that we introduced in 1998 are precisely those that we reviewed in order to arrive at the package of measures that we have put before the House.
  I have tried to argue that there are three pillars to our proposals. First, universities need more money, which is where we part company with the Conservatives. Secondly, it is reasonable that graduates should make some contribution towards the costs of their university education, which is where we part company with the Liberals. The final pillar is the need to ensure that graduates' contributions are made fairly. That is the issue about which several of my hon. Friends have

  533
  expressed concern, as in the early-day motion to which there has been much reference. I want to address those concerns.
  The fairness of our proposals can be set out in several ways. First, I believe that university should be free at the point of use. That is why parents or students who have to pay £1,125 of the entry price to study will no longer have to find that before or during their studies. The recent student income and expenditure survey shows how much of a problem that payment is: a substantial number of students have had to find nearly £700 a year towards fees because their parents were not making the assessed contribution. That inequity should end, and under this proposal it will. As it is a central part of the Bill, it would, of course, fall if the Bill were to fall.
  Secondly, I believe that graduates should have to pay back only the cost of their own higher education: that is a form of individualised graduate tax that is fair. The figures used in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk are highly tendentious and bear no relation to any that exist in any assessment that has been made by a serious organisation.
  Thirdly, I believe that it is fair that graduates should make a contribution that is based only on what they earn, not what they owe. It is therefore right that graduates should contribute to costs once they are earning more than £15,000. That is fairer than the current level of £ 10,000, which is why it is important that the Bill allows us to raise the threshold. The progression is reasonable. For example, it is not unreasonable to ask a person who is earning £18,000 to contribute £5 a week. Again, that proposal would fall if the Bill were to fall.
  Mr. David Rendel: I think that I understood the Secretary of State to say that repayment will be based on what a person earns, not what they owe. Does he accept that in practice it will be based on what they owe, and that if they earn less it will simply be stretched over a longer period?
  Mr. Clarke: I concede that point: the hon. Gentleman is correct. Obviously, there is a relationship between the amount that one pays and the time in which one has to pay it. The point that I am trying to make is that at any given point, the burden of the repayment being made should reflect the individual's income at that time, not the size of the debt. That is why it should be done through the tax system rather than by any other means. It is not like any other kind of debt, because it is directly related to earnings. If one has, for example, a mortgage or a loan for a car, one has to pay off that debt in regular amounts according to what one owes, leaving aside the issue of the real rate of interest. By contrast, under our system, because it operates through the tax system, a person's payments will depend on what they earn at any given time.
  Fourthly, graduates are never charged a real rate of interest: the Government pay the cost of borrowing for the individual, so no one is penalised for taking longer to pay the money back or—this is an important point—for taking career breaks or dealing with family responsibilities, for example.
  The final aspect of the fairness of the proposals that I want to emphasise is that students from lower-income backgrounds will get significant extra financial support
  534
  from the Government. Money to cover all or some of the first £1,125 of the university fee will continue to be paid, and around one third of full-time students will benefit from a grant of up to £1,000. Those significant contributions to students from such families go a long way towards my being able to claim that the system of repayment is indeed fair.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend comment on a situation that has arisen in other countries whereby the rate of interest on student loans for tuition fees was initially set at a very low level but was increased over time to commercial rates of interest?
  Mr. Clarke: There is a wide range of international examples. I think that my hon. Friend has in mind New Zealand, where a new Government decided to change the rate of return in that way. Other countries with a system similar to that which we propose—it is worth emphasising that most Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries have such systems—operate it not on the basis that my hon. Friend criticises, but on the basis of our type of system. It may be helpful to the House if we place in the Library a summary of systems in other countries to assist hon. Members in analysing such questions.
  Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend take it from the Member of Parliament who represents the constituency in which the least number of young people go to university that working-class kids fear not having to repay minor amounts of fees, but that they may not be able to keep body and soul together to get to university in the first place? If he wishes to give any leeway to anybody, will he resist those who want concessions on fees and ensure that any assistance that he has at his disposal goes towards increasing the student grant so that those young people can get to university in the first place?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are two ways of addressing it: first, we can consider the level of student grant, as he suggests, and secondly, we can consider the level of maintenance that students are entitled to receive to ensure that they have enough money to survive while at university. We are looking at both those issues to see how we can assist people in his constituency and others.
  Ian Lucas: My right hon. Friend makes a persuasive case. I am fully with him in relation to the first two pillars that he outlined, but I have some difficulties in relation to the variable fee. Does he accept that higher costs for individual courses deter people from poorer backgrounds from going to university to pursue those courses?
  Mr. Clarke: That is a legitimate point, which, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall address when I reach that part of my speech.
  Further to what I have said about fairness, our proposals for the office for fair access, which will have any kind of bite only in a world of variable fees, will ensure that universities have to make available a wide range of bursaries as a condition of charging a higher

  535
  fee. I have say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk that the office for fair access does not tell universities whom they must or must not admit. He was wrong about that in the House and on the "Today" programme. If he takes time to study our proposals in the course of his busy day, as he deals with both education and health, I hope that he will withdraw his comments and acknowledge that that is not what we are about. We are trying to ensure that universities have fair systems that can operate properly and provide bursaries in order to do so. Let me give an example. As a direct result of our decision to take the approach that I outlined, Cambridge university has confirmed that one in three students could be awarded up to £4,000 a year in addition to Government money. That is a substantial amount. One of the most significant universities in the country has said that a third of students will get that sort of money on top of fee remission and the grant. That means that for the first time in many years—I do not know if it has ever happened previously—there is a genuine incentive for people from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to look to Cambridge rather than other universities on financial grounds, leaving aside the merits of any other case.
  Cambridge university's policy flows directly from our approach, and I applaud its action. Many people would never have believed that such universities would offer such incentives to poorer students. It is a great step forward. Moreover, I believe that others among our great universities are likely to follow that example. That will deal with some points about which some hon. Friends have expressed concern.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks. I agree that the Cambridge university bursary scheme is excellent and will help enormously to alleviate the poverty that students experience. However, Cambridge university is in a relatively privileged position and it has fewer students from lower-income backgrounds than many other universities. It will be difficult for other universities to try to match Cambridge because they will not have the financial security.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Nevertheless, it is significant that Cambridge university has taken such a step, and I believe that other universities of that order are considering precisely the same action. That makes a strong case for the existence of an office for fair access that tells any university that considers charging higher fees, "You'd better come up with a case for ensuring that students from working-class backgrounds can get to university." That is an important element of our proposal. I congratulate Cambridge university on getting ahead of it. It does not mean that such action stops there. I am simply trying to show that our policy approach has led to major universities, such as Cambridge, taking major steps that will give people from working-class families major advantages in getting to some of the best universities in the country. The action will spread.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is worth putting on the record the fact that every Cambridge and Oxford college gets an extra £2,000 a year per student from the Treasury. That has happened for many years. I know that the Government are putting
  536
  that on to a sliding scale, but the universities of Cambridge and Oxford have immense advantages over others.
  Mr. Clarke: The issue that my hon. Friend raises about Oxbridge colleges is a long-standing soap opera, in which I am perhaps disappointed not yet to have participated seriously. Although his point has weight, it should not detract from the significance of Cambridge university's decision and the measures that it is prepared to take to do something different.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that even if the access regulator improves the relative performance of some universities when compared with others, specific universities that already have many disadvantaged students will continue to have to confront the problem of immediately putting the money that comes in through the front door out through the back door in bursaries? The more élite universities will not feel the same effect, even if they improve their performance, according to the access regulator. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a case might be made for a maintenance system that starts centrally, before the money is distributed to universities rather than afterwards?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall comment on the good work of my hon. Friend and other colleagues later. I accept that there is a problem, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has been discussing the matter with universities throughout the country to ensure that we do not have the sort of disincentive that my hon. Friend described. I hope that when we publish our proposals we will be in a position to deal with the issue in the most effective way. However, I accept the legitimacy of his point.
  Variability has caused great anxiety to hon. Members of all parties, especially Labour Members. I believe that it is a critical driver of fairness and equality. I appreciate that it is controversial and that some Labour colleagues want a flat fee of, for example, £2,500 across the board. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and other colleagues for their detailed work, but I remain of the view that it is necessary to vary fees from zero to a maximum of £3,000 for different universities and courses. I believe that that reflects the reality of our diverse higher education system. It would be unfair to insist that every student on every course at every university paid the same amount. Every university would be forced to charge the same amount across the board, irrespective of demand or the nature or quality of the course and the potential rate of return for the student. Anyone who examines our university system knows that variations exist, and students understand that when they apply to university.
  Let me consider some disadvantages of a flat-fee system. First, it would remove flexibility. Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of even leading Russell group universities charging zero fees for specific courses to encourage people to join them. Those who try to develop foundation degrees want to give people an incentive to join their courses. They could not do that if they were required to charge a fee at the suggested levels.

  537
  Secondly, it would be unfair to students not to take account of different courses and different universities in terms of the return in employment. Thirdly, a flat-fee system would remove the mechanism for access requirements from the office for fair access. The earlier exchange about Cambridge university suggest the potential power to change matters, not only after the mechanism's existence but as a result of thinking about it beforehand.
  Fourthly, when universities are given a choice of a course at £2,500 or not having the course, their only option might be to end a course that they want to continue because they cannot reduce fees to attract people to it. That is an important issue for universities when they plan.
  Variable fees will allow a much stronger guarantee of value for money and quality of courses because they relate the course to the student more directly and specifically. It is ironic that a flat rate of £2,500—the figure that many colleagues suggested—would distribute money from the poor to the affluent.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: How does my right hon. Friend square matters in a university community? He gave the example of a physics course getting a zero fee rating. How does he square that with university management finances? A creative writing course might charge £3,000 because it is popular. Would the money be reflected in physics courses? Science courses are notoriously expensive because of technicians, equipment and all the money that has to be spent on experimentation and so on. Indeed, experimenters carry out most of the teaching and take money from research grants to aid teaching. That cannot be right.
  Mr. Clarke: The Higher Education Funding Council mandates money for specific courses to provide encouragement in the way we discussed earlier. I say in all friendship to my hon. Friend and neighbour that he should talk to the vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia, of which he was dean, and which is in my constituency, about managing money. If he does, he will find that the proposals are welcomed because they provide the capacity to raise money and plan far more effectively for creative writing, as well as for maths, physics and so on. That is a better way for the vice-chancellor of managing the resources to improve the quality of the university.
  The reforms are a package, not a pick-and-mix solution. They are generous to students and fair to universities and the taxpayer. We will publish the Bill and our detailed proposals at the beginning of January so that, as the Prime Minister said, Second Reading can take place before the end of that month. The future of the country's higher education system is at stake. We must have the courage to reform it in a way that is steadfastly based on the Labour party's values of opportunity and fairness. We need a policy for the future, and I commend our policy to the House.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: Before moving on to what, inevitably, is the main topic of debate today, may I make one or two remark
  538
  on other aspects of the Gracious Speech? First, however, I make common cause with the Secretary of State in saying that I get increasingly tired of our public services being painted as third-world public services. The reality is that that is not the case.
  There are significant problems in health, education and other areas of public service, but for most Members the public services delivered in their constituencies are of a very high order. Continually denigrating the staff who work in those services does a disservice to our arguments and to the work of the House.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I have only just started.
  Mr. Chaytor: I know, but will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: Yes.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that Members on the Government side of the House thank him for his remarks. Does he accept that the fact that those public services are in good shape is largely due to the increased investment that has been put in since 1997?
  Mr. Willis: I cannot possibly go that far for the hon. Gentleman, because he and I know that between 1997 and 1999 a huge opportunity was lost by the incoming Labour Government. They stuck to Conservative spending plans for those two years, seeing our public services continue to be denied the resources they needed. However, there has been significant spending in a number of areas since then, and the Liberal Democrats are very supportive of it. I hope that he will accept that as a halfway house.
  I say to the Secretary of State that the draft school transport Bill is very interesting. We hope to be able to get a number of assurances from him before hares start running. First, there needs to be an assurance that the current arrangements, particularly in post-Education Act 1944 terms respecting Cowper-Temple and the Church schools situation, will be guaranteed. Secondly, we need an assurance that students who live more than 3 miles away will continue to get a form of free transport to the school of their choice. Having an education policy that offers parents choice for their children across borders, especially after the Greenwich judgment, but which then introduces ring-fencing for local authorities—which does not bring those considerations into play—could do a huge disservice. I hope that the Secretary of State, early on in the consultation, will make some parameters clear.
  On the school transport Bill, may I also ask the Secretary of State not to neglect 16 to 19-year-olds? One of the huge problems for young people in that age range, particularly in rural areas, is access to further education. There may be a local school at which they may be able to get 16 to 19 education, but if we are to develop opportunities we need to be able to offer them transport. One of the huge deficiencies in the system—it is a real shame that the Learning and Skills Council has not tackled this—relates to how we guarantee young people

  539
  who want to access a course in an institution other than their local school from 16 to 19 that they can have it. I hope that that will be taken up.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Select Committee is considering admissions policy. I do not say this in a party political sense, but on the "Any Questions?" programme last week one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues seemed to want to change the situation in terms of community schools and the Greenwich judgment. Is the hon. Gentleman singing from the same hymn sheet and does that accord with what he has just said?
  Mr. Willis: I do not want to get into a debate about the "Any Questions?" programme, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was talking about the Greenwich judgment and a long-standing party policy, which is to reverse the Greenwich judgment. Those Members who were present when we discussed the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will know that I proposed an amendment, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that would have dealt with that issue. The Greenwich judgment and, indeed, the Rotherham judgment are key issues in terms of dealing with access. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will take that on board.
  The second point that I want to make before going on to the substantive issue of higher education relates to the proposed children's Act and the establishment of a children's commissioner. I say to the Secretary of State that we are delighted at the speed at which the Government have moved from producing a document to going for legislation to ensure that the recommendations are put into law. We are grateful for that. However, we are concerned that it appears that we are to have a one-size-fits-all solution on how local authorities have to respond to amalgamation and the one-stop shop in local authorities. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate can allay the fears.
  It is important that local authorities are allowed to have bottom-up solutions on how they provide the service. For instance, authorities such as Surrey, which is not a Liberal Democrat authority, have done remarkable work on integrating children's services and they should not have to unpick all that and suddenly start again. To do that would be a great shame.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Perhaps I might offer clarification. I am extremely sympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and I acknowledge the need for flexibility in putting the proposal into effect in local authorities throughout the country, but as we do that we must not lose the drive and impetus towards a single clear responsibility that is properly operated. Provided that that imperative is acknowledged, I accept what he says.
  Mr. Willis: I accept that as an imperative. It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should provide the framework. The commissioner should report to Parliament, but the local authority should be able to get local solutions within that framework. I hope that we will see that.
  From time to time, all parties put the slogans "No child left behind" and "Every child matters" on their documents, but every child does matter in terms of child
  540
  protection and the broader issues involved in how we protect minorities in our schools. Looking at the recent exclusion figures, it causes enormous sadness to me that Afro-Caribbean boys continue to be three times more likely to be excluded than their white counterparts. It is enormously sad that children with special educational needs are seven times more likely to be excluded. I hope that the commissioner will also deal with those minorities to ensure that local authorities produce good solutions rather than simply tokenism.
  May I include two other groups of children in that? The first is traveller children. A growing number of traveller children in our society—those of new age travellers and of traditional Romany travellers—are often neglected. Ofsted has drawn the Secretary of State's attention to the problems of traveller children and I hope that we can include in the commissioner's remit a real commitment to doing something for those youngsters.
  On the issue of asylum children, I am delighted that the Government have abandoned their policy of taking away children and putting them in care. That was a horrendous policy and we are delighted that whichever Secretary of State, or whichever Minister, was going to go down that road has changed it.
  Moving on to the central focus of the Gracious Speech, it is interesting that its fourth paragraph said:
  "A Bill will be introduced to enable more young people to benefit from higher education."
  That laudable aim is shared by Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but what we have heard today and what we have seen from Ministers ever since the publication of the White Paper is not a commitment to that, but a desire to shift the balance of funding for our universities from the state to the individual. That is really what we are talking about today and it is the whole emphasis of what the Secretary of State said.
  The Secretary of State did not produce a shred of evidence to show how we will encourage students from less traditional backgrounds to aspire to—let alone go to—university by charging the poorest students and by increasing the debt burden to mortgage-style amounts. He has oft repeated that that aspiration is something that we have to tackle, because at 16 many youngsters who should be going on to study post-16 and at university drop out of the system.
  Mr. Chaytor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why, through that long period when university education was entirely funded out of general taxation, the proportion of working class young people going into higher education remained at virtually zero?
  Mr. Willis: Of course I can. One of the great opportunities that we have in these debates is to tackle that very issue. I was a working-class child, and I was the first in my family to stay on in education when I went back to school after I had failed as a footballer. My father had aspirations for me, but opportunities were few and far between. Under the grammar school system, only 10 or 20 per cent. of youngsters went to schools with the aspiration of putting pupils into post-16 education and beyond. Fortunately, successive Governments—not just Labour Governments—have

  541
  moved away from that and opened up opportunities for pupils post-16. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the whole basis of our working society has changed. His hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will know from his pit communities that the aspiration was for their young men in particular to leave school at 16 and go down the pit like their fathers had. That was the culture in many of the old industries of Britain, but that has all changed for the good. Aspirations have changed, and it saddens me that we are pulling up the ladder of opportunity behind us.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I come from the same background as he does, and I noticed all those changes. Like him, I was fortunate enough to have parents who went to great lengths to ensure that I got to university. All the changes that he mentions, including changes in aspirations, are one thing, but he has not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked. Despite all those changes, despite people's aspirations and despite the structural changes, for the past 50 years the percentage of people who come from my background and that of the hon. Gentleman and who go to university has not changed at all. He must not speak as though great progress has been made and huge numbers of people from our background go to university, and that that trend has suddenly been abandoned and reversed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Our proposals are designed to break the deadlock, because that percentage has not increased.
  Mr. Willis: I am arguing that the impact of tuition fees since 1998 has been to reverse the trend that was at least going in the right direction, especially after 1989 and after the incorporation of the universities. [Interruption.] The Minister should refer to his own documents, because he has told me in a parliamentary answer that that is the case. If he is saying that loading additional tuition fees and differential fees on to poorer students will encourage them to go to university, then he and I live in different lands.
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the leader of his party said in a speech last July that the percentage of university students from the bottom social classes had decreased since the introduction of fees, he had got his facts wrong and his comments were misleading? What the right hon. Gentleman said was a 7 per cent. fall was actually a 1 per cent. increase. That was corrected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in a letter, but that correction has never been acknowledged.
  Mr. Willis: I acknowledge that now on the Floor of the House. It would be quite wrong of my right hon. Friend or me to provide statistics that are incorrect, and I have no wish to do that. The statistics that I shall provide later in my speech have come from the Department, so I think we would both agree on those.
  542
  We should study the analysis of the impact of the policy of differential fees on student participation and institutional direction. Nothing in the White Paper or in what the Secretary of State has said today allays fears. There is no guarantee that universities will not have state funding removed in proportion to their fee income, as has happened since the introduction of the tuition fee in 1998. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about increased resources since 1998, but virtually pound for pound has been taken away in grant from the Higher Education Funding Council as has been put in from students. That is not acceptable, and if that happens to top-up fees universities will be short-changed.
  Seldom do I agree with Conservative policy on education, but the Tories are right about the introduction of the new regulator that we call Oftoff. Artificially skewing intakes to universities by some glorified plan of social engineering will merely add a layer of bureaucracy, and increasing student debt will be the major deterrent.
  Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman will know that two-thirds of all the students in the United Kingdom who obtain the highest A-level grades come from state schools. He will also know that only half the students in Oxford and Cambridge come from state schools. Does he accept that that is the result of hundreds of years of social engineering? Is it not about time that we had a better balance between the grades obtained, the pool of talent coming out of the system and the places reserved in our leading universities? Is not that the most powerful argument for some intervention in the admissions process?
  Mr. Willis: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and do not disagree with the figures that he presented. However, I disagree with the bureaucratic solution to that problem. When the Chancellor made his ill-timed remark about Oxford university two years ago, and when we had the debate last year on social engineering in the admissions policy at Bristol university, the issue involved was how to choose which students to take from among the candidates with the same or similar grades. If the Government are proposing that Oftoff must require that a proportion of students from particular socio-economic backgrounds are chosen to enter a university on the basis of those grades, my goodness we are looking at our universities in a totally different way. That is the debate that we must have. At the end of the day the hon. Gentleman may be right, but at the moment I believe that universities do not need this layer of bureaucracy. We should challenge vice-chancellors and the courts of universities, and those of us who are on those courts, to get their act together and find solutions that satisfy the Secretary of State.
  Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I shall make a little progress.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall make a little progress.
  Mr. Maude: It is on the point with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing.
  Mr. Willis: I am sorry, but I have turned down the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
  Peter Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman can go first and I can go second.
  Mr. Willis: No, no.
  We want students to choose courses because they have a desire to study in a specific area, not because those are the courses that they can afford. We want them to leave university with a desire to contribute where they feel they are most needed, not where they will get the most money to repay their debts. Sadly, today's debate, like most of our debates on higher education over the six years that I have been in the House, has been about balancing the books and not about higher education.
  The current debate is about stage two in the Government's grand plan to move the burden of paying for our universities from the state to the individual. The Secretary of State said in the House that
  "the entire objective in taking our difficult decisions has been to put higher education on a firm footing for the next two decades."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 958.]
  Who was he trying to mislead? It was simply not true at that point. It was not for the next two decades—it was for the lifetime of that Parliament until the Government introduced the next ratcheting up to ensure that students paid more. He was clearly not trying to mislead his master at No. 10, because the 2001 manifesto pledged not to introduce top-up fees. The Government are now legislating again, so that was either deceitful or cynical. The reality was that there was no intention to maintain that pledge. I would have more time for the Government if they said that they got it wrong; that they made a mistake and now have to do things differently, because that is grown-up politics.
  Where is the Government's vision in their proposed Bill? There is an assumption that our university system, which has mushroomed from the highly elitist pre-Robbins structure to the current mass higher education product, is somehow fit for the purpose in the 21st century. The only question to be answered, as in 1997 following publication of the Dearing report, is: how do we pay for it? Neither the White Paper nor the proposed Bill attempts to engage with employers or the new generation of students about the future of the system.
  Regional universities are to be downgraded to teaching-only universities, ignoring their crucial role as economic generators and their relationship with regional development agencies, sector skills councils and the future regional assemblies. "Corporate universities" hardly get a mention, despite the success of the National Health Service university and corporate higher education institutions run by Motorola, IBM and others. The FE sector, which already delivers a significant amount of higher education at foundation level, is almost sidelined. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has made huge strides with the e-university, but the virtual university appears to have been lost in the ether. The growing army of mature students who increasingly study part-time, in the
  544
  workplace or using bite-sized units are given scant consideration, with proposals for credit accumulation and transfer being left to the vagaries of individual institutions.
  The Prime Minister talks about creating a market in higher education, with different products attracting top-up premiums. The reality is that the proposed legislation will not create a market that offers students choice. It will merely reinforce a hierarchy of institutions that will be able to perpetuate their current positions on the back of a top-up fees structure. That is the reality. We are creating a hierarchy by law, rather than the market that the Prime Minister wants. I hope that, when the Bill is eventually published, it will seek to broaden its narrow remit, so that we can enthusiastically engage with the re-engineering of the whole higher education product.
  However, we are where we are, so let me make some common cause with the Government on some issues. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills mentioned three significant planks to his argument. Liberal Democrats accept the need to increase opportunity for more students with the relevant qualifications to access higher education. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), both on the "Today" programme this morning and in the debate today, said exactly that. He said that Conservative policy is to provide a place for all those with the relevant qualifications; I think that those were his words.
  We agree with the Government's analysis that the United Kingdom will need to rely increasingly on its human capital to succeed in a global market. Indeed, as the recent Machin report, commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills and the London School of Economics, emphasised, the biggest impact on productivity and competitiveness by region and sector is made by graduates. However, the 50 per cent. target is distinctly unhelpful. In reality, that level of participation has already been reached in Scotland—it is 53 per cent.—and it will be reached in England and Wales given the current level three trends. The challenge is not simply to enlarge the number of students to meet a target but to encourage entry from less traditional routes.
  Currently, 90 per cent. of 18 to 19-year-olds with two A-levels go into higher education, yet fewer than 50 per cent. do so with an equivalent vocational qualification. The need to encourage more students with vocational backgrounds to enter higher education is a real challenge, particularly given the changes to the 14 to 19 curriculum and the way in which vocational education will have a much larger part to play.
  Another area of common cause with the Government is the need for universities to access increased funding following a 40 per cent. real-terms cut in per student funding under successive Conservative Governments and a 7 per cent. cut during Labour's first term in office. Universities UK made a compelling case to the comprehensive spending review for increased investment but received £1.8 billion less than it sought. Its bid for a further £8 billion to 10 billion for the years 2005–06 to 2007–08 reflects the continuing decline in university resources. If we are to produce world-class research, significantly to improve the infrastructure of the sector and to invest in high-quality teaching, resources must be forthcoming. We as a party accept that and, indeed, have tried to find a solution to it.

  545
  Most of our competitors have increased the percentage of GDP spent on higher education, but ours has reduced from 0.88 per cent. in 1997–98 to 0.78 per cent. in 2003–04. We are now 16th out of 28 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league table of expenditure per student on higher education, so let us not say that our investment in higher education is generous. It is not.
  I ask the multi-tasking hon. Member for South Suffolk to defend Conservative policy. Expenditure on higher education should, according to his party, be lower than that of Turkey, Mexico, or Slovakia—we are below them in the league table at the moment. I ask him how he can support a policy that, by the year 2010, would see 450,000 fewer places in higher education—the equivalent of 850 places for each of the current English constituencies. Those are not my figures; they are from the Higher Education Policy Institute. That is the estimate. If hon. Members go away with only one fact from the debate, let it be how many children currently at school will lose their place under the Conservatives' proposals—let them put it in a news letter.
  Incidentally, not a single penny is allocated to the new so-called vocational vision. It is all right transferring youngsters from an academic university route to some other route that is called vocational, but it has to be paid for and it is very expensive. However, last Wednesday on Sky's lunchtime programme, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) came up with a solution. He suggested that British business would find the £1 billion shortfall. That is a new tax going on to business.
  Surely no sensible member of the Conservative party would support such a regressive and economically illiterate policy. I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is not in his place, for his honourable stance in arguing the case for at least increased investment in the higher education system. We know that Tory Front Benchers do not support that policy. It is purely political opportunism— that is what it is all about. He and most of his colleagues, including the leader of the Conservative party, supported the imposition of a flat-rate tuition fee as proposed by Lord Dearing: they voted for that in their amendment on 16 March 1998. They tabled two early-day motions supporting their policy. Early-day motion 24 has 25 signatures and early-day motion 124 has 23 signatures. They cannot even get a fifth of their party to support their policy in an early-day motion, which hon. Members only have to sign.
  When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was elected leader, the first thing he said was that he doubted that the higher education policy would remain. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will confirm that Conservative members of the Select Committee on Education and Skills have all supported a policy of tuition and top-up fees. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the predecessor of the hon. Member for South Suffolk, said on 19 January 2003 on GMTV:
  "I don't mind the principle of differential fees…If it's true the Government is going to abolish up front fees and say that everything should be paid back by individual students…that's fine by me".
  546
  One could not have a clearer statement of where that party is actually at.
  The Conservative party's conversion to an anti-fees policy is as unbelievable as its policy to confine future asylum seekers to an unknown island somewhere in the world. Lord Baker was right when he wrote in The Daily Telegraph on 7 October that the policy was
  "morally bankrupt and totally cynical".
  What a fitting tribute from a former Secretary of State to the shadow Secretary of State and the policy.
  The sadness of the debate is that the Government have taken the lead from the Conservatives in the development of their higher education policy. The proposals in the White Paper, and those that will be in the Bill, are classic 1980s thinking from the Thatcher-Joseph school of social justice, the only difference being that Baroness Thatcher did not believe that she could get the proposals through her party. That shows how far we have come in the juxtaposition of two great parties. [Interruption.] I shall rephrase that; one great party.
  When the declared intention of the Government is to enable more young people to benefit from higher education, how can Ministers justify an increase in fees that will place severe financial and psychological barriers in the paths of participation? The evidence is clear. Since 1998, the Government's policies have widened and not narrowed the social gap. The UNITE-MORI research shows that the proportion from the lower socio-economic classes—C2, D and E—going into higher education has fallen from 20 per cent. in 2000 to 17 per cent. in 2002. The White Paper, written by the Government, acknowledged on page 17 that the gap has widened. The National Audit Office has said that, since 1998–99, the final removal of the means-tested grant is likely to have widened the gap between the social classes.
  In her research for the DFES on student income and expenditure, published a few weeks ago, Professor Callender concluded that the shift in student support had benefited wealthy students and not those from poorer backgrounds. There is clear evidence that debt deters students from poorer, non-traditional backgrounds, yet student debt will increase dramatically if top-up fees are introduced.
  The Secretary of State poured scorn on the figure of £33,708 as the average debt in 2010 and said that it did not come from a reliable source. I presume that Barclays bank is now an unreliable source. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I hope that hon. Members do not bank with Barclays. However, they will admit that one of the most valuable sources of statistics on student debt has been the Barclays student survey. Without it, we would be all the more impoverished. [Interruption.] That was a pun.
  The Callender report showed that the poorer students were 43 per cent. more in debt than the richest ones. Professor Callender, who wrote the report for the Secretary of State, finished it by saying that
  "top-up fees of £3,000 will put even more students off university."
  There is clear evidence that poorer students are not only the most in debt, but the most likely to have to work.

  547
  Already, poorer students are not applying for particular courses in medicine and other long courses because they cannot sustain the debt. The British Medical Association concluded recently that
  "top-up fees would deter poor students from studying medicine … would move away from and not towards the Government's and the universities' policy of widening access into higher education."
  The Government are saying that they will put in place mechanisms to support poorer students and that no student will have to pay up-front fees. We have argued that case ever since the introduction of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. My colleagues and I tabled an amendment to the Bill that was dismissed as nonsense by the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I say to them that they have to get out of their ivory towers and meet real students on real council estates—the sort of kids I taught all my life, who look at debt as a huge burden. It is no answer to tell debt-averse students and those from particular ethnic minority backgrounds that they will be able to pay three years later or that debt can be racked up and paid over a lifetime.
  Mr. Allen: May I drag the hon. Gentleman away from one of his myths? Were he to come to some of the estates in my constituency and offer young people an interest-free loan of £9,000, he would be trampled in the rush. None of us would like to see that. Will he concede that we are talking not about poor students, rich students or parents paying back the money, but graduates from all socio-economic classes at certain levels of income paying back the money? He must concede that £5 a week is less than a couple of pints of Guinness down the students' union for someone earning £18,000 a year.
  Mr. Willis: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman. I do not know his constituency, but I should be delighted to visit. I am sure that if he went to any part of Britain and offered a £9,000 interest-free loan, even those who do not understand the language would bite his hand off. That would be a generous offer, but this country is in so much debt because of offers of interest-free loans.
  We must knock on the head the business of the £5 repayment. The reality is that, at that level, students will not even pay the interest on the debt. If we are talking about serious loans after the introduction of top-up fees, and if those are rolled into the maintenance loans that are paid back through the same system, we will be talking about a figure in excess of £20,000 in 2005–06 or 2008, as the Secretary of State and the Minister have been honest enough to accept. The idea of paying back £5 a week is nonsense.
  Peter Bradley: Does the hon. Gentleman regard mortgages as debt, especially when one ceases to have to make repayments when one loses one's job, which would have been welcome in the 1980s and 1990s? If he does, is the Liberal Democrat message to potential homeowners that they should not take on that responsibility because they may have to pay it back?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has got to get—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was going to say something uncharitable. Of course people will have mortgages and
  548
  other borrowings but, if we are to believe the Barclays survey, in 2010, it will not be the poorer students but those from families who constantly get knocked by the Government—those just above the level at which the remittance of fees applies—who will have £33,000 of debt. They will then go into adult life and will need somewhere to live, which means renting or buying. The hon. Gentleman and I may have bought properties in London because it is cheaper to buy than to rent in some parts. The burden that will fall on young people will be absolutely massive.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is comfortable with young people starting out in adult life in that way and that Cabinet Ministers, professional footballers and other multi-millionaires should not pay more tax, the Labour party will have moved to a point that I thought I would never see in terms of social justice, equity and progressive taxation.
  Lynne Jones: I certainly do not agree that that level of debt is acceptable or will be contemplated by people from council estates. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman appeared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on this point. People offered a £9,000 interest-free loan will not accept it if, as a quid pro quo, they must refuse any benefits to which they might be entitled and forgo any full-time work that might give them a substantive income.
  Mr. Willis: I am indebted to the hon. Lady for the completeness of the response I should have given to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the nonsense of saying that there is a strings-free £9,000 interest-free loan, when clearly there is not. Anybody would accept a strings-free £9,000 loan, but the strings attached to this one are quite significant.
  The Government say that they have put in place mechanisms to support poorer students, and that no student will have to pay up-front fees. That is just not so. The reality is that poorer students will have to increase their debt by £1,875 per annum if they want to go to a top university. They will have some £5,625 worth of extra debt when they leave university. The first £1,125 will be paid for them, but they will have to find the rest. However, the Government have come up with a solution. They say that they will give our poorer students £1,000 in grant. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education recently said that they can use that £1,000 to pay off their fees. If that is not at least a sleight of hand, I am afraid that it is deceitful, because at the end of the day such students will still have that debt.
  The Government are telling universities that they must use £875 of every top-up fee to provide bursaries for poorer students. That is great for Cambridge, and I am delighted that it will be able to give £4,000 to every poor student. But the reality is that 80 to 90 per cent. of students at Nottingham Trent university, Sheffield Hallam university and certain universities in south London are already on fee waivers. How can those places charge a top-up fee? How will they be able to provide bursaries to support poorer students? And if they cannot raise the top-up fees, how will they pay the academic salaries, infrastructure costs, and so on? This

  549
  policy is divisive. It is creating different tiers within our higher education system that are based purely on one's ability to pay.
  Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman has spent in excess of 40 minutes criticising the Government and the official Opposition. When he intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that he would spell out in detail the Liberal Democrats' policy on funding public services. Is that still his intention?
  Mr. Willis: I have enjoyed the interventions that I have taken, and in my view the whole debate has been good. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not enjoyed it.
  I turn to our policy. The Government say that the only way to fund our universities is through differential fees, and the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) may accept that that is so. The Liberal Democrats are saying that that is not so—that we can support our universities and students through direct taxation. Through such taxation, we can recoup the costs from those who gain the most, and who have the highest levels of disposable income. By taxing incomes of over £100,000 at a 50p rate, we would pass the burden of taxation from students to those with the most significant incomes. Surely Labour party members would accept the basic premise that such a tax is at least part-socialist, given that it is fair, progressive and redistributive.
  According to the Library, such a tax would raise £4.5 billion, of which £2 billion would be allocated to higher education. That £2 billion would be used to meet the £450 million cost of abolishing existing fees; some £300 million of it would be used to support a £2,000 grant—the Government are already putting in £300 million—and approximately £1 billion of it would be spent on university infrastructure.
  We have three pledges—and only three pledges—in respect of our 50p rate. The first call on that money is the spending of up to £2 billion on tuition fees and higher education. Secondly, £1 billion is earmarked for free personal care for the elderly, thereby introducing in England what Scotland already has. The third pledge is to lessen the impact of the transition from an unfair council tax to a local income tax.
  That is the policy, which is on the record. Any other funding commitment made by my Front-Bench colleagues would have to be met through savings made elsewhere. If such savings cannot be made, such proposals will not be implemented—I cannot be clearer than that.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have heard the three main parties explain three different positions. At the end of the day, it is up to Labour Back Benchers to decide whether they have signed the early-day motion because they believe in a fair and equitable system, under which those who can most afford to support our
  550
  students do so, or whether they want to vote in favour of this unfair, regressive policy. I know in which Lobby my colleagues will be on the day.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.
  2.56 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has made some interesting remarks, as he always does, and at inordinate length. He is the single-handed destroyer of Back-Bench time, especially during education debates. It has come to something when we each have to squeeze our contributions into 10 minutes. An increasingly small number of people are getting the opportunity to speak. I thought that Parliament was about not only Front-Bench opinion, but Back-Bench opinion.
  I have got to be brief, but I shall try also to be succinct and not too party political. For me, becoming the Chairman of a Select Committee never meant that I should also become a political neuter. I did not accept the position on that basis, and I shall continue to be outspoken. I should point out to those whom I may have offended when I asked a certain question of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that in more than 20 years as a Member of this House, I have always asked Ministers and Opposition spokesmen who comment on state education whether they invested in such education by sending their children to state schools. I am not going to apologise to the House for that—it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
  I always try to be reasonably objective in assessing the Government's record. Indeed, as the Ministers who appeared before the Education and Skills Committee this morning know, they were subjected to some pretty tough questioning. I stand by the reports that my Committee has produced in the three years of my chairmanship; they made some pretty stinging criticisms of the Government when they got things wrong. But I have to say that the Government's record in tackling the central theme of the underperformance of children from less well off, working-class backgrounds is second to none in our history. Let us look at the facts. Let us remember the percentage of gross domestic product that has been poured into pre-school; into free nursery education at the ages of three, and now four; into upgrading our school buildings; and into our nursery, junior and secondary schools. Money has been spent throughout the system.
  Those who want to criticise this Government can do so, because they have priorities that people may not agree with. All parliamentarians—on either side of the House—can legitimately criticise a Government's priorities, but we should not underrate the fact that an enormous sum has been spent on pre-school and the entire education system, in order to tackle the central problem that the Government were sworn to tackle on taking office in 1997.
  It gladdens my heart to see that education is mentioned three times in the Queen's Speech, in three different and important Bills. I shall not discuss the children's Bill, although I do have a great interest in it, as

  551
  do the Select Committee and the Minister for Children. However, I should at this point mention Huddersfield's great education pioneer, Brian Jackson. He was one of the leading education reformers of the 1960s and 1970s, and he campaigned continually for a children's commissioner. Thank goodness we are now going to have one.
  I should like to say a few words about school transport in this country, which is in a mess. Members of the Select Committee had one of their exotic freebies on Monday when we all went to Slough for the day. We took evidence in a good local authority, which is coping with the admissions policy that it inherited—with all that that means for the variety of schools in the area. The authority does not wholly control the schools because its neighbours want to send their children into the borough and a quarter of residents want to send their children out the other way. In every town and city in the country can be seen mass movements of children being bussed miles and miles to particular educational institutions. It is a mess, and I hope that some of the pilot schemes in the Bill may do something to help tackle it. Anyone who has been involved in education—on either side of the House—knows that it a difficult problem. Thank goodness, there is an element of pragmatism in the pilot schemes, which are about trying to sort something out. However, it will take much more than what appears in the present Bill to get it right.
  One problem that is always evident is the dearth of community schools in the country. Everybody seems to leave the community and very few schools have only their local population attending them. Many of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee deplored that fact. How can we have community schools when the whole community is on the move to other communities? Overall, however, I welcome the three Bills and the priority that the Government still accord to education.
  I should also mention that evidence given over the years during the Select Committee's production of four reports on higher education shows time and again that when children reach the age of 18, it is too late to encourage them into higher education. The really important work is in Sure Start and the early years, in nursery education and in education maintenance allowances. All the evidence shows that that was a brave policy, which is now being rolled out from one third of areas to the whole country. What a wonderful scheme. It was an excellent idea to pay poorer students to stay in education from 16 to 18. We never receive proper acknowledgement from Opposition Members, particularly the official Opposition, for making that real change. Members with an interest in education know that it has been a pioneering piece of policy—and that it works.
  The Select Committee frequently stresses that if substantial moneys are being spent on education, there must be checking for value for money and monitoring to ensure that a policy works. If it does not work, it should be scrapped and something else attempted. That amounts to a refreshing pragmatism about the current Administration, who are not driven by a bankrupt ideology whereby everything has to be run like a nationalised industry. We experimented very unsuccessfully with that idea in the past. On access, evidence suggests that early intervention is necessary.
  552
  I have to tell the House, including some of my hon. Friends, that in respect of retention, much of the evidence coming before the Select Committee readily showed that debt and debt aversion are not the major considerations at the top of people's minds. The reason why students drop out of higher education in their first year is that, having been given bad advice, they are on the wrong course in the wrong town. Debt was right down on the list, so rather than deal with myths, let us be honest about that.
  In my remaining few minutes, I want to point out that the Select Committee was often concerned about the long-term. The most regrettable aspect of what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said in the "Today" programme this morning—and repeated in the Chamber today—was that all the employers that he had visited said that there was no call for more higher education. Anyone who heard the lecture by Larry Summers, president of Harvard and former US Treasury Secretary, knows that current research shows clearly that if we want to be a competitive country with wealth creation and able to fend off enormous competition from India, China, Brazil and Mexico—in the changing global world—the key factor is how many highly educated and trained people a country's economy produces.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is essential that people be highly educated and trained, but it does not necessarily have to happen at university.
  Mr. Sheerman: Indeed, it does not. However, we should not pat ourselves too much on the back. People talk about a 50 per cent. target. I was rather reluctant about it, but the fact remains that only 16 per cent. of the population in the average constituency go into higher education. Only 16 per cent., leaving 84 per cent. to do something else. We should inscribe that on our hearts. Out there, 84 per cent. of potential is still wasted, with so many young people denied the opportunity to make the most of themselves through higher education.
  We should not forget that higher education today is very diverse. We need a diverse system of education and I believe that a flexible fee structure will help to deliver it. It will not deliver everything, but without a secondary or independent income for higher education in this country, we will not be able to grow at the necessary pace. It has to be complemented by more moneys from the Treasury, but we must keep to the Dearing principle that those who benefit from higher education should contribute to it. Society, individuals and employers are relevant. Employers have long neglected investment in higher education, research and development in this country. They should not be let off the hook by the present Government or any other.
  I finish by saying that we should be visionary and long term. We should remember that the most important single factor that will deliver the good life to our constituents will be investment in higher education. The Government proposals will, in my view, deliver that.
  3.6 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am glad to contribute to the debate on the Gracious Speech and I am pleased to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who always has something

  553
  interesting and lively to say. I should like to draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I add that I serve in a voluntary capacity as parliamentary ambassador for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
  I shall direct my remarks to the children Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said today and my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Opposition said last week, we look forward to working constructively on the proposals, in the spirit of the words of Lord Laming in his inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié. In his report into the tragic death of that ill-starred child, he said:
  "If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it too."
  The Green Paper and the Bill propose serious structural change in the management and delivery of children's services at every level. Among the objectives of both Green Paper and Bill was the principle of coordinated and integrated working between professionals in all disciplines concerned with children. One of the truly scandalous features of the as many as two deaths from abuse of children that take place in this country in each and every week is that subsequent inquiries or analyses almost always reveal that there has been a lack of co-ordination between professionals. No one should underestimate the difficult and sensitive work undertaken by social workers, the police, the medical professions and teachers. Lord Laming recognised just those features, but he said:
  "Even after listening to all the evidence, I remain amazed that nobody in any of the key agencies had the presence of mind to follow relatively straightforward procedures about how to respond to a child about whom there is concern of deliberate harm."
  So one of the tests that we shall apply throughout the passage of the Bill is its effectiveness in respect of achieving closer co-ordination. That is the intention of the Secretary of State and the purpose of the Bill, which explains the proposal to oblige local authorities to create the post of director of children's services accountable to local authority education and children's social services. I also welcome the important intention to have a lead elected member with the responsibility for such work. I doubt that such a post would be sought after, but it is none the less important that there should be elective responsibility and accountability in that essential sphere.
  Those sensible proposals are exercising the collective mind of local authorities up and down the land, as Members on both sides of the House know. I listened with interest to the assurance given by the Secretary of State that the Government would not insist on a single solution. I was glad to hear that reassurance, but can the Secretary of State for Health give us some clarification later about the suggestions currently abroad among local authorities that the Government's intention is that all education and social services should be dismantled in order to start again from scratch to achieve their ends? I do not think that is the Government's intention, but the suggestion is being bruited so it would be sensible if the Secretary of State were to allay all those fears in his concluding remarks.
  Some authorities, such as Hertfordshire and Essex, have already gone a long way down the road of closer co-ordination. Others, such as Norfolk and similar rural
  554
  shire counties, are wrestling with the problem of achieving co-ordination where services are sparsely spread—although some useful pilot work is being undertaken in Norfolk, in Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn.
  I agree with the Government's intention that there should be timely action, but to achieve that they will have to retain some diversity of solution. It is essential that genuine knowledge and local expertise should not be wasted. Furthermore, the task is much more complex where primary care trust and police authority boundaries are not coterminous with those of the local authority, and the considerations are much more difficult for far-flung rural authorities. I hope that Ministers will spot councils that try to solve other difficult management problems by making the Bill the excuse. Work to protect vulnerable children is obviously much too important to be a camouflage for other problems.
  I hope that there will be increased accountability. The "nobody was to blame" syndrome is another regrettable feature in the all-too-many cases of child abuse. I hope that Ministers will set up firm tests to check the effectiveness of accountability.
  A useful start to closer working could be made by effective information sharing. One of the features of the tragic case of Lauren Wright in my constituency was that if there had only been effective sharing of information between Hertfordshire and Norfolk social services, and between education and social services in Norfolk, her life might have been saved. Where judgments are, literally, about life or death, there is surely all the more reason for strong and reliable procedures that can be checked and counter-checked and that can act as a support framework, giving confidence to professionals faced with extremely difficult decisions.
  When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills introduced the Green Paper in September, he recognised its limitations. He accepted that two key services, the police and the health services, are, in a way, outside the legislative remit. The Green Paper does the best it can—neither it nor the Bill would want to plunge every public service into wholesale reorganisation at once—and that is welcome. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Health will reply to the debate, as only health visitors, among all the professionals involved, have legal licence to enter a home and demand to examine a child, which is useful in certain cases. If the right hon. Gentleman has time at the end of the debate, it would be helpful to hear his thinking about how health professionals might be used to greater and more direct effect in that work, despite their absence from the actual reorganisation proposals.
  In a debate in this place on 16 July, I hesitantly suggested that the old-fashioned role of the school nurse might be reconsidered. It was an impertinent suggestion and retribution came fast in the form of a letter from Mrs. Jenny Atterwell, a member of a school nursing team based in Wymondham, in Norfolk. She pointed out that my understanding of the current school nursing service was "slightly out of date". She described her work and that of her colleagues—especially that of school health advisers, who have a child protection role. I was impressed by Mrs. Atterwell's description of what she was doing and of what was going on in Norfolk and shall ensure that Ministers see a copy of her letter.

  555
  My point may be sounding a bit laboured—it probably is—but it is that there is a wealth of practical knowledge, good will and experience in all the professions concerned with child protection. I hope that local authorities will not be so preoccupied with setting up their reorganised systems—although I understand that it is a big task—that they fail to consult all those with practical and relevant experience, even if it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
  That is my final point. When the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper, he said that
  "nothing less than fundamental reform will address those issues. No single change alone is enough. National standards, inspection, information sharing, training, national and local structures, all need to change if we are to achieve real changes in culture and practice."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 21.]
  That is true, but we are talking about practicalities—about working together, sharing professional expertise and getting together to solve a common problem. The seriousness of the task must not blind us to the abundance of simple, practical, commonsense measures that can immediately be taken by the skilled professionals concerned. The will is there and the cause could hardly be more vital.
  3.16 pm
  Richard Burden: I am one of the Labour Members who have significant and severe reservations about the principle of variable fees, and it is to that that I shall devote the majority of my remarks. First, however, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the thoughtful and detailed way in which he has approached the debate and in which he has engaged in dialogue with people who take a view different from his. That is in marked contrast to the rant that we heard from the Opposition. I am still trying to work out how their figures add up; as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) observed, we shall perhaps find the answer on the island where the Conservatives plan to put asylum seekers. We certainly did not hear it today. What we do know is that if their policies hold together at all, which is extremely doubtful, they will mean a huge and severe restriction of opportunities for many, many thousands of our young people.
  I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking an important step in higher education policy through the proposal to abolish up-front fees. That is long overdue, and it is welcome. Whatever else comes out of the debate, I hope that that proposal will remain and will influence future policy. In giving that welcome, however, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the following point, although it may be covered as debates on the Bill proceed: if we abolish up-front fees, the issue of fee waivers must be reassessed. Whether the fees are to be variable or flat-rate, we do not need fee waivers if we abolish up-front fees because students will not be paying them. Graduates may pay them but students will not, so that aspect needs to be rethought.
  I also urge my right hon. Friend to consider carefully the paper produced by my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), which discusses whether the network of bursaries and the other things that we are
  556
  proposing is the most effective way of achieving the important objective of ensuring access for students from lower-income backgrounds. Could that be better achieved by moulding a grant system targeted at those from less well-off backgrounds?
  My first problem with the principle of variable fees is two-tierism. Hon. Members are right to point out that we already have a multi-tiered university system. It is true that universities are multi-tiered in terms of the type of course and the type of teaching that they offer. Sadly, they are sometimes multi-tiered in teaching quality and, even more sadly, in terms of institutional status. If we do nothing else, we need to confront the latter point.
  We need to do something about all the things that I have listed, but we must not do so by putting in place a price tag for students or graduates, which would follow them into their working lives. It is self-evidently true that courses in biochemistry, medicine, sociology, modern languages and so on cost different amounts to teach, but do we want students to calculate which course to select according to whether the job that they get at the end will allow them to repay the cost of their teaching? That seems to me to be the wrong approach.
  I do not think that the poorest students will be the worst affected, if we get right the questions of access, grants and so on. The students worst affected will be those who are not well off, who are nearly poor, or who are at or just below average income. That is where the problem will be felt. We are talking about repaying a fee of about £3,000 a year, but once the principle of variable fees is established, that will probably turn out to be the thin end of the wedge. I do not know how broad the wedge will be, but it will exist. I am loth to embark on a journey whose end we cannot foresee.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that a university in the Russell group was talking about getting rid of fees for undersubscribed courses, such as physics. I have heard similar reports, and I consider that the possibility is highly dangerous and would have two consequences. First, such a course would be subsidised by other courses for which fees are paid, with variable fees rising as a result. Secondly, if no fee is payable, there will be no relationship with the graduate's ability to pay when the course is finished. Graduates from such courses will have no fees to repay, because no fees were charged. Therefore, if we allow universities not to charge fees for certain courses, the link between the proposed system and graduates' ability to pay will be destroyed.
  My second problem has to do with people's trust, both in what we have said and in what we will say. We have to admit that we went into the last election saying that we would not introduce top-up fees. Technically, it is true that the legislation need not be enacted until the next Parliament—that is, until after the next election. However, will constituents make that equation, or will they think that we said one thing and did another?
  I do not dispute the fact that difficult choices have to be made. We must confront those choices—as must the other parties, sooner or later, if their policies in opposition are to have credibility. We are embarking on the big conversation project, which I think is exciting. We want to engage with people outside and look at the big issues. As part of that discussion, we should look at whether our traditional position in respect of variable fees should be retained or whether it should change. We should also look at flat-rate fees.

  557
  Another past manifesto commitment was never to raise the top rate of income tax. We need to consider whether that needs to be reviewed. Those are difficult matters, and they need to be discussed.
  We need to consider the appropriate balance between the contributions made by individuals and by society as a whole. We have to make a judgment about the training that a teacher gets. How much of the benefit goes to that teacher, and how much to society as whole? The same applies to doctors and to people in other professions. We should discuss such matters among ourselves, with others in different parts of the political world and with the people whom we represent.
  Given what I have heard so far, I do not believe that the proposal to introduce variable fees is right. However, even if it is right, it is certainly wrong to introduce it now. It should be discussed and introduced later.
  It may be claimed that we cannot wait and that universities' financial needs are so severe at the moment that the cash injection is needed now. If so, such a claim has consequences. If fees have to go up, how can we remain true to what we have said in the past? We should abolish up-front fees, but that can only mean an increase across the board. I do not think that that is the only option, but it may be the speediest. Again, that is why I commend the proposals put forward in their pamphlet by my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin and for Southampton, Test.
  Finally, I turn to student debt. Regardless of whether fees are variable or flat-rate, we have not yet grasped the full significance of the impact of debt on students. We need to do so. Students must repay loans as well as fees, and they face other expenses as well. We need to link up our policies. At the same time as we are telling students in their early 20s that they will need to incur very substantial debts as a result of their education, we are also telling them that they must think about providing for their security in retirement by contributing to pension schemes.
  It was difficult enough to interest young people in pensions 10 years ago, let alone now. However, we are trying to get them interested in what their circumstances will be at 60, 65 or 70 at the same time as we are asking them to incur debts that will restrict their income in the period immediately after graduation. We should do that only very reluctantly, and only after much thought—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  3.26 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and courageous, if not career-building, speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I am sure that he was right to say that the Government will suffer a loss of public confidence if they pursue their policy on top-up fees, as that policy sits very uneasily with the commitment in their manifesto. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will forgive me if, in the short time available, I focus my remarks on the Opposition amendment to the Loyal Address, which relates to the health service.
  558
  I welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who now have responsibility for health service matters. I can think of no two people better able to dismiss the absurd allegations made by Labour Members from time to time about Opposition policy on the NHS.
  When the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, we were able to stick to the spending levels that we inherited from the previous Labour Govt. At a stroke, that demolished some of the absurd claims made before that election. I hope that we will be able to do the same again. I hope that our policy will be to stick to the core values of the NHS and to build on its strengths but address its weaknesses.
  I confess to having, from time to time, a moment of sympathy for the Secretary of State for Health. He has extracted record sums for the NHS from the Treasury, yet he finds himself besieged by colleagues highlighting areas in which the NHS could do better. However, the moment of sympathy passes quite quickly. Ministers must largely bear responsibility for the frustration, because they have let the rhetoric run ahead of reality, stifled the initiative and skills of those who work in the NHS, and overwhelmed it with endless and misguided legislative reforms. People are less interested in new laws than in what is actually happening. I want to spend a moment looking at what is happening.
  I recognise that the problem of declining NHS dentistry precedes the advent of this Government in 1997. This Government said, however, that they were going to address it. Six years on, people who have had NHS dentistry all their lives are now losing it. I received an e-mail on 19 November from Mr. Cull of Tadley:
  "I have recently been told by my local Dental Practice…that they no longer accept NHS patients…If it were possible, I would now choose to opt out of paying tax and national insurance, and pay for any services as and when my wife and I need them. I want the Government of the day to recognise that those who pay are entitled to something back!"
  Another constituent wrote on 18 November:
  "I discovered yesterday that my family has been taken off the NHS register at our local dental surgery and my children cannot get treated unless we the parents register as private patients."
  And that is happening under a Government who accuse us of having a secret agenda to promote private medicine.
  A third constituent was told that he had to join Denplan at £14 a month. He wrote:
  "Both myself and my wife are in our 70s and we find that we cannot afford this level of charge from our pensions. We both only have nine teeth remaining and therefore find this situation is very poor. Can anything be done so that pensioners are not faced with these excessive charges in the future?"
  At £18 per tooth per year, those are expensive possessions for them to insure. Some people feel betrayed on NHS dentistry.
  The situation with general practitioners in Andover, the main town in my constituency, is not much better. A member of my staff recently moved to Andover. All the GP lists near where she lives are closed. Another constituent e-mailed me on this subject on Monday to

  559
  say they had attempted to get onto books throughout Andover, but had been informed that the only surgery available is somewhere else. My constituent wrote:
  "I would invite your comments on the current state of medical provisions in your constituency when, despite Andover being chosen as an area for expansion, 99 per cent. of all surgeries have closed their books."
  There is therefore real pressure not only on NHS dentistry but on primary care and GPs.
  Moving upwards to hospitals, we have a popular hospital in Andover with dedicated staff struggling to provide modern services. The building in which the outpatients department is located, however, is straight from "Carry on Nurse" in the 1950s, with people standing in long queues waiting for blood tests on a Monday morning. I ask the Secretary of State, who is chuntering away on the Front Bench, why that is happening and why it is tolerated. In a nutshell, it is because Hampshire gets about £85 per person for every £100 that the rest of the country gets. That is simply inadequate to provide the quality of service that my constituents expect.
  We just have to look at the accounts for one of the two three-star hospitals that serve my constituency for the year ended in March to see the pressures. It brought forward an underlying deficit of £3.5 million, and had unfunded commitments of £3.9 million, a cut in primary care trust income of £1.4 million and unfunded cost pressures of £600,000, leading to a deficit of £8.6 million. Of that, £6.1 million was found by savings and income plans—code for increasing car park charges and looking hard at service provision. The balance of £2.5 million was found from the strategic health authority.
  Like most of the NHS in south-east England, the local primary care trust has similar structural problems. It had a deficit of £1.5 million last year, made good by capital-to-revenue transfers. In the current year, it can balance the books only by either land sales or capital-to revenue transfers of £2 million. If we go on transferring from capital to revenue, the position that I have just described at Andover hospital will remain.
  I know what the Secretary of State will say—that he has given a record cash increase this year. Yes, the trust that runs the largest hospital in my constituency has had a 9 per cent. cash increase this year over last year. I asked it how much of that was swallowed up by increases over which it has no control. The answer was 6.5 per cent.—national insurance, nurses' pay, doctors' hours and pharmaceutical prices. Therefore, 6.5 per cent. out of 9 per cent. disappeared. Of the 2.5 per cent. remaining, 1.5 per cent. was applied to the deficit that was brought forward, and the 1 per cent. of growth was ring-fenced for a number of specific services. Therefore, virtually no money was left over to develop all the other services that were not ring-fenced.
  That pressure feeds through to individual constituents. Mr. S of Andover saw his GP in January and was referred to a neurologist. The appointment was on 10 June. He was told that he needed a brain scan. He wrote:
  "After two months, I had not heard so I phoned Southampton Hospital; imagine my anxiety when I was told my scan was classed as routine. My appointment would be in June 2004".
  560
  I had a letter on 19 November from Southampton university hospitals NHS trust about this case with more bad news:
  "At present our wait is now 8 to 9 months, but unfortunately this waiting time is currently rising as we are suffering staff shortages due to a scarcity of trained radiographers nationwide."
  An eight-year-old boy in the village where I live has been assessed and approved for a cochlear implant in Southampton. His parents tell me:
  "Unfortunately due to the NHS allocation of funds for this year having already been exhausted, the operation is currently delayed until April next year at the earliest."
  Until the formula for allocating resources is changed, the position in Hampshire and other counties in the south-east will always be difficult. The problem is compounded this year by revenue support grant pressures on social services. Education money has been passported through, leaving social services to take the strain of a difficult settlement. Since 1998–99, three nursing homes have closed, with the loss of 88 nursing beds, and five residential care homes have closed, with the loss of 90 residential care beds. During that time, only one home has opened, offering 60 beds, none of them available at the Hampshire rate.
  To address the problem, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council plans to develop an extra 4,500 nursing home beds in the county to help to overcome the shortage—a much more constructive response, dare I say it, than the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. However, Hampshire county council is threatened with capping if it attempts to deliver the quality of service that the Government want.
  My advice to the Secretary of State is this: first, stop constantly interfering; secondly, moderate the rhetoric; thirdly, allocate resources fairly. If he does all that, he will begin to bridge the gap between expectation and reality in Hampshire.
  3.35 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I shall speak specifically about the higher education Bill. Although many interesting and important Bills announced in the new legislative programme are worthy of debate, for the best part of 20 years I have given considerable attention to higher education, in particular HE funding and student support. I have thought about the subject in enormous detail and have anguished over it. I also have some experience of higher education, which I think helps me to make a useful contribution.
  Throughout that period, I have been convinced that a graduate tax, or a form of graduate tax, is the only fair and reasonable way to finance the expansion of higher education. To all intents and purposes, the Government's proposals are a form a graduate tax, so I support the Bill wholeheartedly as the fairest, most efficient and most effective way of putting our universities on a sound foundation for the future and of widening access to those universities.
  In one sense, the issue is simple. There are just four questions that we have to ask ourselves. First, do we want a series of world-class universities in the United Kingdom? Outside the Conservative party, the answer is universally yes, which means that we must get more

  561
  money into those institutions. Secondly, do we want to move even more quickly to a mass higher education system in which every young person and mature student has the opportunity to go to university if he or she can benefit from it? Again, outside the Conservative party, the answer is universally yes.
  The third question concerns the balance of the individual contribution to the expansion of higher education as against the contribution from general taxation. The idea that it is an either/or question has clouded and confused the debate so far, but it is not a matter of whether it all comes from general taxation or from the individual. Dearing made that point in his landmark report a few years ago. At the time, the report attracted an all-party consensus, which has now been ripped up. The vast majority of young people in my constituency who have a reasonable expectation of going to university and the vast majority of parents understand that the funding of higher education will be made up of a balance of contributions from the individuals who benefit from it and the general taxpayer, who also benefits.
  The entire debate is about working out the balance. Should it be 50:50 general taxation and individual beneficiary? Should it be 25:75 one way or 75:25 the other way? The issue is comparatively simple. Once we have worked out how the balance of contributions should fall, we have to deal with the timing of contributions. The decision to abolish up-front fees is one of the boldest and most courageous decisions that a Government could make. It will be welcomed by parents across the country in 2006 as they finally understand that the burden of paying the university fee will no longer fall on them when their son or daughter reaches the age of 18 or 19, but will be transferred to their son or daughter as they enter their working life a few years later.
  Every parent understands the logic of that.
  Many parents—especially the 84 per cent. of the population who are not graduates—who are struggling to find the £1,125 per year per child, or even part of that fee if their annual income is below the £33,000 a year threshold, will see the fairness and reasonableness of transferring the contribution from their modest income to the income of their sons and daughters, which will be vastly enhanced as a result of their university degree.
  Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend go further? If tuition fee repayments are to be income contingent post-graduation, will it remain logical to provide waivers for students from low-income backgrounds—based on their parents' low income? Would not that money be better spent on proper maintenance grants, which would overcome the real disincentive to university access by school leavers from such backgrounds?
  Mr. Chaytor: I would agree with my hon. Friend that that would be the way forward if we lived in a sane, rational and entirely logical world, but given that we are dealing with symbols and perception, some compromises have to be made.
  I would dearly like to be able to talk at enormous length about the policies of the two main Opposition parties, but the significance of their policies is that they
  562
  are the policies of parties that have already given up any prospect of winning the next general election. We need no clearer indication of that than the policies on the future of our universities that they are advancing.
  The Conservatives have reneged on the Dearing consensus, and that has aroused some controversy among their own Members. We heard earlier in the debate many authoritative Conservative voices—probably most of the voices that retain their authority with the general public—speaking out against that new policy. I welcome it, because the Conservatives' announcement of their new-found commitment to the abolition of tuition fees has helped to clarify the argument, certainly among Labour Members. What the Conservatives did some months ago was to spell out the consequences of going into reverse gear and abolishing tuition fees—an immediate cut of 100,000 university places and the loss of the additional 150,000 university places that will be needed as a result of natural demographic processes and the gradual increase in attainment in our secondary schools. It is now clear to everyone in the United Kingdom that the cost of abolishing tuition fees is a loss in the next decade of 250,000 university places.
  My question for every Conservative MP who has at least one child with the prospect of going to university is simple. Are they prepared to tell one of their children that they cannot go to university in order to guarantee free tuition for another of their children? If so, which child will they tell, and will they tell that child now? I suspect that if any parent on the Conservative Benches did that, they would get a pretty fierce reaction from the son or daughter not chosen.
  The Conservatives have done the nation and this debate a favour by clarifying the options before us. It seems to me that over the past few months a consensus has emerged among Labour Members that there has to be some increase in the basic tuition fee—there has to be more money going into our universities and that must come from an increase in the fee. The debate now is entirely about variability. Some of my colleagues will still resist the increase in the fee, but the debate is largely about variability.
  Time is running out, so I shall make only a few points on variability. We must recognise first and foremost that the whole post-18 education and training sector in the United Kingdom is now and has always been based on the principle of variable fees, except for full-time degree courses. Why, I should like to ask my colleagues in particular, do variable fees function perfectly well in further education colleges? In part-time undergraduate courses variable fees function perfectly well, as they do for postgraduates and Open university students. We must concentrate on the fact that most of our existing post-18 education system operates in a regulated market, and there is no evidence whatsoever that students have been deterred from taking those courses because of the variability of the fee.
  Every provider of education wants, for its own survival, to recruit both the best students that it can get and the most students that it can get. There is an inbuilt incentive for every college and university to recruit the best students that it can get, so no institution will deliberately prejudice the recruitment of its students or, these days, deliberately narrow the social basis of its student body. The Government are bold, courageous

  563
  and radical in introducing a plan that represents a major redistribution of educational opportunity in this country, and I welcome that.
  3.46 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the inclusion in the Gracious Speech of the Government's main priority of delivering
  "a world class education system that enables individuals to achieve their full potential".
  I also welcome the fact that a draft Bill will be published
  "responding to a review of the law relating to disabilities as part of the Government's programme to extend the rights and opportunities of disabled people."
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the problems facing children with learning disabilities, mental health problems and self-development problems. I should like hon. Members to reflect on the needs of children who make the least progress in school during their formative years. Too often, inadequacies in the education system, such as late identification of individual differences and difficulties and limited individual support in early years, prevents many of those children from making progress after primary school and going on to further and higher education. The suffering experienced by children with a learning disability has a lifelong impact on the families and individuals concerned. If learning difficulties are addressed in childhood the negative impact that they can have on adult life is reduced. Only by providing targeted and strategic support can we enhance the quality of life of people suffering from learning disabilities and mental health problems, and that must be the Government's aim.
  I encourage the Government to fulfil their commitment to promote better understanding in the education sector and provide better facilities for children with special needs and learning disabilities. The Government's agenda should aim to remove the stigma of having a learning disability at school and promote positive mental health awareness throughout the education system. Far too many children suffering from such conditions fail to fulfil their academic potential and drop out at 16 because they are not given the targeted support that they require to progress. Sadly, many never realise the productive contributions that they could make to society.
  In Northern Ireland, a disturbingly high number of children and teenagers in schools and higher education suffer from mental health problems and learning disabilities. All too often, children suffering from a wide range of disabilities, from dyslexia to depression, go unnoticed or become victims of stigmatisation and bullying. That leads to children covering up their problems and failing to deal with them and, in the most extreme cases, to suicide. Of course, the problem that affects the British Isles as a whole. I remind the House that the Office for National Statistics reported in 1999 that, in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, two people between the ages of 15 and 24 took their lives every day. I hope that the Government and hon. Members across the House will agree that the place to address that problem is the classroom, not the accident and emergency wards of hospitals around the country.
  564
  Bullying at school can often be a contributory factor in suicidal behaviour among young people. Cases of depression leading to suicide are increasing among students in higher education, especially young men. The figures on school bullying are disturbingly high. According to Child Line Northern Ireland, one in every five of the calls that it received last year was from a child suffering such abuse. It is clear that mental health problems and bullying in the education sector are closely associated with suicidal behaviour. The Government must improve awareness among teachers and parents of that escalating problem, while providing the facilities and infrastructure to ensure that the human rights of all children are respected in schools.
  Children who need special help and guidance to come to terms with their learning difficulties often suffer further for their difference and have their potential suffocated in the very environment that should provide the solution. Bullying and stigmatisation restrict the rights of all children, and the Government must address the problem with renewed conviction in this legislative Session in order to stamp it out.
  We must develop a social culture in which children suffering from learning disabilities and mental health problems feel free to talk about the issues and deal with them in their schools. We need to establish a culture in which teachers, nurses and student counsellors are proactive in destigmatising those problems and in normalising their existence in the education system.
  The Government must also continue to aid the principal carers of those who suffer learning disabilities. I want to bring to Members' attention the fact that hundreds of people with such disabilities remain in Victorian asylums. The Government have promised to close those institutions and have accepted that all people with learning disabilities have the right to a home in their community. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient funding to address that problem and to provide suitable care for children suffering long-term problems.
  According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, disabled children are at least three times more likely than other children to become victims of physical or sexual abuse and are less likely to get support from child protection services. The shift from an institutional approach must be continued, and communities, schools and families must have adequate facilities to give children suffering from learning disabilities or mental illness an equal chance successfully to benefit from their education and to progress into higher education.
  A pilot scheme in Harpers Hill primary school in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, has helped almost every pupil to feel safe and secure in the school environment. A pilot scheme run by the North Eastern education and library board, in which pupils from a consortium of controlled and maintained post-primary schools work closely with their further education college, has reduced secondary school absenteeism and developed self-esteem for each individual. Each individual has achieved success through attending vocational courses one day a week at a further education college. Many of the same pupils have moved through work placement into permanent employment.
  Schools and colleges must be given the right to develop more appropriate and relevant courses to meet children's needs. I hope that the Secretary of State will

  565
  agree that when examples of good educational practice and successful pilot schemes have been identified in any part of the United Kingdom, funding should be made available to ensure widespread dissemination of the results and to make possible wider application of good practice throughout the country.
  Finally, I appeal to the Secretary of State to extend educational opportunities at special schools or in sheltered units for children between the ages of 16 and 19 with special needs and learning difficulties, many of whom have a mental age that is far below that of young people of average ability, and whose immaturity is such that further education at the age of 16 is quite inappropriate. All children with learning disabilities are unique individuals with unique needs who therefore require unique support. The Government must ensure that that support is forthcoming and that the outcome of the current schemes is that increasing numbers of children with learning disabilities progress towards leading full and normal lives, to their benefit and that of society as a whole.
  3.55 pm
  Jim Sheridan: I shall be relatively brief. I never had the opportunity to go to university, so I have not yet mastered the art of taking 10 minutes to do what can be done in five.
  I congratulate the National Union of Students on its effective campaigning to promote the best interests of its members. That is a perfect example of good, pragmatic trade unionism, and I would welcome further campaigning by it and by other organisations in order to raise other issues. For example, many people have benefited from quality education paid for by taxpayers who, in years gone by, could not afford to send their own children to university, and are rightly angry when those who have gained expensive qualifications choose to use their skills elsewhere by working abroad, often in tax havens. That means that they not only fail to pay back any taxes that they have received, but deny many vulnerable people who have paid their taxes to send them to university and are expecting their hard-earned tax contributions to bear fruit in our public services. I should like to hear what the NUS has to say about that practice and whether it has any proposals to discourage it. I am just as interested to hear the Government's view. After all, it is common practice in private industry to claw back any money that was invested in employees' education should they decide to leave for pastures new.
  My major concern in relation to education and skills is the lack of attention that this House gives to the established apprenticeship system that used to provide quality training for our indigenous industries, but is sadly lacking today. Perhaps that says more about the imbalanced makeup of the House than it does about the demand for such skills that is required if we are to remain a manufacturing country that produces something—although that is not to say that the Government are not addressing the skills gap, especially in the indigenous industries that were abandoned by the Conservative party during its term in government. I am extremely concerned about the under-representation of and lack of importance attributed to manufacturing
  566
  requirements and the tools that are needed to deliver the quality goods for which this country was once renowned.
  Many of my constituents do not possess the academic qualifications that are required for entry into university, but are more than capable of producing with their hands and minds the goods that many of us use in our everyday lives and often take for granted. That is why I call on the Government to work with the universities and organisations such as the NUS, while listening to the genuine concerns of Back Benchers, to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on education and skills—on top-up fees, or whatever—they take a balanced approach that does not exclude the non-academics in our communities, many of whom do not have the campaigning skills of the NUS but are equally important to the long-term prosperity of our country.
  In conclusion, I am proud to be a member of the Labour party and the Labour Government. In Scotland, especially the west of Scotland, there is great deprivation in many of our communities. In the pubs, clubs and communities, I relish the fact that the discussion now centres on education and people attending university. People of my era never thought about going to university and I am deeply proud of the Government's achievements in education. That applies not only to Westminster; I am also proud of the Scottish Parliament's record in promoting education, lifting people out of poverty and giving them aspirations.
  In the west of Scotland, we are talking about people going to university rather than redundancies and factory closures. I want to get involved in the debate. The people of Scotland want to get involved in it, too. I am deeply proud that the Government are enabling us to engage in it.
  4 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan). I commend him especially for doing what he said he would do and speaking for five minutes. That is remarkable; I am not sure that I shall manage it.
  I want to concentrate on higher education and tuition fees, which several speakers have mentioned, especially the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who made a powerful and thoughtful speech. I am sorry that he has disappeared. Given that he supports the Government and is therefore in a minority, and that his speech was powerful and articulate, it is a miracle that he speaks from the Back Benches and not the Treasury Bench, where he clearly deserves to be.
  I declare a personal interest in that I have five children of school age. I calculated that my eldest daughter would be going to university when the Government's proposals for top-up fees came into effect. However, I hasten to add that that is not my reason for objecting to the Bill. As I shall make clear, I do not oppose in principle shifting the burden of paying for that public service from the general taxpayer to its beneficiaries.
  I accept that there is a problem with Britain's university sector. We have some of the best universities in the world, and that is important and good for Britain. They are a priceless asset, based on what has been invested in them, both financially and, more important, in human commitment over the centuries. We must

  567
  ensure that we do not squander that. I want to make some suggestions about how we deal with the problem because I do not believe that the Government have got it right.
  It is in Britain's interest to have world-class universities that can attract and retain the most outstanding academics and students, and the economy prospers best when everybody is educated to the top of their potential. I also believe in personal responsibility—there is merit in those who seek to benefit from higher education accepting some personal, direct financial responsibility for it. I do not find it objectionable if the burden of paying for public services switches to some extent from the general taxpayer to the user. The hon. Member for Bury, North made similar comments.
  I do not have a problem with a price mechanism in the higher education sector that helps to inform students' choices when they consider courses and where to study them. As a matter of principle, I strongly support the idea that universities should be as independent as possible from the state. That is highly desirable for a range of philosophical and practical reasons that we shall not have time to explore fully today.
  The question is, do the Government's proposals meet those principles? The Labour rebels seem to think that they do, which is why they object to the Government's Bill, although I think that they are largely, but not absolutely, wrong in that assessment. However, I too propose to oppose the Bill, because the proposals do not meet these principles.
  Let us take those principles in turn. Will the Government's proposals make the universities fully funded and therefore able to compete with the best in the world? I do not think so. Why? Because the extra money raised through top-up fees will be spread across the extra students who will be recruited to the higher education sector, so spending per student is likely to remain static.
  On top of that, we have the extraction of a third of the proceeds from top-up fees, which will be taken within each university or higher education institution and spread across in bursaries. Again, that money will not be available for the purposes of teaching in those universities. The proposals do not meet the first desirable objective, which is to increase the resources available to universities to enable them to remain among the best in the world.
  The second desirable principle is that everyone should be educated to the top of their potential—whether that is academic or vocational I leave on one side for the time being—but I do not believe that these proposals will achieve that. That is largely to do with the set of issues involving numbers and access. I reject the idea that there should be a top-down imposition by the Government of a specific target for the number of young people who go into higher education. That seems to me to be simply wrong. Frankly, I say to those on my own Front Bench that that applies to saying that the number should be either less or more than it is. The record of politicians in and out of government in making those judgments correctly is appallingly bad. The one thing that people can say we unfailingly do is get it wrong, so that whole approach is wrong.
  568
  Universities should be independent institutions running their own admission policies and, if they think it appropriate, they should expand to meet the demand from qualified applicants for the courses that they offer. They should not be meeting rigid quotas and targets set from above, which happens now and is likely to happen even more under the Government's proposals.
  The numbers set out in the White Paper in terms of the 50 per cent. target are pretty bogus anyway. Conservative Members and others express concern about whether we need to have 50 per cent. of our young people going through university, but this issue is not just about universities. The White Paper sets out the fact that, in any event, 10 per cent. of higher education is delivered not by universities, but by further education colleges.
  The Government say in their White Paper that the higher education expansion that they propose should largely be in non-conventional degrees—foundation degrees as well as other courses and qualifications—delivered largely through FE colleges. I do not think that there should be a rigid division or apartheid between academic and vocational education, but it is clear that those numbers are pretty bogus.
  On access, it seems to me entirely appropriate that universities should take into account educational potential in applicants as well as their attainments. There are clearly issues with some schools being better at preparing kids for university than others. On the numbers and the history here, it was said that 50 per cent. of Oxbridge entrants for 40 years have been from public schools. That is not quite the case as I understand it.
  When I was lucky enough to be at Cambridge 30 years ago, at the same time as the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, two thirds of Oxbridge entrants came not from public schools, but from the state sector in one form or another. That has changed to a 50:50 balance because the direct grant schools have been abolished and grammar schools have been whittled away. That has caused the current proportions to come into effect. It is not correct that there has been a static situation for so long; it has, in those terms, got worse.
  Peter Bradley rose—
  Mr. Maude: I give way to my old school companion.
  Peter Bradley: Ever the gentleman. I just want to help the hon. Gentleman out with some statistics. Some 86 per cent. of students in higher education are from state schools, whereas the figure for Oxford and Cambridge is closer to 52 per cent. More revealing is the fact that the proportion of students at Oxford and Cambridge from lower income backgrounds is 10 and 9 per cent. respectively.
  Mr. Maude: It is a pleasure to give way to a fellow product of a direct grant school, and I hear what he says. Universities have a vested interest in attracting bright and qualified students, from whatever background and whatever their schooling, if they have the potential and the ability to benefit from the courses that are on offer. They do not need all this regulated, costly and complex apparatus of social engineering to make that happen.

  569
  On the third issue I mentioned, the proposal clearly shifts the burden away from the taxpayer to the user, but does it do it fairly? I doubt it. I particularly refer to the position of someone from a family of relatively modest background but whose income is above the cut-off level for remission of fees. The son or daughter of a teacher who also wants to become a teacher will go into a profession in which they will never be high earners, but they will be above the level for remission of fees and will have to repay what could amount to a considerable loan. They will have that debt hanging round their necks possibly for decades. That is a concern.
  Do the proposals introduce a price mechanism? The issue of variability exercises many Labour Members. I hope that I can allay their fears. There will be little variability. The Select Committee took evidence that showed that there will be minimal variability. The extent to which choice is informed by cost will be extended barely at all. The principal factors of size and location of courses will continue to be decided by top-down diktat. That suggests that the fifth issue about independence is not met either, because universities will not have significantly greater independence.
  I hope that the Bill will be defeated on Second Reading, and that there will then be discussions between Front Benchers and others such as have been referred to, with as few preconditions as possible. I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said when he set out the preconditions. I agreed with all he said, and was pleased that he made no stipulation that top-up fees should be excluded—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  4.12 pm
  Dr. Hywel Francis: This has been an interesting debate, particularly on higher education. I was especially impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who is not in his place at the moment. He spoke about special needs education for children and young adults. I am sure that the Government will respond to his perceptive observations.
  I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I warmly welcome a Bill on higher education so that we can urgently address the twin questions of chronic under-investment in our universities and the social justice challenge of widening and deepening as well as increasing participation. Universities should mirror the diversity in society, rather than accentuate the divisions. I hope that the Bill will address that vital principle.
  I want to focus on the Government's vision of widening participation through lifelong learning and part-time study, and how the proposals for variable fees might have an impact on that vision. Five years ago this month, as a member of the new Labour Government's
  570
  lifelong learning advisory group, I was co-author of its first report "Learning for the 21st Century". At the beginning of that report, we said:
  "At the centre of the new strategy must be a clear commitment to widening and deepening participation and achievement in learning…The new strategy should give increased emphasis to the home, community and workplace as key places of learning".
  Tellingly, it went on to say:
  "The principles informing access to public funds should be the same for part-time and full-time students, and the Government should move towards equalising public investment for the same 'episode of learning' irrespective of sector, mode or level of learning."
  I believe that the Government and the Secretary of State are still inspired by that early vision.
  Since those early days, some impressive progress has been made by the Government, from Sure Start to work-based learning and the union learning fund, paid education leave, the launch of learndirect and the National Health Service university; and last summer came the first ever commitment to support for part-time learners. In my Adjournment debate on part-time students, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), made a commitment to ensure that
  "The Open university will have a key role in the delivery of the entire White Paper agenda."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 100WH.]
  I hope that that will be the case in the Bill. The Government's current emphasis, however, on what has been called the 18 to 30 club, a sector of full-time, implicitly residential 18 to 31-year-olds incurring graduate debt, does not make for an enabling culture of lifelong learning. One vice-chancellor said to me today that he feared that we were legitimising a new culture of permanent graduate debt.
  The typical student today does not go from school straight to full-time residential higher education. The typical student is already part-time. Forty-two per cent. are officially part-time, and of the remainder, large numbers work part-time regularly.
  Some people may say that what is proposed is not a radical reform but a reaction—a return to an age that has long disappeared. There is a danger that this narrow and inaccurate characterisation of higher education, influenced as it is by the Russell group and Oxbridge, will not only destroy the present diversity of participation but prevent a future widening of that diversity. Why do we not embrace and strengthen that diversity of part-time and full-time participation? We need a new and different funding model that takes account of and mainstreams the innovative strategies of, say, the Open university, Magee college in Ulster, the Summer university in Dundee, London Guildhall's work with ethnic communities, the Community university of the south Wales valleys and the tens of thousands of continuing education students in virtually every university throughout the United Kingdom. We should build on those widening participation strategies.
  If the Bill is to be seen as truly radical, it will need to deal with three questions that the adult learners body, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, has posed to me and which I will share with the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with those questions. First, will the Bill better meet the needs of part-time students, given that they are to be found in

  571
  almost all universities, already paying unregulated fees and having less access to loans and other student support? Secondly, will the Bill make the higher education system easier to access for mature students, given that the 18 to 30 club deprioritises them and given that over-54-year-olds studying full time cannot even take out a loan? Finally, will the Bill ensure that higher education students in further education colleges are not disadvantaged? Those are fair questions for the Government, who wish, I believe, to build fair and equitable opportunities for all.
  Labour Members are rightly proud of the many social and educational achievements in post-war Britain, but two stand out: the NHS and the Open university. We have the opportunity in the Bill to achieve a third major radical development, taking the principles of equality and lifelong learning enshrined in the Open university and many other higher education institutions and spreading them comprehensively throughout the higher education sector, underpinned by a graduate tax, rather than variable fees. My fear is that thousands of part-time and mature students will not even enter the second tier but will inhabit a bottom third tier of higher education, receiving an under-resourced, low-quality service. Disadvantaged students—full time or part time—inevitably will end up in a disadvantaged sector.
  I urge the Government not to seek a solution in an Americanised-style market. Our Chancellor urged us recently to take pride in our homegrown national health service and not to look elsewhere at other inadequate and inequitable models. I believe that we should do the same in higher education and look to Magee, Dundee, the Open university and London South Bank as our models; and that we should incentivise wider access through mainstream funding rather than marginal bursaries.
  If variable fees were introduced, the additional moneys would accrue mostly to those universities with large numbers of full-time students, giving such students a major advantage over those from universities with large numbers of part-timers, most of whom do not or will not have access to fee remissions or bursaries. It will be one of the great ironies of the Bill that those higher education institutions that have done most to widen participation in the past and at present will be those disadvantaged by the variable fees of the Russell group.
  The Open university, Birkbeck and many other UK universities are world-class leaders in teaching, e-learning and widening access. Those should be our models. We need new Government proposals that take a holistic view of higher education so as to create a structure in which potential learners can mix full-time and part-time studying in a landscape of lifelong learning, taking account of work and family life without the fear of lifelong debt.
  The leading authority on student debt, Professor Claire Callender of London South Bank university, predicts that the proposed variable fees will increase debt further as students will have to take out larger loans to cover fees. Her research reveals that fear of debt is greatest among low-income groups and that such debt-averse students are four times more likely not to go to university because of the £3,000 fees.
  572
  I conclude on a personal note. Some 22 years ago, the brightest student that I ever taught—the late Charlie White of Kenfig Hill—said in a speech on a miners course at Swansea university that
  "if we are to educate our fellow trade unionists, we must use all the resources available to us. We must be taught the importance of conveying a message. But more important, there must be people who are capable of doing it."
  The message from this House today is this: universities must be accessible to all.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to take part in this debate, not least because it may surprise some Members to learn that there is a measure of agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on what the Government claim to be their aims. It is on how they try to achieve them that we have significant differences.
  The Secretary of State said today that he was basing his proposals on three main themes, two of which we are entirely in agreement with. The first is that there should be more money for universities. There have been huge cuts in university funding during the early part of this Government and under the last Conservative Government. Universities badly need more funding to get more places; expanding participation is another area on which we would be largely in agreement with the Government. Not having enough places is a waste of talent and having more places would help to reduce the divisions in society between the rich and the poor, which have been highlighted recently as some of the worst in Europe. We agree that universities need more money and that it will benefit our economy in the long run if we have more people educated in higher education.
  The second point was that there should be some contribution from graduates where they have gained financially from going to university. I agree with that, too. But the significant point is that that should happen only where such graduates have indeed gained financially from going to university. The Secretary of State said that the contribution due from graduates should be calculated in a fail way, but we do not believe that his proposals have provided a fair solution in that regard.
  Before I elaborate on that point, I want to mention one or two other issues that have been raised. The Secretary of State said that one reason why the new fee of £3,000 should be acceptable is that those from the poorest backgrounds will get grants of £1,000. Of course, that grant was explicitly intended to help those people to pay their maintenance costs at university, in order to reduce somewhat the fear of getting into debt and being unable to afford to pay for food and housing. But if that grant is to be used instead to help offset the cost of fees, its original point is lost completely. Indeed, it is rather hard to see how a young undergraduate from a poor background, who will presumably be paid that grant at the beginning of the academic year, is supposed to put it into a building society, for example, save it for three years and use it to pay the fees when they are due, on graduation. That does not seem a sensible policy, and the suggestion that the grant could be used to pay off part of the fees is unrealistic.

  573
  Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Secretary of State said that the Liberal Democrat policy of raising income tax on the highest earners in no way guarantees that such money will be used for universities, and I accept that point. Of course, it is not possible to guarantee that particular funds will always be used for a particular purpose. But when we said that we would cancel tuition fees in Scotland and raise the money through general taxation, we were indeed able to implement that policy, upon gaining at least a share of power in the Scottish Parliament. So it is fair to say that our record in implementing such change, as based on an idea in our manifesto, is very good.
  Of course, it is also true that one cannot guarantee that the money that universities raise in tuition fees will make them better off and provide more funds for teaching undergraduates. What happened in the past is only too likely to happen again: the money raised in fees will be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the next comprehensive spending review to reduce the amount of money coming from general taxation to those universities that are able to raise fees. So the very argument that the Secretary of State is using against our policy can be used against his own.
  Thirdly, as has been said, although the new policy is to some extent a form of graduate tax, the important point is that it has all the characteristics of a graduate poll tax. Sadly, the Government seem not to have learned the lesson of the poll tax introduced by the Conservative Government. Poll taxes are deeply unpopular because they are seen to be unfair. The Secretary of State says that he wants the contribution to be calculated in a fair way, but he has introduced a contribution that is effectively a poll tax. It has a very important characteristic of a poll tax, in that exactly the same charge is made to graduates, irrespective of their level of wealth.
  If the argument is that graduates ought to pay more towards the cost of their education because they have gained financially from graduating, surely the extent of that financial gain should form part of the calculation in assessing how much they should pay back. But that is not the case. Even under the variable fees policy, a graduate on a given course at a given university will have to pay back exactly the same amount, regardless of their level of income and the financial benefit that they have gained. Some will pay over a longer period and others over a shorter one, but exactly the same amount will be paid, regardless of income and of the financial benefit derived from gaining the degree.
  There is a further important point in respect of the unfairness of the method of calculation that has not been mentioned so far. Let us assume that, as expected, the threshold for the repayment of the graduate loan is raised to £20,000. If we assume, as Barclay's predicted, that the average debt from now onwards, or from 2010 onwards, will be about £33,000, and if we assume, as the Government have predicted, that inflation will remain at about 2.5 per cent., the amount of money that has to be repaid each year merely in order to keep the debt level at £33,000—not to reduce it, but not to allow it to increase—is some £820 a year. It requires a salary of £9,000 above the threshold before one can even begin to pay off part of the debt.
  574
  If we assume a debt of £33,000 and that someone wants to pay off at least £1,000 a year in order to reduce it to nothing over 20 years—even 20 years is a pretty long time to be repaying debt—being able to pay an extra £1,000 a year would require a salary of a further £11,000 above the threshold. Adding on to the threshold of £20,000 the sum of £9,000 to pay off the inflationary increase, and £11,000 to pay off £1,000 of debt, a salary of £40,000 would be necessary to pay off that debt over 20 years.
  That, of course, takes someone well into the higher rate of income tax—currently 41 per cent.—and a further 9 per cent. has to be paid on top of that in repayment of the graduate loan. Even under the Government scheme, then, repaying a debt of £33,000 over 20 years means repaying the last £5,000 of the £40,000 salary at a marginal income tax rate of—guess what—50 per cent. I stress that even under the Government's own scheme, paying off a loan over 20 years requires payment of tax at a 50 per cent. rate. Under our scheme, however, people do not pay at that 50 per cent. rate until the salary reaches £100,000—very different from a mere £40,000. That demonstrates clearly why the Government scheme is so unfair.
  A new graduate with a salary of £40,000 paying a 50 per cent. tax rate in respect of the last £5,000 compares with a graduate of 40 earning £100,000 plus—perhaps £110,000—whose marginal rate is only 41 per cent., or a new graduate earning only £22,000 whose marginal rate is 42 per cent. The man who graduated some years ago and earns £110,000 will, under the Government scheme, pay a lower marginal rate than a new graduate paying at 42 per cent., or perhaps a new graduate with higher earnings paying at 50 per cent. The Government believe that that is a fair way of charging graduates for their student loans.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I greatly welcome many of the Bills announced in the Queen's Speech, but I shall confine my remarks this afternoon to where I have the greatest difficulty—top-up fees, of course. Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) must be shocked to reflect on the figures that he calculated. It is on account of such debt levels that I believe students in areas such my own constituency—a low-income area and a former mining community—will be deterred from attempting higher education courses.
  My plea is for the Government to publish the options that have been mentioned in the debate, to establish whether there might be another way of balancing funding between the student or graduate and the Government, through taxation. I believe that the Government still have a responsibility to meet a certain proportion, if not a large proportion, of the costs of higher education. I do not believe that we should thrust on to future students the consequences of historical underfunding and the historical debts of universities. Why should the many of us in our places today who have benefited from a university education vote in favour of students having to pay £30,000 in fees for an education that we enjoyed at universities that now demand extra funding? That is wholly wrong.
  Peter Bradley: Because we were the few, and they will be the many.
  Mr. Illsley: But will they be the many? That is another question that we need to answer. The Government's target is that 50 per cent. of students should go into higher education. That is a massive expansion; I welcome it and would like to see many, many more students going into higher education, especially from my area and background. However, it worries me when a Government who propose a 50 per cent. target talk about students taking Mickey Mouse degree courses. Will the 50 per cent. target really be valid if a portion of that 50 per cent. study for degrees that are of no benefit?
  I know of graduates in my constituency who will not be able to find employment in the discipline of their degree; they may never find employment related to their chosen subject. I am worried that we shall push students into taking degrees that are not good enough, yet when they graduate they will face debts of between £15,000 and £30,000—a conservative estimate—and they may not obtain the type of employment that they need to repay the debts. The hon. Member for Newbury told us about the salary that will be needed to pay back the fees, but some graduates will be unable to find employment that pays that much. We are making a circular argument: we say that universities need extra funding to meet the target of 50 per cent., yet the costs will deter students from entering higher education. That seems wrong.
  It is also argued that many should pay for education because a thriving higher education sector benefits us all. Graduate professionals benefit commerce and industry, and that benefits the whole country, so why should not we all contribute?
  Claire Ward: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Illsley: No, I am sorry. I have given way once already and time is limited.
  Why should not industry and commerce contribute to higher education? Why should not people such as me, a graduate—several years ago, obviously—contribute through some form of graduate tax? Why should the students of the future be landed with the historical costs?
  I have heard the arguments about the dustman subsidising the barrister, but we already do that in the national health service. If we have the same pride in our education system as we do in our health service, we should apply the same principles to both. The arguments are the same. It is as if we were to say that people who have never been in hospital should be exempt from paying national insurance contributions. The same principle applies to the argument that because only one person benefits from their degree, they should pay for it. There is no reason why we should not have different methods of taxation. Certainly, there should be contributions from graduates—as there should be from a wide range of people—to cover fees.
  In view of the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury, I shall not say much more about thresholds. Using the hon. Gentleman's lower estimate of a £25,000 debt, let us consider the situation of two young people who meet at university and marry. At graduation, they have a joint debt of £50,000. How will they plan for a life and a family? At the age of 22, how could they plan for
  576
  a mortgage with a joint debt of £50,000? It is ridiculous. How would they afford to pay for the rest of their life? That is not lifelong learning; it is lifelong debt.
  When I intervened earlier, I referred to a story that I heard a few years ago at a conference in Canada. One evening, I was talking to the MP for Prince Edward Island who told me that he had been celebrating because he had just paid off his student loans and fees. That MP was in his 40s and a general practitioner, yet he had only just managed to pay off those debts. I said to him, "Well, you've taken some time because surely those loans, like the ones that we are about to introduce in the UK, were at the minimum rate of interest and there must have been thresholds". He replied, "Yes, we started at a zero interest rate. Now our student fees and loans are subject to a commercial rate." The Government say now that the repayments will be made at low interest rates, but those rates could rise in two, three or four years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said that the interest would be subsidised by the Government. That is interesting, but future Chancellors of the Exchequer will look at what is being paid in interest rate subsidies to support the cheap loans. They could well be tempted to increase interest rates and take the burden away from Government. The personal anecdote that I have related has stayed with me for many years. I have great concern about what will happen in respect of top-up fees.
  It has been argued that the fees could be variable, with some universities charging £3,000 and others nothing. That is ridiculous. Which university would turn down the possibility of charging each student £3,000 per annum, given—so we are told—that they are strapped for cash to pay off their historical debts and to fund an increase in student numbers? The chances are that most will charge fees at the highest level. A recent survey suggested that the vast majority of universities will go straight to that level.
  It has already been noted that, if variable fees are introduced, the result will be a system with two, three or four tiers. People will opt for cheaper degrees. The Bill will create a marketplace in further education, and people will choose their higher education on the basis of what they can pay and afford.
  It seems strange that the Government should want a big conversation so that they can hear people's views, when 140 Labour Members have said that they oppose the policy on student fees. However, the Government are pressing ahead with the policy, and it seems that no alternative will be offered.
  I plead with my Government to think again. The cost of higher education should be spread more broadly. Everyone should pay for it, and the cost should not just be dumped on future students.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I shall comment on two proposals in the Queen's Speech that relate to my constituency, before enlarging on health and education issues.
  I welcome the inclusion of a housing Bill in the Queen's Speech. I assume that it will be based on the draft Bill published in April, which includes a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. That would undoubtedly assist the regeneration of

  577
  Boscombe in my constituency, where poor housing conditions and unscrupulous private landlords continue to exist.
  I hope that the Bill will also include reform of the law on travellers, as I have urged on the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that the reforms will be along the lines of my private Member's Bill, which the House has allowed me to introduce during the last two Sessions of Parliament. Many hon. Members of all parties believe that such provisions are necessary to resolve the never-ending problems that unauthorised encampments cause, not least in Dorset.
  I hope that the housing Bill will also include reform of the management of home parks, which are the sites of so-called mobile homes. Sadly, the management of two such sites in my constituency—Iford Bridge park and Hengist park—have long caused concern to their residents, the local neighbourhood, the council and me. The site owners have failed in their duty of care, and that amply demonstrates the need for reform of the licensing system for mobile home parks.
  The Queen's Speech refers to the publishing of further draft clauses of a Bill on gambling. The draft Bill includes much of what I called for in my Adjournment debate on casinos, which was held seven years ago on 28 February 1996. We in Bournemouth have two rather modest casinos. I want Bournemouth to realise its full potential as Britain's premier seaside resort of world class. There is no reason why more casinos cannot contribute to our local economy. I do not want Blackpool to grab the market in casinos when the reforms become law. I therefore urge the Government to introduce the Bill.
  I turn now to the provision of public services. I fear that what is proposed in the Queen's Speech and in next year's local government finance settlement will do nothing to help the beleaguered hospitals and schools of Bournemouth. Last week, I attended a meeting of the board of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospital trust. Also present were the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). We heard of the continuing problems posed by bed blocking. There simply remain insufficient beds in the local community for frail, elderly patients awaiting discharge from hospital. As a result, operations are being postponed. In October, Bournemouth's Daily Echo reported 60 operations cancelled in a week because of delayed discharges. What is proposed in the Queen's Speech offers no new encouragement. The hospitals serving Bournemouth, Christchurch and east Dorset will continue to face a critical situation arising from bed blocking, which is bound to increase waiting lists.
  Turning to education, I want to tell the House of the crisis currently facing the schools of Bournemouth. All of us in Bournemouth welcomed the restoration of unitary authority status in 1997. As well as being our own education authority once again, we also looked forward to a better deal on funding. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. Since 1997, Bournemouth has received the lowest percentage increase of any local education authority. Funding for schools in Bournemouth continues to fail to take account of the constant fluctuation of the population and the
  578
  significant number of pupils coming into our schools with little knowledge of English. It fails to reflect the pockets of social deprivation in the town, which contains four wards in the highest 20 per cent. and two wards in the highest 10 per cent. of national deprivation figures. That was confirmed by last year's Ofsted-Audit Commission inspection of the LEA in which Bournemouth was judged to be one of the best in this country—on grade 1—but was more poorly funded than those LEAs on grade 5.
  Despite this discouraging situation, some of our schools had managed since 1997 to build up revenue balances to allow long-term planning for their continuing improvement. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Under the new methodology introduced on 1 April, in which Bournemouth received the minimum grant with an increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil, those balances have been reduced by more than £1 million, and many schools are being forced to look for support through licensed deficits.
  In response to several letters that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I received from local heads warning us that teachers would have to be made redundant and class sizes would rise because they were facing budget deficits, we wrote to every head to ask to learn of the situation that they face. Their ready responses have made sorry reading, and represent the clearest possible confirmation of the disaster that has been the Government's funding of schools for this year. Concerning those primary schools that responded to our survey, one school that did not want to be named has made redundant three excellent teachers—two of them assigned to pupils with special needs. It can no longer afford to send teachers on training courses. Stourfield junior school has reduced staffing by the equivalent of 2.5 teachers. It has put the replacement of computer equipment on hold, and its head teacher tells me that it is
  "back to the bad old days of hand to mouth survival".
  The current budget shortfall facing King's Park school is £10,000. Its head has taken a cut in pay, and it cannot afford to build a new reception and year 1 building, as recommended by Ofsted. The Epiphany school, which has always lived within its budget since it opened in 1987, faces a deficit of £130,000 this year. That is a school whose finances, says Ofsted, are "very well managed". Its head teacher's appeal to me is that he needs not jam tomorrow but bread today.
  Regarding our secondary schools, Bournemouth school faces a budget deficit of £150,000. Unless funding increases significantly, its governors will face a recommendation to place part of the school on part-time education. The Bournemouth school for girls has not replaced its deputy head teacher, who has retired. It desperately needs to replace four dilapidated mobile classrooms, which students cannot use on health and safety grounds, and for which two capital fund bids for a new replacement block of £60,000 under targeted funding have been unsuccessful. And Avonbourne school faces a deficit of £70,000 this year unless it makes redundancies and increases class sizes after having cut GCSE music altogether and abandoned its proposed upgrade for computers that are five years old.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West has asked me to record the experience of Oakmead college of technology, which faces an £80,000 deficit this

  579
  year. It is not replacing teacher assistants when they leave. The loss of its standards fund is having an enormous impact on the most vulnerable pupils, as is the reduction in anger management classes. Winton school faces a deficit of £144,000. Class sizes have increased from 25 to as much as 38. Training projects have been cancelled, and a stop has been put to taking in more students with visual impairment. Glenmoor school in my hon. Friend's constituency faces similar problems.
  That is the experience that Bournemouth schools have of a Government who, according to the Queen's Speech, are committed to:
  "Delivering a world class education system that enables individuals to achieve their full potential".
  Will the situation that I have described improve for Bournemouth in the light of the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 28 October? No, it will not. The deficits of all the schools that I have mentioned total nearly £1 million, but the transitional grant allocated for Bournemouth for 2004–05 is £670,000. So Bournemouth's schools will remain in the red.
  To help to remedy our situation, the director of education for Bournemouth has asked me to tell the Minister to move from the formula spending share methodology to a fairer, activity-led resourcing model;—ALR—which our LEA uses. He has also proposed the inter-LEA recoupment for mainstream school places, which is already done for special school places.
  If the Government do not repair the damage that they are doing to Bournemouth's schools—indeed, to schools everywhere—they will have no one else to blame when parents, teachers and governors demand freedom for their schools to set their own policies, to run their own budgets and to give every school a fair deal on funding, which is what the next Conservative Government will do.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Martin CatonI am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. For various reasons, the Queen's Speech is turning out to be more interesting than some commentators acknowledged last Wednesday.
  I oppose the Opposition amendment and, in doing so, will focus on a very welcome piece of legislation, the children Bill. I do that from the perspective of a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency in Wales, which already has a Children's Commissioner in place. However, the proposal to introduce top-up fees, a subject that is identified in the amendment, in a higher education Bill concerns me and, as we have heard, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although we do not share the Tories' critique of the proposal and certainly not their alternative policies for higher education.
  For my part, I speak as a representative of a seat in Wales where the Labour party did not only fight the general election on a pledge not to introduce variable tuition fees, but fought the National Assembly elections in May this year on the same commitment for Wales. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said about trust in our party if we continue on the same road. If top-
  580
  up fees are introduced for England, it will inevitably have a direct impact both on Welsh people going into higher education and on universities in Wales.
  The arguments are becoming increasingly well rehearsed and will continue to be reiterated in the weeks and months ahead. It cannot be denied that the Government face a real challenge. They want to pump into our colleges the resources that they undoubtedly need and of which they have been starved for too long. They also want to increase the number of people who will benefit from higher education in the years ahead. Most Labour Members would sympathise with and support both those objectives—it is the chosen method of delivery that causes us concern.
  We are told that after assessing and costing dozens of different models for achieving their goals, Ministers have decided that the only one that fits the bill is the one that allows universities to charge different levels of tuition fees for different courses. To pay for that, students will be required to make repayments once they have graduated and reach a certain income. The Government have also proposed measures that I could only welcome if variable fees go ahead, such as scrapping up-front fees, which has been mentioned, introducing grants and bursaries for the less well off and establishing fair access protections.
  Those of us who are worried about the Bill have both practical concerns and concerns that relate to matters of principle. I fear that top-up fees will act as a deterrent for people from lower and middle-income families when they consider what courses to take and at which university. We already have evidence that predicted debt under existing arrangements is a major consideration for people deciding whether or not to go on to higher education. It is difficult to see how even generous bursary and grant arrangements will prevent universities that have higher fees—presumably based on academic reputation—from disproportionately serving the better-off. I fear that top-up fees will lead to the entrenchment of multi-tiering in the higher education sector, creating greater difficulties in most colleges' efforts to develop and grow.
  Mr. Eric JoyceDoes my hon. Friend recognise that we already have a multi-tier system? In reality, someone who attends a public school is 14 or 15 times more likely than someone who does not to go to Oxbridge, or to universities like Exeter and Bristol. That is a fact, so it is not a question of entrenching a multi-tier system; one exists already. Given that one third of the variable tuition fee has to be spent on increasing access, does he agree that the consequence will be to increase significantly the number of kids from working-class and ordinary backgrounds going to the elite universities, and would not that be a good thing?
  Mr. Caton: It would be a good thing if that were to happen. I accept my hon. Friend's point that we already have multi-tiering—it would be nonsense to deny that. My fear is that we will entrench it. Under the current arrangements, different universities are rising in esteem and the quality of their provision. I fear that variable fees would lead to entrenchment of an Ivy League.

  581
  I wanted to talk in the main about the children Bill, but to finish my remarks on top-up fees, my main objection is founded on my disagreement with one of the basic premises of the Government's argument. They say that people who benefit from higher education will, in most cases, earn considerably higher incomes, so it is right that we should ask them to pay towards that education. To be frank, I go along with only part of that argument—the part that people who have higher incomes should make a greater contribution to the cost of public services. The easiest, best, most honest and straightforward way of doing that is through progressive banded income tax, whereby high earners pay the most irrespective of whether they received a university education. The problem with the Government's proposal is that it is a tax or charge—whatever one prefers to call it—on higher education, not on income. I hope that they rethink that.
  I warmly welcome the proposed children Bill. I shall concentrate on the provision regarding the children's commissioner, but I support the general approach to improving the protection of children and our ability to listen to what children tell us about their needs and wishes. I am sure that the UK Government here in London and the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff share those aims, but the precise approach does not have to be identical in England and in Wales. I therefore welcome the Government's commitment to work with the Assembly to ensure that the Welsh Government can have input into the Bill where a related, but distinct, approach might be appropriate for Wales.
  Wales led the way in the UK with the establishment three years ago of this country's first Children's Commissioner post. In 2001, the role of the Welsh commissioner was extended to responsibilities beyond the regulated services. The commissioner now has the power to review the effect of policies on and the delivery of services to children. His remit extends well beyond services that are directly provided to children, such as social care and education; it also covers policy areas such as transport, the environment, economic development and agriculture.
  The commissioner's powers cover all the policies and practices of the National Assembly, but he does not have powers of review and investigation in respect of non-devolved or reserved matters. He can make representations to both the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly on matters such as Home Office-run juvenile offenders institutions, family courts or the social security system, but he has no powers of investigation and no right to enter premises or require documentation from relevant agencies and ministries.
  I shall return to that matter, but first I suggest that an excellent working model that has been established in Wales that should help the shaping of the new legislation. In only three years, Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and his team have done an enormous amount to gain the trust of children and young people and the respect of the wider community throughout Wales. He has set as his primary task the safeguarding and promotion of the rights and welfare of children and young people in Wales, but his approach and that of his team is to work with children and young people rather than simply for what he
  582
  perceives their best interests to be. In fact, the National Assembly made it a requirement that the commissioner's office ascertain the views of children and young people as it carries out its work.
  That is the excellent foundation on which the commissioner has built his role. Not only does he consult children about all aspects of his job, but he actively promotes children's participation in decisions that affect them, from family to national level. His team make a special effect to ensure that the voices of marginalised young people are heard and their views acted upon. That is working. The commissioner's office has played a valuable part in ensuring that the views of children and young people are heard in policy debates in Wales on child poverty, intergenerational respect, the provision of facilities and services by local government, education, school exclusions and a range of other matters.
  While not required to do so under the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001, the commissioner must make children and young people aware of their rights under the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Assembly included that requirement in the commissioner's job description, which brings me back to the opportunities for improvement in the new children Bill. Our commissioners should be required by statute to work within the rights-based framework set out in the UN convention on the rights of the child. They should have the power to review the effects of policies and the delivery of services by any Government Department or agency, whether UK-wide or devolved, that impact on the rights or welfare of children, and that should include the power to enter institutions and carry out investigations. For us in Wales, that would mean extending the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond devolved issues to include UK Government responsibilities. In connection with the joint approach outlined in the Bill, we may need to make provision for children's commissioners in the different countries of the UK to work jointly where an issue crosses borders.
  I am sure that the children Bill will take forward our children's rights and protection. As for children's commissioners for England and other parts of the country, I hope that we will be prepared to provide all the powers that they need to be first-class children's champions. I am sure that we will.
  5.1 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I am relieved that I am not the only. Member speaking on health issues, and I am particularly pleased that the Secretary of State for Health is in the Chamber.
  Only one sentence in the Gracious Speech refers to the national health service, but it includes four crucial words—"reform", "choice", "freedom" for staff and "control" for communities over hospitals. As I have just a few minutes, I shall speak only about choice and reform. When considering choice, we must ask what patients want. When considering the needs of hospital in-patients we must look carefully at two issues—elective services and emergency services—as the choices in each case are quite different. If someone has an extremely painful hip, the time that they have to wait is crucial. If it is less painful, the timing and place of the treatment, as well as the consultant who will carry it out,

  583
  all become more important in their choice of elective services. However, things change utterly in the case of emergency admissions. Patients do not have time to make any plans because they will mostly be suffering from medical conditions that nobody can predict, such as heart attacks, strokes and pneumonia. Their care has to be as close as possible to home because of the problems, such as unexpected journeys, for families, friends and relatives.
  If it is impossible to keep full emergency services for every community, there must be a local assessment facility, which will prevent patients from being moved unnecessarily far from their area. That will become even more essential with the constraints put on the service by the European working time directive. I am delighted that pilot trials are under way, but I am distressed that 135,000 people in my area are not being considered for a local emergency centre. I am looking forward very much to the results of a wide-ranging national consultation on choice, responsiveness and equity. It asked for the opinions of patients, users, carers and everyone running and providing health and social care, as well as the voluntary and independent sectors, patient organisations and, not to miss anybody out, the public. I hope that the Government will not only listen to the comments, but act on them.
  On reform, almost 20 major changes have been made to the national health service in the past 20 years. Both major parties have obviously taken a hand in the reforms. The service is almost punch drunk from reforms and needs to be left in peace for some time to get on with them. I remind hon. Members of John Stuart Mill, a philosopher and economist who wrote almost 150 years ago:
  A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.
  My question is, which of the existing parties is the party of order or stability? I think that now is the time when the Government could step back and become that party.
  The time is particularly ripe because of the recent publication of the Nuffield Trust report entitled "The Quest for Quality in the NHS". In the report, there is at least the beginning of an attempt to defuse the argument in which all Labour Members say that everything in the NHS is wonderful, while other Members tend to say that things are not so good. A British Medical Journal leader referring to the report asks this question about current Government action:
  "Is this more than an uncoordinated orgy of reform driven by panic?"
  The Nuffield Trust's report answers that unequivocally, describing the action as
  "the most ambitious, comprehensive and intentionally funded national initiative to improve health care quality in the world."
  That is high praise, but there are problems, the biggest of which is data quality. The report also states:
  "The unrelenting and distracting problem of inconsistent and highly contested data throws the whole of the quality agenda into a confusing fray."
  Despite that encouraging report, some of us have severe worries about the NHS in our own patches; indeed, hon. Members have already referred to such concerns. In Worcestershire alone, county health services are heading for a deficit of between £15 million
  584
  and £20 million. There are items that are not affordable, including necessary equipment for sleep apnoea, inhalable antibiotics for children with cystic fibrosis and developments in the vital field of sexual health. The trust is struggling with a bed occupancy of 94 per cent.
  My own primary care trust, which deservedly won three stars, is now, unfortunately, red-lighted for eight key targets, six of them relating to problems with the acute trust. The Government have made the welcome announcement of 170 extra trainee doctors with national training numbers in obstetrics and gynaecology—but without the necessary funding, will the PCTs be able to afford them? There are worries about funding a consultant contract and emergency GP care under the new contract.
  The 2002 patient surveys of GP and hospital inpatients were long hidden from view and appeared on the Department of Health website only earlier this year. The Nuffield Trust report cogently states:
  "The delay in publishing the results … and the reluctance to make them available … represents a triumph of political caution over commitment to a patient involvement strategy."
  The Nuffield Trust also warns:
  "The greatest threat to the sustainability and progress of the quality agenda is likely to be the unrelenting and often damaging politicisation of the NHS."
  I end by joining the Health Service Journal and the British Medical Journal in asking the Government to take note of this warning and to become John Stuart Mill's
  "party of order or stability"
  by giving NHS staff and managers some freedom and some time for the existing reforms to take effect.
  5.10 pm
  Peter Bradley: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has left his place, because, as he disclosed to the House, our deep and dark secret is that we attended the same independent school. There are some significant differences between us, however. He became the chair of governors and I have never been invited back; those two facts may be connected. A more profound difference is that when he left school he joined a party whose central tenet is that the privileges that we enjoyed should be the province of the few, but paid for by the many to whom they are denied; and I joined a party that believes in equality of opportunity.
  I welcome the delay in the publication of the Bill. On the one hand, that gives the Government an opportunity to persuade people with reservations about certain aspects that the Government are right; on the other, it offers those people an opportunity to persuade the Government, through constructive criticism, that they may be wrong.
  I commend the Government for grasping the nettle of higher education funding, although it might have been better had they worn thick gardening gloves in doing so. They are to be commended for the twin principles that underpin the White Paper—the principle of raising standards and quality in all our universities and the key principle of expanding access to prospective students from lower-income groups to whom it has previously been denied. However, although the ends are well intentioned and to be welcomed, the means are flawed.

  585
  Yes, the proposals in the White Paper will admit more students to our universities, but the gaps between those universities in terms of income, quality and, ultimately, the career opportunities that they offer to their graduates, will be widened, not narrowed.
  I agree with many of the Government's proposals. It is right that graduates should be asked to contribute to the cost of their education and the advantages that they derive from it. On leaving university, graduates enjoy an immediate differential of £3,000 to £4,000 between their salaries and those of people without degrees, and that widens as their careers progress. I welcome the Government's enlightened view that graduates, not students, should repay their tuition costs.
  I do not subscribe to the widely held view about debt-aversion that was cited by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I would liken the debt that students will accrue to an investment that bears a dividend, such as a mortgage. Indeed, the repayment terms are rather better for tuition fees than for mortgages, because someone who loses their job still has to pay the mortgage, whereas if a graduate loses their job, their loan repayments cease. The system will remove significant obstacles that deter students from lower-income households from attending university.
  Too little attention, however, has been paid to the severe problem of living costs, which can deflect talented young people from low-income groups from university, where they would be better off, into work for the short-term advantage of earning wages. If they overcome that obstacle and enter higher education, they tend to try to save on living costs by attending universities that are close to home, but do not necessarily offer the courses that are best suited to their abilities, aspirations and interests.
  In my view, the problem is not tuition fees but variable fees. I do not believe that they will work or create the market for which the Government hope, not least because I have not heard of a university that does not propose to charge the full £3,000 for its courses. Other hon. Members have also made that point. Why would universities forgo the income that they desperately need? Why would they want to signpost to students the fact that their courses are low value and low premium? That is not the smartest move in marketing.
  Even if the access regulator obliges the Oxbridges of the world to double their intake from lower-income groups from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent., they will derive the enormous credit of fee income over the bursaries that they have to give to those students. However, other universities, including Wolverhampton, which is closest to my constituency and already has a 75 per cent. intake from lower-income groups, will derive tuition fee income from only 25 per cent. of students while disbursing bursaries to 75 per cent. That is only a modest credit.
  It is strange for the Government to suggest that we give incentives to universities that default on access for lower-income students and penalise those that deliver the Government's commitment to expand access to people from those groups.
  David Taylor: I declare an interest in that one of my daughters attended the university of Wolverhampton.
  586
  Does my hon. Friend believe that a possible outcome of the plans is that the existing two tiers of Russell group universities and others will expand so that third and fourth divisions emerge from the murk?
  Peter Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I concede that there is already a two-tier—and probably a multi-tier—hierarchy among our universities. I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to narrow the gaps and not widen them, which I fear will happen through variable fees. The rich will get richer, the poorer universities will get poorer and some will struggle to survive. The elite will continue to get the best education and career prospects but the rest will simply get access. That is not a price that people should be asked to pay; everyone should have the same opportunity for quality and enhanced career prospects.
  Things do not have to be that way. It is possible to reconfigure the Government's proposals to expand access and improve standards without establishing or entrenching inequalities in the system and within the Government's proposed spending limits. In my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), with whom I have collaborated on our proposals, the first step is to replace variable fees with a flat rate of £2,500. That would produce more income for higher education—to the tune of some £200 million to £250 million—than the £3,000 variable fee that the Government propose.
  Secondly, we must be clear and logical about student support. As I suggested in an intervention, if fee repayments are contingent on income after graduation, what is the relevance of parental income before the student goes to university? It is not relevant. We should therefore abandon the tuition fee waivers and put the money into maintenance support, where it is needed. If we do that within the Government's financial model, we could provide up to £5,000 a year for the poorest 20 per cent. of students in London and £4,000 for those elsewhere. For the next 13 per cent., we could provide up to £3,000.
  But then we need to remove the burden of maintenance costs from the universities with high intakes of people from low-income backgrounds. It is essential to equalise the funding mechanism so that those universities are no longer penalised for the maintenance costs represented by high intakes of low-income students.
  We propose that fees be collected centrally, that grants be distributed from the centre and that the remainder be allocated in core funding to the universities. That is progressive and redistributive and means that all universities, not only some, will have additional income. Our approach is principled, practical and equitable. It will make the investment that higher education needs, but it will distribute it to all rather than simply to the elite universities. It will lift standards for all students, not just for some. It will remove the hurdle of living costs and go a lot further than the Government's proposals—their proposals go a great deal further than those of any other party and tribute should be paid to them for that— in making university accessible and ensuring that all those who qualify will be able to attend. That means being able to go to the university of their choice, not simply the one closest to them, without the fear of accumulating unmanageable debt.

  587
  We are not proposing that all universities are or should be equal. We seek not equality, but equity. It is not our purpose to say that all universities should be the same. They are not, they will not be and it would not be to our advantage if they were. We will still need research-driven universities, which have a key role to play in our economy and our competitiveness, but I want to see a levelling up of the gap between the richer and the poorer universities℄the prestigious universities and those with lower status—and, crucially, of the career prospects of the graduates who emerge from them.
  The Government have challenged us to produce alternative proposals. I hope that they regard these proposals as a constructive contribution to the debate.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), particularly as he attended a grant-aided school. The party he decided to join took that opportunity away from people of my generation.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Your generation?
  Mr. Gibb: I am younger than I look. When the Labour party leaves office, those interested in our education system may well look back over its years in government and lament not universities' admissions policies, but how little was achieved in raising standards in our schools and in changing the attitudes and views in the profession as well as among education academics.
  The Gracious Speech includes this sentence:
  "Educational reform will continue to raise standards in all schools."
  I wish to focus on that aspect. I hope that the Government's reforms will begin to raise standards, because there has been no genuine rise in education standards since 1997, as there has not been for 30 years, during which our state education system has been in permanent decline.
  The problem that both parties face in government is tackling and challenging the dominant viewpoint on teaching methods expounded by the education academics. Like experts in so many areas, from MMR to global warming, no dissenting opinion is tolerated by that group. Perhaps that would not be of enormous concern in education if our schools were the envy of the world, but 23 per cent. of adults in Britain cannot read properly compared with just 7 per cent. in Sweden. According to the trends in international mathematics and science study, Britain lies a poor 20th out of 41 developed nations, behind countries such as Latvia, Bulgaria, Malaysia and the Czech Republic.
  The quality of education in our schools remains the No. 2 political concern in opinion polls, but among parents of school-age children it is not only their No. 1 political concern, but their overwhelming anxiety. That issue forces parents to move house, paying up to 33 per cent. more in the catchment area of a relatively good school.
  However, so strong is the grip on policy of the education academics that they devote considerable resources to trying to convince Ministers and the public that standards are improving. They cite, for example,
  588
  the programme for international student assessment survey—a new international survey of 15-year-olds in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which puts Britain's education system fourth in science, seventh in literacy and eighth in maths. This flatly contradicts other international surveys, including TIMSS.
  The PISA survey says:
  "PISA assessed young people's capacity to use their knowledge and skills in order to meet real life challenges."
  Unlike TIMSS, it did not test knowledge of the school curriculum. It is, in effect, more of an IQ test. Thus, our position in the international table will depend solely on who makes up the sample. There is ample evidence that the UK sample was skewed to exclude weaker schools and weaker pupils.
  The literacy figures show that in 1996 just 57 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 or above in the SATs. The Government now claim that that figure has risen to 75 per cent. It is still not a good figure, but that dramatic improvement is questioned by the leading authority in this area, Professor Tymms of Durham university, who said that
  "the children are getting no better. It's just that our staff are better at teaching to the test."
  Professor Tymms's department tests 5,000 year 6 children in the same 122 primary schools each year, and he has found no statistically significant improvement in children's literacy since 1997.
  My own view is that there has been some marginal improvement due to the literacy hour, which forced schools, initially in the face of fierce opposition, to address some of the weaknesses in the teaching of reading in our schools. But literacy teaching remains a cause for concern.
  There is also the question of the pass mark used to grade SATs tests, which the 1999 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority report said was exaggerating SATs results by between 5 and 10 per cent. That report remains unpublished. I have been assured by the Minister responsible in a written answer that it will be published before the end of this year. Perhaps the Minister will say in his winding-up speech, after receiving a note from his officials, when that will be, because we are getting awfully close to the end of the year.
  Similar issues arise regarding GCSE results, such as grade inflation and the increasing proportion of marks given for coursework. There is strong evidence that the rise in GCSE pass rates can be explained in part not by rising standards but by including GNVQ results in those statistics, which means that we are not comparing like with like.
  If none of this convinces hon. Members, they should ask business and higher education what they think about standards in our schools. A report by the Engineering Council, based on diagnostic tests taken in 60 university departments, showed
  "strong evidence … of a steady decline over the past decade of fluency in basic skills".
  A report by the Institute of Directors states:
  "The labour market cannot … overcome some very fundamental basic skills deficiencies in literacy and numeracy. … We see variable and, arguably. declining standards along with endemic grade inflation within the secondary school system".

  589
  I could go on. The point is that the pretence that standards have risen is just that: it is a pretence. There has been no serious attempt to tackle the deep-rooted causes of declining standards in our state schools.
  I shall give just one example in the time available: mixed-ability teaching. The 1997 Labour manifesto said that it would increase the amount of setting in our schools because children
  "are not all of the same ability, nor do they learn at the same speed."
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has leapt from the assertion that standards in our schools are not rising to the contention that standards are therefore falling. Surely the two are not necessarily linked.
  Mr. Gibb: There is no evidence that standards are rising, despite masses of claims made by Ministers and others that they are. It is important that politicians study the data honestly and give them detailed scrutiny to ensure that we are not being fed misinformation about what is going on in our schools. If we do not do that, we cannot develop policy based on what is really happening.
  The Labour manifesto clearly said that the Government would increase the amount of setting, but six and a half years later there is no increase in the amount of setting in our schools. Some 62 per cent. of lessons in our comprehensive schools take place in mixed-ability classes. The response from the Department for Education and Skills has been to argue that the evidence on setting is mixed. That is the view that one would take if one merely read the summary of the literature prepared by the state funded National Foundation for Educational Research. The actual literature shows clear and strong evidence in support of setting or streaming.
  The two key protagonists in this debate are Robert Slavin, who is against setting, and J.A. Kulik, who is pro setting. Slavin argues that setting works against egalitarian, democratic ideals by sorting students into categories from which escape is difficult or impossible, whereas Kulik argues that setting results in significant increases in educational attainment, especially if the curriculum content is tailored to ability levels. I think that it is absolutely clear from the data that setting works and that it particularly helps children from non-academic backgrounds and ethnic minorities.
  The DFES's response is to say that most core subjects are setted in our schools and that the 62 per cent. of lessons taking place in mixed-ability classes are just for non-core peripheral subjects. Is the DFES saying that 62 per cent. of lessons are non-core and peripheral? Does it mean that history and geography are peripheral? Just 26 per cent. of history lessons are setted; just 24 per cent. of geography lessons are setted. Therefore, three quarters of lessons in those important subjects take place in mixed-ability classes.
  The vast majority of maths lessons are setted—the figure is 80 per cent.—but in science the figure is only 60 per cent. In modern foreign languages, it is only 59 per cent. What about English? Is not that a core subject? In English, just 45 per cent. of lessons are setted.
  590
  In 13 per cent. of schools, there are no setted lessons at all. No one should be fooled by the claim that specialist schools are changing all that. The proportion of lessons that are setted is precisely the same in specialist schools as it is in non-specialist schools.
  There is no doubt that Ministers face enormous difficulties in challenging the status quo and the dominance of education academics, whose influence flows deep into the veins of our state education system, but it is time that politicians started to represent the genuine concerns of parents, to tackle the controversial issues that lie at the root of the poor performance of British education, and, particularly Ministers to apply themselves to challenging the false statistics and surveys that are designed to conceal that failure from policy makers. That failure remains glaringly apparent to parents.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: I want to return to the issue of university and student funding. When the Secretary of State concluded his remarks, he said that the Government had the courage to reform. In my short contribution I will try to encourage them to be even more courageous than they intend to be.
  I support the Government's moves to grasp the nettle and to address what is an important issue. I fully support many of their objectives. They want to increase provision for the sector, which is essential. I know from first-hand experience of the universities close to my constituency that it is easy to see the signs of underinvestment. The capital backlog in our universities needs to be addressed. Teacher: pupil ratios have been deteriorating. Urgent issues of academic pay need to be addressed, so it is right to get additional resources into the sector—it is right for universities, for students and, of course, in the long term, for our country.
  The Government want to improve access and participation levels. That, of course, has to be right. They want to plan to meet rising demand for universities. That also has to be right. The principle of asking graduates to contribute more to help to meet those costs is also right. That principle was established in Dearing. I have heard no serious approaches or suggestions that go against that.
  I welcome the Government's intention, in embarking on further reform, to abolish universal up-front fees, because there is evidence that that has placed strains on family budgets. I also welcome another objective: in the longer term, the Government want to begin to shift the distribution of taxpayers' subsidy towards those in younger age groups in the education system. That is an important long-term investment and will help us to address the access issue.
  Having said that I support all those objectives, I suppose Ministers may wonder why I have signed early-day motion 7. It is because there are some problems with the proposals as formulated. As I say, I want the Government to be more courageous.
  My view of what the problems are largely comes out of the big conversation that I have had on that very subject in my constituency with Warwick and Coventry universities, their vice-chancellors, senior administrators, staff and students unions, who have

  591
  helped me to think about all the issues involved in the reform. I want to acknowledge the help that I have received from sixth form students at Aylesford, King's High, Kinglsey, Myton, North Leamington, Trinity and Warwick schools in my constituency, whose valuable input helped my thinking on this important subject. Following my discussions with those groups, four main concerns have emerged.
  The first is the 50 per cent. target, which has got in the way of a proper focus for the debate. It is too blunt and, if anything, too modest. Currently, we have 43 per cent. participation and we know from trends in the numbers getting two good A levels and in demography that another 250,000 places will be demanded shortly in any event, taking us close to the 50 per cent. target. Getting that figure into the debate has blunted the argument. We need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in the longer term and to be more ambitious, although not with a target in mind. We must then be prepared to put funding in place to help deliver that ambitious growth.
  The second area of concern has come largely from the universities and concerns displacement. If the additional income comes in from top-up fees, there is concern that the Government might at some point in the future claw back the taxpayers' contribution; not within the current comprehensive spending review, but beyond it. Universities will be looking for a long-term contract with the Government if we continue in this general direction of reform, which is the right one.
  The third area of concern is variable fees, which have been addressed by many hon. Members this afternoon. I accept that we have a multi-tier university system already; the issue is whether we are to mitigate or aggravate it. The evidence I have is that most universities will go straight for the full £3,000. After all, the real range for them is under £2,000, as they are already getting just over £1,000 from fees that are currently in place; the lift in income is not even £3,000.
  I have a suspicion that many in the Russell group are settling for £3,000 to get the principle of top-up fees established and will want to move to higher fees quickly after that. We must be more confident that the scheme that comes in will be sustainable and will not be a staging post towards the creation of an inaccessible British Ivy League.
  The fourth area of concern is debt. Evidence as to whether there is a debt deterrent is inconclusive, but it is clear that students of today and tomorrow see it as a growing problem. We need to bear in mind the fact that we are talking not just about tuition fees, but about maintenance costs.
  Paul Farrelly: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Plaskitt: I am not going to have the time to do so.
  I want to run through some proposals and suggestions. First, the Government could do more to bring in certainty. Students anticipating the scheme want to know what the full fee element of their entire course is to be and want that to be transparent from the outset. If we have that, might we also have some payment flexibility? I welcome the abolition of universal upfront fees—it is better that they be replaced by fees
  592
  payable after graduation—but many students would like flexibility and to retain the option of paying as they go to pay down the debt that they will face at graduation. Many would prefer to make ongoing contributions to the cost while they are at university, rather than face it all as a debt at the end.
  If we set up a system whereby an account is opened for the student when the course starts and they or their parents can pay down the debt, whatever debt remains at graduation will be what is payable afterwards. I urge the Government to consider that issue.
  We could consider another area of flexibility, which offsets the area that I have just mentioned. We should perhaps allow a period of deferral after graduation, before debt repayment starts. Many students have expressed to me their concern that the debt will become repayable as they start work—at just the time when they are perhaps buying a house and incurring all manner of other expenses. The Government should be prepared to consider deferral for a period of years, on the understanding that the debt will accrue a real rate of interest while deferred. It is not realistic to expect deferral free of charge.
  I urge the Government to look again at the proposed reintroduction of grants to see whether they can be raised to a more realistic level. As has been suggested, some funding for that would be available if we did away with fee concessions. We should also look again at the link with the education maintenance allowance, which will be set at £1,500. Many youngsters who qualify for it will, on entering university, discover that their grant is only £1,000. That is a step down in educational support, and we need to smooth out that difference.
  I urge two long-term reforms on the Government. The British university sector is very bad at raising income from endowments, which is currently running at 1.8 per cent. of total university income. We need to get that figure higher. May we discuss with the universities, and perhaps with the Treasury, introducing tax concessions to help build up sizeable endowments in the long term? The bare bones of the second long-term reform that I urge on the Government are already there. Can we not consider allowing people to convert into education trust funds the child trust funds that we are introducing? Where parents or youngsters want to do that, the Government could make a further contribution at the point of conversion. When such funds finally matured—I accept that this is a long-term reform—many youngsters would have in their possession a nominated fund that would meet the full extent of the cost of their university education.
  These are, I hope, constructive suggestions that the Government will take on board. If the Bill can be improved and made a little bolder and more courageous, they might find that it commands the support of the House.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the financing of higher education. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). He made a very thoughtful speech, and I share many of the concerns that he expressed. Indeed, they were also expressed by each of the four preceding

  593
  contributors from the Labour Benches. Like me, those Members are concerned that the Government's proposal runs against the principle of access according to ability.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) struck a particular chord with me, not least because I know his part of the world quite well. His constituency is perhaps much less affluent than mine, but even so, there are many families in leafy Hertfordshire who will be worried about the effect that the additional demands being placed on their children will have on their access to higher education.
  There is another group of parents in Hertfordshire who probably could afford to pay the fees demanded of them. They will be worried for a different reason: that their children will not be treated according to their ability because of the type of school that they chose to attend. Some of the remarks made by certain Members will have done nothing to lessen those parents' concern about the implications of the proposed office for fair access.
  However, I want to discuss the first group of families to which I referred, who are worried about whether their children will be able to attend the university of their choice.
  Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: I promise that I will give way later on, if I have time.
  The Government have not assisted their case by doing precisely the opposite of what they promised to do in their manifesto. I do not want to discuss the issue of trust and credibility, which has been explored already, but a related issue springs to mind. So far as I can judge, it is the concerns expressed by many Labour Members this afternoon that gave rise to the clear pledge made by the Government in their manifesto of just two years ago. If I am wrong, perhaps the Secretary of State for Health—I realise that this is not his subject, but he has no shortage of views—will enlighten me as to the factors that led the Government to make that pledge. Were they not the same concerns about access and attending top universities that have been expressed by his colleagues this afternoon? I look forward to his answer.
  Can the Secretary of State tell us, for example, whether anything happened in the past two years to justify this change of course? I listened to the speech of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, this afternoon and to the pillars that he advanced in support of his argument, but surely the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who made the promise in 2001 would have been equally aware of those factors. None have arisen only over the past two years, so why has there been such a change from the concerns that the Government were aware of back in 2001?
  My concerns in respect of lower and middle-income families and their children's access to university are threefold. First, there is a wealth of evidence, including some from the Government's own researchers, to suggest that top-up fees will have an impact on access. That is strongly felt by the present generation of
  594
  students, even though they will not, in the main, be directly affected themselves. The Government argue that that is misplaced because fees will be paid not on entry to university, but on graduation, and will be contingent on the amount of income that the graduate earns.
  As Government Members have pointed out, however, the Government are not wholly confident about that, because they concede that the fees might be remitted according to the student's family's present income. Government Members have debated whether that is inconsistent; it certainly seems to cut across the Government's own thinking that any amount of fees can be requested because they will be paid by high-earning graduates in the future. To follow up the Secretary of State's comparison, I was not aware that barristers earned any less in their professional careers because their father happened to be a bus driver.
  The Government seem to accept that there is a connection between present family income and the question of access. That problem cannot be fully addressed by the modifications that the Government have mentioned. Even if assistance is given to families at the lower end of the scale, there will never be enough to help the families who are just a little higher up on the scale, and who, in my submission, will be equally affected. That includes many families in constituencies such as my own who will very likely lose out, as they often do under such schemes, because incomes in the south-east tend to be higher to meet the higher cost of housing and the higher cost of living. They often find themselves falling below the relevant threshold and I fear that they will also do so in the present case.
  Secondly, variable fees will have an obvious effect on student choice, student aspiration and, ultimately, on the character of universities themselves. It will take a lot to persuade me that permitting Russell group universities to charge high fees while other universities charge lower fees will not result in some students choosing the cheaper option—not the option that meets their aspirations, but the one that is less of a burden on them and their families.
  Leading universities such as Oxford and Cambridge—and, to give them credit, the Government themselves—are at pains to say that our children and students should aim high, but the message that they receive from the current proposals is that if they aim high, they will have to pay for it. It may well be that the universities charge an even level of fees, as some hon. Members have suggested, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington may be on to something when he suggests that the current proposals will be just a staging post for the Russell group universities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that earlier this week the rector of Imperial College, London—perhaps our premier scientific institution—quoted the figure of £20,000 a year in tuition fees. Does the Secretary of State really believe that if students are faced with the prospect of paying back £60,000 or more of debt, it will not have an effect on the choices that they make in trying to meet their aspirations? If the Minister pooh-poohs that and says that the Government will not allow the universities to do it because there will be a cap on the level of variable fees,

  595
  I have to say that such a claim will not have much credibility, given that the Government promised not to introduce top-up fees at all.
  Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: I have one more point to make, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, and then I shall give way to him.
  Another aspect of the distorting effect of top-up fees is their impact on students' choice of career. If graduates are leaving university with debts of £20,000 to £30,000—it will probably be much more in the fullness of time—they will surely think about how to pay them off as quickly as possible. Is that not likely to result in high-quality graduates in shortage subjects such as maths and science deciding not to take jobs in the public sector, especially teaching, and opting instead for higher-paid jobs that will at least enable them to pay off their debts?
  The Library has helpfully given me an estimate of how long it will take a teacher to pay off the student debt that will accumulate under the Government's current proposals. If the Government stick with their £15,000 threshold for repayment, it will take a teacher 14 years to pay off his debt. If the Government move, as has been suggested, to a threshold of £20,000, it will take nearly 17 years of that teacher's career to pay off his debt—the years when he is likely to be trying to buy a house, start a family and set up some pension provision. That is a long, long commitment for that teacher, taking him almost to the age of 40 faced with a pile of debts.
  Paul Farrelly: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), I, too, signed early-day motion 7 and I am not entirely in agreement with my Government over variable fees. However, I am perplexed as to how the Conservative policy of scrapping the expansion of university places will help to give the constituents of the hon. Gentleman a better opportunity to go to university.
  Mr. Clappison: There is obviously a debate going on between Labour Members about different ways of financing university expansion. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that since the Robbins report there has been a massive expansion in student numbers, because if this debate had been held at the beginning of that period, today's students would have been encumbered with much higher debts. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues: the proposals cut across the principle of access based on ability and that has worrying implications for the future. The Government will have to think again about their proposals if they are to keep faith with those of us on both sides of the House who want the children of bus drivers and barristers to leave university alongside each other, if they have the ability to go there in the first place.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Most of the measures announced in the Queen's Speech are desirable and necessary. I especially commend the
  596
  proposals for children's bonds, pension protection funds, the registration of civil partnerships, legislation on domestic violence and the establishment of a children's commissioner for England—who will, I presume, have oversight of the welfare of the children of asylum seekers. I commend, too, proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. I hope that we shall complete consideration of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and I very much hope that it will include provisions to regulate car boot sales.
  I strongly support the Home Secretary's proposals for draft legislation on identity cards. At least one phantom Bill is lurking—on hunting—and I look forward to that. I very much welcome the fact that gender recognition legislation is to be debated.
  Like most speakers today, however, I want to address only one main matter: top-up fees, which are neither desirable nor necessary. As I understand the Government's intention, it is to raise more resources to bail out our universities and to raise more of those resources from graduates and less from general taxation; but for the life of me I cannot see why top-up fees are necessary to achieve either of those ends. Indeed, as I hope to explain, they could well achieve the opposite.
  I cannot support the Government's proposals for top-up fees. I take no pleasure in opposing my Government, which may make me fairly unusual on the Labour Benches. I regard with trepidation the possibility of being formally confronted with the legislation early next year. Voting against it would certainly not be a badge of honour; rather, it would be an admission that many of my hon. Friends and I had failed to persuade the Government that they have got the proposals wrong.
  When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he introduced up-front top-up fees in 1998, and supported him, although with regret. I did so because I did not believe that my constituents in Skelmersdale should be asked increasingly to subsidise expansion in higher education through their taxes. That was because they themselves had almost no tradition of taking advantage of such education and, for well understood socio-economic reasons, they had very poor access to it.
  I have nothing but praise for my local further and higher education colleges, and for my Government, in the massive efforts that have been made to address that problem in recent years. The former Secretary of State for Education also assured us that, although available Government money was limited, it would be steered towards the FE sector, which was very much the Cinderella of the education system and which is still comparatively neglected.
  Overall, the decision on tuition fees in 1998 has had reasonably acceptable results, although difficulties have been caused for some families and individual students. Many of the changes proposed for higher education by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are to be applauded. For example, the Government recognise that the quality of teaching in higher education teaching institutions is of the first importance, and that it is as important as research.
  A few weeks ago, hon. Members received a briefing on this subject from the Association of University Teachers. I note that the first section is entitled

  597
  "Teaching in a Research Environment". Why could it not be "Research in a Teaching Environment"? Until now, the system has never recognised the quality of research performed by individual teachers in higher education, which is specifically aimed at enabling them to teach well at a high level. That research is not necessarily for publication or part of separately funded projects. The value of that research could be recognised through the development of so-called “teaching-only" universities, but a great deal of work would have to be done on parity of esteem. If that work were not done, that development could have a significant effect on the implementation—or otherwise—of top-up fees.
  Like everyone else, I welcome the fact that debts will be repaid after graduation, and not partly on entry to university. I welcome too the widening of access, and the further assistance to be granted to people from low-income groups. The Robbins principle has always been right, but the Government's 50 per cent. target is unfortunate, to say the least. The target drives the system to recruit students, but that often leads to vastly increased drop-out rates and to the appearance of courses that can be described only as poor contributors to our national well-being. I am too polite to say so, but they were formerly known as Mickey Mouse courses.
  I turn now to top-up fees. Universities will be forced to maximise the top-up fee level, or they will be
  "perceived as a lower class of institution",
  according to Malcolm McVicar, the principal of the university of Central Lancashire. He very much did not want to implement the top-up fees proposal, but now says that he feels he must if he is to maintain the reputation of his university.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) noted, we must also take account of the nature of working-class households, whose members traditionally do not enter higher education. For them, going to university is often very challenging and daunting. It is new and frightening, and they have a fear of debt. The size of the debts being spoken about in the Chamber today are enough to frighten many people's imaginations. Students from working-class families may decide to look at lower-cost courses and institutions—if they exist. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) is right to say that it is likely that all institutions will charge the maximum amount that they can get out of students. We are all in danger of forgetting what life is like in many working-class households on our estates. We must be mindful of the difficulties, tensions and anxieties that people face when they look at what the future holds for them and their families.
  In addition, the abolition of up-front fees—a good thing—will reduce higher education income in the present because it will postpone the extra income from top-up fees until 2006, at the earliest. In party political terms—I put the problem no more grandly than that—we will experience in our constituencies all the pain, opposition and aggro that will result from the proposal before the next general election. The benefits of the cash that will come from top-up fees will not be felt until after 2006. The concessions that the Secretary of State has made to blunt the opposition to top-up fees mean that there will be a significantly lower and slower income
  598
  stream when the cash comes in. We are therefore making a mess of this, even in the Government's terms. The postponement of the Bill's publication gives the Government time to do what early-day motion 7 suggests: look at a range of acceptable alternatives and come up with something that is more acceptable to the majority of Members, certainly on the Labour Benches.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in his briefing that students do not pay, graduates do. That is not true—I do not pay. His briefings do not address the proposal that I and others have made previously that current graduates should contribute through a graduate tax. They criticise a graduate tax as it would apply to future graduates, but they do not address the possibilities of raising a supplementary tax from people such as me, Neil Kinnock and scores of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who were the first in our families to go to universities and benefit from free higher education—in my case for four years—at the expense of the taxpayer. There is no reason why I and the other 12 per cent. of the population who benefited in that way should not be asked to fund higher education further through a graduated taxation system. Apart from the equity of that, such a measure would have the merit, if hypothecated, of producing resources for the universities sooner rather than later.
  6.1 Pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure, as a fellow Lancastrian, to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). I felt that he made a measured speech containing many good points.
  I would like to speak later on top-up fees, if I have few moments to do so, but I want to start by looking at what one might term the other end of the scale—the provision of special needs education. A few years ago, I served on the Standing Committee that considered a Bill introduced by the Government in relation to special needs education. Its objective was, in the Government's words, to secure inclusion and enable more children with special needs to attend mainstream schools. I was told at the time, because I was concerned about the matter, that the legislation should in no way lead to the wholesale closure of special schools. Those exact words were used—it was not a green light for closure.
  My experience, however, has been somewhat different. In Gloucestershire—I must point out, not for party political purposes, that Gloucestershire county council is run by an unholy Lib-Lab pact, with the Conservatives, even though they are the largest group, completely excluded from the executive—the policy is without doubt to close the special schools in the county. One at Bonnham Park in Stroud has already been closed, two in the Forest of Dean are being merged, and a school called Alderman Knight in my constituency near Tewkesbury is under threat—there is consultation, but there is no doubt that a threat exists to that school. In Gloucestershire, therefore, it seems that the Minister's words that the policy should not lead to a wholesale closure of special schools are not being heeded.
  Of course, many pupils are included in mainstream schools, should be so included and are doing well. Mainstream schools, however, are not appropriate for all children with special needs. Many children who go to

  599
  Alderman Knight school are even physically handicapped—they have great difficulties. The teachers there know that those pupils could not cope in mainstream schools, and their parents know that they could not cope in mainstream schools. What is even more important, however—it is an emotive issue when it is discussed with them—is that the pupils themselves know that they could not cope in mainstream schools, and are fearful of being sent to those schools. They have broken down in tears when they have explained the situation to me. One or two have even been brave enough to attend public meetings to speak against forced inclusion.
  Diana Organ: The hon. Gentleman says that two special schools in the Forest of Dean are to be merged, and he expresses the concern of parents and pupils about what will happen to them as a result of the policy of inclusion. Why did he fail to admit that a new special school, with 65 places, will open in the Forest of Dean at a cost of £3 million? There is hardly a loss of provision for children with special needs in the area.
  Mr. Robertson: I did not imply that there was to be a loss of provision. I said that schools were merging. I am sure the hon. Lady is not suggesting that special needs education in Gloucestershire is being downgraded. She must accept, however, that people would not go on marches, come to the House or sign petitions if they did not believe that the special school of Alderman Knight was under threat.
  There is a great danger that those special needs children will be forced into mainstream schools against their will. That does not suit them or the pupils and teachers at mainstream schools. Again, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. They should talk to them as I have done. My opinion does not matter. What matters is what the pupils, teachers and parents think. If pupils are forced to go to schools where they cannot cope, their right to a good education will have been removed. We call it inclusion, but they will not be included in society if they do not have the appropriate education or the appropriate care, which they can receive only at special schools.
  What is the choice for parents if those schools are closed? If they do not have the option of sending their children to them, they will have to send them to a mainstream school. That is no choice. Why are the changes being made? Is it because of party political dogma or for financial reasons? In Gloucestershire, it is both. There is party political dogma—there is no question about it—but there is also the problem of finances.
  The county council is thinking of changing sixth-form provision in the city of Gloucester and its outskirts, some of which also fall into my constituency. Are those changes motivated by financial constraints? We keep hearing from the Government that more and more money is going into education, yet I find that special schools and sixth forms are under threat. One of the wards at Tewkesbury hospital was also under threat, again because of money, yet we are told that the health service is receiving more money. Where is it all going?
  I do not want to dwell on finance, however. If the Minister doubts my word, he should come to Alderman Knight school. It would be delighted to receive him. He
  600
  should look those children in the eye and tell them that he supports proposals to close their school. I do not think he would do that. I certainly hope that he would not.
  On top-up fees, if anyone is advising a couple who are about to get married—although it is probably unwise to do so—the advice should be to avoid debt. My grandfather had a saying, "When you are in debt, you are in danger." We should not be sending graduates out into the world of work with massive debts hanging around their necks. We hear that they are likely to earn much more money because they have university degrees, something that I do not own. However, hon. Members have missed the point: if graduates earn more money, they will pay more tax because it is a percentage of our income. That seems very simple to me.
  I am proud that I was part of the education team that decided that the Conservatives would scrap tuition fees when we returned to government. Nothing in our policy would prevent students from going to university, as has been suggested. Our aim is to stop what was graphically and well described by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) as the circle whereby many people go to university, but some cannot get a job on leaving and do jobs that do not require degrees, yet this country has a skills shortage, many people drop out of university because they took the wrong course, and we have a massive bill that we cannot pay. Why not reduce the bill? When I speak to representatives of industry in my constituency and to health service workers, I hear about the skills shortage, but sending more people to university will not redress that shortage. If it could, the skills gap would not exist.
  It was a Conservative Government who increased the number of students going to university from one in eight to one in three. Perhaps we should now consider educating and training people in a different and more appropriate way. I would have liked to speak further about that issue, but I fear I have run out of time.
  6.11 pm
  David Taylor: I declare an interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
  Performance indicators, monitoring, auditing, assessing—call it what you will, but gauging the performance of the services on which the public rely and which it is the duty of Government to provide is essential, not only as a means of reporting back to the electorate à la plastic card on which Labour Members were elected in 1997, but as a potentially useful tool in improving those services. Regrettably, like so much that emanates from the secret and unelected elite of advisers who shape our party's policies, the theory too often fails to square with the real world. Corrupted by a stream of sub-marketing jargon, a potentially useful tool has become a self-serving one. It seems ultimately to concentrate on moving the macro-debate on the improvement of public service performance towards micro-squabbles over the latest set of key performance indicators. After Marshall McLuhan's
  "the medium is the message",
  we have Milburn's "star rating is the only game in town" and Adonis's League Tables 'R' Us".

  601
  A reform or bust mantra is being used to threaten Labour Back Benchers, our traditional supporters and the wider public. We are in essence told that changes that nudge us towards a market ethos or that rate activities in tables that would be more at home in Consumers Association magazines are the only legitimate forms of modernisation, on which service quality and thus electoral success depend. Yes, one alternative is a Tory Government slashing public spending and sending the NHS and schools back to the doldrums in which they languished in the 1980s and early 90s, but that is not the only alternative to the target and market culture that we are being encouraged to embrace.
  It is clear to many right hon. and hon. Members that public service performance will be a critical issue at the next general election. To fulfil my role as a helpful Back Bencher, I propose to offer the Government some advice on the processes and procedures they have in place to measure the effectiveness of public service performance.
  Let me start with the NHS—the most comprehensive, technologically advanced and accessible public health care system in the world. The Government and Labour Members are rightly proud of the record extra investment that has been diverted to the NHS. The problems arise if the award of some public money to hospitals depends on the satisfaction of arbitrary targets and the subsequent award of glittering stars. Even the Government's top statistician says that targets can be naive and impossible to deliver. Indeed, it is now recognised that the star system has little to do with the quality of health care, and more to do with the political outlook of individual hospital managers. Are they prepared to go along with the targets and produce the figures that Government advisers want to read, and thereby reap the star reward; or are they willing to allow the hospital to deliver to a different, and perhaps more relevant agenda, but see the stars denied?
  The star system has not been successful and is seriously damaging to the morale of many NHS staff—the very people who pulled that national asset through the funding famine and bureaucratic morass of the Tory years. The star system may be a valid way of improving the behaviour of boisterous primary school children, but it is a wholly inappropriate way of shaping the policies and finances of huge hospital trusts that are straining to deliver services. To give a local example, the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust includes three hospitals—Leicester royal infirmary, Leicester general hospital and Glenfield general hospital—and had a two-star rating until this year. The trust recently had a successful review by the Commission for Health Improvement that praised many aspects of its work, and was given an overall score of 15 for different aspects of clinical governance—the highest score in England was 17. As for other performance indicators, it performed 98,300 elective procedures within 12 months, and 89 per cent. of patients were on a waiting list for less than six months. Staff numbers were up by 4 per cent.; staff turnover was down from 14 per cent. to 11 per cent.; and sickness absence fell from 5.3 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. However, in the star rating system it went from two stars to no stars. It achieved six of the arbitrary targets, but
  602
  an administrative error led to some in-patients waiting longer than normal, and there were problems in accident and emergency. What a way to treat a magnificent hospital trust with some of the finest hospitals in the east midlands.
  In local government, we await, not very eagerly, the publication and inherent simplification of the best value league tables. Yet again, complex public services will be distilled to a starkly simplified, tabulated structure—beware the positions that lead to relegation. In education, no amount of key performance indicators could prevent the engineering firm W.S. Atkins from adding to the financial and administrative burden on schools in the London borough of Southwark. Following the statutory intervention of the Home Secretary, taxpayers effectively paid an engineering firm to ruin further the system of education delivery in Southwark. The Andrew Adonis formula of
  "investment plus reform equals results"
  is misleadingly simple. What are the desired results under that root and branch logic? Increasingly, money tied to reform is for the benefit of investment banks in the City, the metropolitan media and home counties constituencies, but those groups do not rely on public services.
  The underlying tenet or holy grail that underpins that deeply flawed approach to the measurement of public service performance and unites some MPs in subservience to it is competition, which apparently keeps the private sector lean and mean. I do not dispute that and would go further—the survival of the fittest keeps all markets trim and free of excess. Without wanting to demean the efforts of small and medium-sized business enterprises, the harsh realities of the marketplace are appropriate to the opening of a sandwich shop or carpet fitters, for example, but have no application or use in health, education or law enforcement. Recourse to the language, practices and forces of the marketplace in the provision of essential public services shows the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy, not just of the proponents of that theory, but of the wider political system. Hospitals are not shops and patients are not customers. To tell the public that their money cannot be spent on services that they want to work, such as the NHS, schools and police, without a gratuity payment to the private sector is breathtaking chutzpah and disingenuousness on a scale previously seen only in the literary efforts of Jeffrey Archer.
  There is a role for private contractors in the delivery of public services—there always has been—but its scale and location have to be controlled. There is a place for comparative quality tables of public services, but only when pre-existing distortions to the delivery environment are removed. Only last Friday, a press notice issued by the National Audit Office said that its recent report recommended that the Department for Education and Skills
  "should produce and make publicly available performance information for maintained secondary schools that takes into account academic achievements adjusted not only for pupil prior achievement, but also for other external influences".
  We have to build those adjustments into every set of tables, if they are to be used, when measuring the quality of public service delivery.

  603
  The NAO also recommended that the DFEE
  "use this adjusted performance information as a tool, amongst others, for assessing school performance and evaluating the effectiveness of policies that impact on schools".
  Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad. Governments whom the gods wish to destroy, they first put into the hands of unelected advisers with few contacts with ordinary people, after which they add a sprinkling of accountants, star systems and league tables, light the pink touch-paper and retire. I fear that we are heading in that direction. The consequent electoral explosion in autumn 2005 is too dire to contemplate.
  6.19 pm
  Adam Price: In preparing for this debate, especially in relation to tuition fees, I tried to heed the advice of H. L. Mencken on dealing with political opponents, which is always to assume that they are just as honest and decent as oneself, and that they sometimes may even be right. However, I must confess that on this particular issue I have struggled to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and I have failed so far in trying to do so.
  The strapline on the higher education Bill in the parliamentary Labour party's information was
  "free at the point of use and fair at the point of repayment".
  I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that there is no read-across from education to health. To me, that statement sounds like a retreat from the principle of universal and comprehensive access to public services. I accept the Government's argument that they are sincere about the proposals that they are making and that they want to widen participation and access, but I hope that they will also reflect on the sincerity of hon. Members on both sides of the House who fear that the changes could make a bad situation worse in terms of the inequality of opportunity that currently pertains in our higher education system. In fact, those inequalities could be reinforced between institutions, between different parts of the UK and between students themselves.
  It is very interesting and instructive to reflect on the fact that the person who first came up with the idea of income contingent repayment—that is, paying not out of current income, but out of future income, as in deferred tuition fees—was none other than Milton Friedman. He came up with the idea of deferred tuition fees in a paper published in 1955. The argument that he used is the very same one that is being used now. Indeed, he returned to the theme in "Free to Choose". Who can forget that piece of Thatcherite propaganda? In that book, he said of higher education:
  "In this area, those of us who are middle and upper-income classes have conned the poor into subsidising us on a grand scale".
  That was Milton Friedman's argument, but it is now being replayed by the Government. Perhaps that is no surprise.
  Dr. John Reid: Let us set things in the broad sweep of history. The idea of taking from everyone according to their abilities and giving to everyone according to their needs did not commence with Milton Friedman. It commenced a long time ago. Keir Hardie was saying it 110 years ago.
  Adam Price: I think that the phrase:
  "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
  is a quote from a certain Mr. Karl Marx. I am not sure that he would be a supporter of the Government's policy on tuition fees, but I am prepared to be corrected by the Secretary of State.
  I accept that the Government are putting their arguments in terms of social justice. We are having an interesting debate about different notions of equity. The Government are advancing a plausible argument by asking why today's poor should fund tomorrow's more affluent people. That is the notion of equity that they are putting forward, but there are other competing notions of equity as well. For instance, there is equity between the generations. Should we be placing a huge burden of extra taxation on the young, especially at a time when an ageing population means that public services already have to be funded out of a smaller taxation base?
  On equality of opportunity, I believe that the nub of the argument in terms of equity is the dynamic effects of the changes, rather than their static effects in terms of who pays which segment of the population. What are the dynamic effects? What effect will the proposals have on people's ability and opportunities to realise their potential? That is where the interesting argument lies, and there is contrary evidence. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that there has not so far been a hugely negative impact on accessibility. In Canada, however, where the state has withdrawn from direct funding, the results are different. In the United States of America, which has a vastly deregulated tuition fees system, the result has been disastrous in terms of accessibility. In Canada and North America, high-quality education is increasingly the preserve of the privileged—people are buying not skills, but a passport to the upper echelons of society. The fear of that animates several hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Aversion to debt among people from working-class backgrounds is a significant factor. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has pointed to the effect of the introduction of tuition fees on accessibility for the working class in Wales. There is plenty of evidence in international research to suggest that we should take cognisance of that issue.
  Marginal rates of taxation were mentioned. The marginal rate of taxation for graduates earning £15,000 to £30,000 will be 42 per cent., yet the Prime Minister's marginal rate of taxation is only 41 per cent. How can that be equitable?
  The wider point is that this goes to the heart of what education is about. The Government's proposals seem to present education in the purely individualistic sense that it is, per se, a personal investment decision in the relevant marketplace, but it is more than that. John Rawls—a philosopher who is, I hope, closer to the Government than Milton Friedman—said that
  "the value of education should not be assessed solely in terms of economic efficiency and social welfare. Equally if not more important is the role of education in enabling a person to enjoy the culture of his society and to take part in its affairs, and in this way to provide for each individual a secure sense of his own worth."

  605
  If we reduce education purely and simply to a matter of sustaining and strengthening income differentials, we all lose out as a society.
  The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) is absolutely right—the Government need to think through the political consequences for themselves. In 1989, the Government of the Australian Labor party were the first in the world to implement Milton Friedman's idea when they introduced income-contingent loans. They lost to a rejuvenated Conservative party in 1996. I should not like that to happen to the Government as a result of their proposals. They should listen carefully to the wise counsel that they have heard from Members on their own Benches.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: It has been an interesting seven hours. For all but a few minutes' pit stop, I have been here since Prayers. Although I cannot recall the Speaker's Chaplain telling us that the first shall be last, I am none the less blessed that that has been borne out.
  I had not expected the debate to be, in effect, a Second Reading debate on the Government's proposals on higher education instead of a broader debate on the Queen's Speech. I certainly wish to have my say on the education proposals, but I shall do so after the Bill is published later this month.
  I want to focus on an issue that connects health and education, and which will need far greater attention and investment in future—obesity, which is a national time bomb whose fuse is almost burned through. It already costs the country £2 billion a year, and it is estimated that in 20 years' time the entire current budget of today's NHS will be consumed in paying for the costs of sedentary lifestyles, diabetes, coronary heart disease and other obesity-related diseases—not to mention the days
  of work lost to our economy. Creative and innovative policies are required. We need a massive shift in the balance of funding from treating disease to preventing it—and we need it fast. The Department of Health currently spends £886 per head each year on treating sickness. If we compare that with the figure of £1 per head each year that the Government spend on sport and physical activity designed to prevent disease, it is apparent that prevention is the underfunded element of the Government's strategy.
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a role to play, but it does not have the budget to achieve the required change. That should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. The Government have accepted the importance of the agenda and their policies to date signal a good start. There are currently 1,200 school sports co-ordinators and 6,000 primary and special school link teachers. That means that 30 per cent. of schools in England belong to one of the 222 school sports partnerships.
  The Government have set a target of 75 per cent. of school children doing two hours of school sports a week by 2006. However, in the long term, we must set our sights higher. Seventy thousand 10-year-olds—one in 10—are already obese. By the age of 15, one in six
  606
  children are obese. Society has the responsibility of preparing young people for life—that is the point of an education system. It must be our schools' primary function to prepare young people for every aspect of their future, not only in literacy and numeracy, but in knowing how to lead a healthy lifestyle.
  With one in six obese 15-year-olds, we are not paying sufficient attention to ensuring that young people have learned healthy habits of regular physical exercise. Not only the quantity but the quality and variety of sport in schools needs to increase. The staple diet of the same old sports engages some but alienates thousands. If we ask people why they do not enjoy sport and do not participate in it now, the reason is usually that they were forced to do specific sports at school. We need a smorgasbord of physical activities and sports in the school environment so that children can find a sport that they enjoy and want to continue in later life.
  Sports governing bodies should work in partnership with schools to deliver a broad range of choices for young people, with clear coaching pathways to achieve excellence for those who are most able. Every school should be furnished with the basic minimum of sports equipment, including fitness facilities and gym equipment that older pupils can use independently.
  A young person's commitment to physical fitness and sporting achievement should be formally recognised, with Step into Sport extended to every secondary school. Just as we encourage endeavour in academic and literary pursuits, a national award scheme should encourage endeavour and excellence in active pursuits. We need an army of coaches to motivate and inspire young people. The Government are to be congratulated on their community coaches scheme; the first wave of coaches will be in action next year. The scheme needs every available resource to make the necessary impact.
  Such schemes need to be a Department of Health priority and a cornerstone of its preventive work. The Department's financial clout can create the necessary investment. The 3,000 coaches that the Government originally promised are to be part time, with some full-time coaches. The modification was right in that there should be many part-time coaches, but we should have 3,000 full-time equivalents. We should not have cheese pared to make the Departments' savings and economies.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities should be encouraged to open all the facilities that are available in schools in the summer? There appears to be a problem with insurance, which is why youngsters are not allowed to use the equipment. We should consider ways of solving the problems and ensure that the facilities are available for our young people.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful for that intervention and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Insurance and other matters must not be allowed to stand in the way of opening up access. I shall deal with that point later.
  We are not the only country that is having to think out of the box to tackle the issue. In Austria, the social affairs spokesman has put forward the idea of a fat tax, suggesting that social insurance contributions should be linked to body mass index. I can see that one or two colleagues are rather worried by that suggestion, but I do not think that we should pursue it—at least not yet.

  607
  The Government have set a target of 70 per cent. of the population engaging in regular physical exercise by 2020. It is right for them to set high standards. Just as they intervene to stop us smoking and to encourage safe sex and sensible drinking, so they must intervene to fight obesity by removing the hurdles that prevent people from being more active.
  A key element in making the nation more active is access to facilities, which is the very point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned. Membership of a private gym is often expensive and quality sports pitches and leisure centres are in limited supply. Consequently, affordable, good-quality facilities are out of reach for far too many people. We must open up access and make the best facilities available to the whole community.
  Based on schemes in Wales, Glasgow and Newham, and along with London Assembly Member Diana Johnson, I am in discussion with fellow London MPs and with boroughs to see whether we can make swimming in London free for all children. Of course, to use the facilities we must first have them. Germany has 92 50-m swimming pools. In France, the city of Paris alone has 20. In the UK, we have just 17. Many 25-m pools, which should be standard facilities for every community, are in a state of disrepair, if they exist at all.
  We must complete a national needs analysis for each nation and region and work with their sports governing bodies to put the necessary facilities in the right place. That means, in practice, that housing should not be built without consideration being given to the availability of sports and recreational facilities. The public should consider having such facilities in easy reach the expected norm and the Government should be ready to embrace partnership with the private sector in all areas to get those facilities in place.
  In the last minute available to me, I want to touch on children's trust funds. I am concerned about the necessary information for parents, and now for children in schools, who will have a real interest in acquiring the financial skills to manage their own funds at maturity. The Government information campaign beginning in 2005 is too late. Parents need to be made more aware of these issues in good time. The Government need to clarify whether the additional tax-free contribution of £1,200 a year can be made by parents in respect of the years between September 2002, when the first child qualifies, and 2005, when the first fund is opened.
  I am concerned that a policy designed to increase social inclusion and to help children out of poverty will see wealthy parents take full advantage of the provision to make the £1,200 additional payments each year while poor parents cannot. The projection for a fund with a £500 initial contribution but no additional annual contribution suggests a real-terms value of £900 at maturity. However, a £250 initial contribution in respect of a rich family with just a £50 a month additional contribution going in would have a real-terms value of more than £18,000 at maturity.
  That would have the perverse effect of ensuring that the gap between rich and poor would widen as a result of the child trust fund. I believe that the Government must offer parents from poor families an extra incentive to make additional payments so that that does not happen.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: The bulk of the debate has been about higher education and my speech will reflect that, but first I shall say a word or two about other matters that have been discussed.
  We on the Conservative Benches will be constructive on the children Bill and we welcome what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said about the school transport Bill, so far as it went, but he will recognise that until and unless he can guarantee that no child currently entitled to free school transport will lose that entitlement he will face unhappiness and opposition.
  On the national health service, let us recognise that the truth is a mixed picture. The Government have poured in more money and recruited more doctors, but they have also hired three times as many extra administrators. They have recruited more nurses, but they have presided over the complete disintegration of NHS dentistry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, and there is not a single NHS dentist in either Kendal or Windermere, for example, in my constituency.
  The Government have presided over a record number of operations, but a record number of people have been killed by hospital-acquired infections. The truth of the matter is that some parts of the NHS are getting significantly better, but others are getting very much worse. It would help us all if the Secretary of State for Health felt able to acknowledge both parts of that picture.
  The Education Secretary seems confused on three issues to do with higher education. First, will top-up fees deter students, especially those from low-income families? He denied that outright, but then demolished his case by praising a university for deciding to set a zero fee for a physics course in order to attract more students than it would get if it set a higher fee.
  Secondly, will the Government's office for fair access tell universities whom to admit? The Secretary of State got hot under the collar with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for having said that it would. He said that it was wrong for my hon. Friend to say that, but minutes later he contradicted himself when he told one of his hon. Friends that Offa's job would be to tell universities to come up with policies to admit more working-class kids. If that is not interfering with admissions, I do not know what is.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman seemed confused about the manifesto on which he stood two years ago. He claimed that the pledge was not to introduce top-up fees before the next general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) blew a hole in that argument by pointing out that the full quote is simply:
  "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees"
  full stop.
  The Education Secretary tried to have some fun with a few quotes he had found. Two can play at that game, and I had a productive 15 minutes in the Library earlier. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a couple of Conservatives who left office more than a decade ago. I shall quote someone who served in the present Government until just six months ago. The right hon.

  609
  Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) just yesterday said that he did not think social justice comes from loading young people of ordinary means with a large amount of debt.
  The Education Secretary got excited about a 15-year-old quote from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. It turns out that the quote was about student loans, which both sides of the House now support, not about fees. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to say that my hon. Friend has been less than consistent. I checked the right hon. Gentleman's own record for consistency, and I did not have to go back 15 years. In December 1997, just six years ago, he voted for the Government's cuts in lone parent benefit. On the very same day, he wrote to the then Social Security Secretary to say that those plans, for which he voted, were "fundamentally wrong". He said that
  "everyone in the PLP is outraged by what the Government is doing."
  The right hon. Gentleman must have a sense of déjà vu. Seven Labour Members—the hon. Members for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Gower (Mr. Caton), for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor)—made speeches in which they attacked the Government's proposals and made it clear that they could not support them.
  Conservative Members have three priorities for higher education: excellence, independence and admission solely on merit. Each of those is threatened by the measures in the Queen's Speech. Excellence will be undermined because the Government's proposals will drive away many academically outstanding candidates from low-income families who are fearful of debt, but at the same time the Government will throw open the doors to academically weaker candidates from families wealthy enough not to have to worry about high borrowings. That is an odd definition of social inclusion, and it can only further water down standards and drive up already soaring drop-out rates.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: When the hon. Gentleman refers to weaker candidates, does he mean the type of students whom I frequently taught in my six years as an academic, who were from traditionally low-achieving families, but who, when they entered higher education, because our entry requirements were more flexible, far exceeded the performance of those who had come through with higher A-level scores?
  Mr. Collins: What I was trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman is that his policy, if he is supporting his Government, and he is in a distinct minority among Labour Back Benchers if he is, is that academically qualified candidates from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds should not go to university, whereas academically weaker candidates from wealthy families should. That is what his policy will produce, and that is plain wrong. It will threaten independence because there will be wholesale intervention by the Government in the way universities admit students, and it will destroy the concept of admission solely on merit. Indeed, we would go back to the bizarre 19th century
  610
  system, where admission to university was determined not by the candidate's ability but by the candidate's family. That is what the Government are going to recreate. Indeed, it is the ultimate insult to students from disadvantaged backgrounds that, under the Government's proposals, they would know that they had got in not on merit but by means of an artificial quota as part of social engineering.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: I give way one last time.
  David Taylor: Just to correct the hon. Gentleman, in my contribution I was referring not to any flaws there may be in the Government's higher education policy but to the obsession with targets and league tables, which were inherited when the Prime Minister got into 10 Downing street on 1 May 1997. There was a failure to shred those targets and league tables. They are the bequest of the Major Government.
  Mr. Collins: It is sweet of the hon. Gentleman to say that he is in a minority among Labour Back Benchers. Perhaps it was six in a row rather than seven, but I assure him that, having sat through the whole debate, precious few Labour Back Benchers were prepared to support the Prime Minister's policy.
  There is no guarantee that any of the money raised from tuition or top-up fees will be additional for universities. There has been no guarantee at all from the Treasury that it will not take the view, as it traditionally does, that if there is a new funding stream less needs to come from the Exchequer, rather than more.
  We must bear it in mind that not one Government Front Bencher had to pay university tuition fees or top-up fees. Not one of them can answer the simple question being asked by millions of parents across the land: if it was good enough for them when they were young, why is it not good enough for today's young people as well?
  One Labour Back Bencher is quoted in The Guardian today as saying:
  "We want a different kind of party".
  I bet Labour Back Benchers do. Old Labour believed in free state education—new Labour does not. Old Labour believed in academic freedom—new Labour does not. Old Labour had principles and decency and new Labour has none of the above. Labour Members have broken their word to the voters, broken the principles with which they came into politics and broken the hearts of their most loyal supporters.
  Just last week, the higher education Bill was at the front of the queue. This week, it is in the middle of the queue. Let us drop it from the queue altogether and have a genuine cross-party discussion on a better way forward. I commend the amendment.
  6.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): It is always greatly amusing when Conservative spokesmen talk in their representative capacity for the whole of society, particularly the working class. It should not surprise us, but I cannot see one woman on the Conservative Front Bench. Indeed, as Conservative Members look around desperately, it is just as well that

  611
  the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has turned up, or there would not be one woman on the Tory Benches—so much for representative democracy.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate. It is common to say that, but may I pull together the threads and give the view of the Government? We have been trying to do three things, which mark the whole of our approach to the public services. The first is to invest massively, on a historically unparalleled scale—indeed, it has not been matched by any comparable industrial country. Secondly, to go with that substantial investment, we have in every element of our public services embarked upon a massive programme of reform. Thirdly, we are endeavouring, not with complete success but, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said—his contribution was a lot more balanced and serious than that of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who opened for the Opposition—nevertheless with a degree of success, testified to by most objective observers, to match excellence to equity, to introduce to our public services, which are intrinsically fair, a degree of personal service to meet the ambitions and expectations of modern working people.
  That takes us to the question of whether or not there have been any improvements over the past few years. I shall leave aside those who say that there have been none, or that it has been "reverse gear", to use an "in" phrase. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was of that extreme ilk. The truth is that, in education—the focus of today's debate—things are changing for the better. One need look only at the number of teachers; an increase of 10,000 by 2006 was our target, and it has been met three years early. UK education spending will rise to 5.3 per cent. of gross domestic product in 2003–04; the figure when we took office was 4.7 per cent. Investment in school buildings is huge, and has increased fivefold. Since 1998, we have invested over £1 billion in creating an information and communications technology infrastructure in schools in England.
  That massive investment is showing a faith in the future of the children of this country, not just a pride in the past. We are attempting to improve on a scale hitherto not even contemplated, and it has delivered results. There is no doubt about that. The results are not always 100 per cent. of what we aimed for, nor are they by any means 100 per cent. of what we want to achieve in the long run. However, they are significant results. In 1997, almost half of all 11-year-olds were unable to read, write or do basic maths to the expected standard. About 84,000 more 11-year-olds are now achieving the expected level for their age in maths and about 60,000 more are doing so in English.
  Those are not just statistics. They are real achievements by real, little human beings: the people of the future—who will be the basis of the wealth of this country—and their parents. When exam results show increases and improvements, perhaps instead of claiming that that shows a deficiency, an amelioration, a mitigation or a reduction in standards, we should say for once, "Thank you and well done" to the teachers and parents.
  Of course there are huge challenges left, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs): learning disabilities. That is why the
  612
  Government will be publishing plans and a strategy to build schools' capacity and ability to meet the needs of those with special learning difficulties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who chairs the Education and Skills Committee, pointed out not only the achievements—in the balanced fashion for which the Opposition have asked us—but the deficiencies. He referred to the road that we had to take to achieve improvements—not just in higher and further education but in the earliest years—to provide the beginnings of a course and pathway that will mean lifelong educational opportunities for all of our people.
  I have to say—without being parti pris, I hope—that the dreadful lack of ambition shown by Opposition Front Benchers for the people of this country in terms of education objectives is staggering and out of all proportion.
  Several Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, raised the question of the protection of children. The right hon. Lady spoke with an authority and knowledge that is respected on both sides of the House and even more sharply put into contrast the rather cheap and nasty contribution from the hon. Member for South Suffolk, the Opposition spokesman. This is a serious subject, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, and I hope that on one of the central aims of the Bill—the co-ordination of services for the protection of children—we will continue to listen, as we have done before and after the publication of the Green Paper.
  Obviously, the main topic tonight was the question of how we fund higher and further education. Too many Members raised this matter for me to respond individually to all, but my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), for Gower, for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), as well as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and many others, spoke on that subject. Had some of the commentators listened to the debate today, they might have been surprised. Those colleagues who are not supportive of the Government's position were constructively critical, in a way that they perhaps were not a few months ago.
  I have one reservation, however. I wish that those outside this Chamber and outside our party discussions who are loudest in volume could sometimes contribute, if only in a modest fashion, to our discussions. They would find that our contributions and our discourse prove mutually beneficial, by which I mean that the Government are listening. It is becoming obvious just how far we have travelled in the months since this issue was first discussed. As people begin to understand just how far we have come, there will be every opportunity for us to find a satisfactory solution.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not. I have only three minutes left, and I have already cut my speech so that Back Benchers could get in.

  613
  There is one thing that I should point out to my hon. Friends—of all persuasions. The Opposition attempted to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for his conduct in 1998. They said that he voted for legislation that he did not like, and then wrote to express his reservations. That is far from grounds for complaint; rather, his action constitutes the perfect role model for a loyal Government Member. [Laughter.] He recognised, as we all do, that whatever the deficiencies in the detail, anything that we do in public service has a 100 per cent. chance of being far better than the efforts of that lot on the Opposition Benches.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a very constructive contribution on top-up fees. He agreed with our aim of extending opportunity to all social classes, but I should point out, if I may, that his facts were incorrect. The figures for those coming from the lower social categories, as defined by sociologists, since 1998 are 17 per cent., 17 per cent., 18 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively. So despite tuition fees, the numbers are increasing. The hon. Gentleman went all the way with us in our objectives. However, like a good, respectable Liberal, he willed the ends but not the means—other than to suggest that another £2 billion could be raised through the marvellous proposed increase for those earning £100,000 a year. That is the flip-side of the Liberal Democrats' taxation policy during the previous Parliament: the single transferable penny on income tax, which was going to pay for everything.
  The truth is that if we are to have equal and better quality education for our young people—while extending it to ensure that those from backgrounds such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough participate in greater numbers than ever before—we have to get more money into the system. A progressive method of raising money from those who earn a little more, whereby they pay a little more for the benefits of their education to support those from poorer backgrounds, is not something that Labour Members should be ashamed of. Rather, it is what we stand for.
  We have invested in our public services on a hitherto unknown scale. Last week, the Nuffield report was published, and this morning the chief executive of the national health service also published a report. The Nuffield report, which is the most objective and comprehensive report on the NHS in three years, shows that there has been significant improvement. I do not claim for one moment that everything is perfect, nor would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. But thanks to the staff in the NHS and to those who work in our education services, we are building excellence and equity into our public services, and producing services that are not only fair to everyone, but increasingly personal to each of us. I commend this Government's policies on public services, and I ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Opposition's.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 340.

  Division No.1]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Allan, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Amess, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hague, rh William

  Bacon, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Harvey, Nick

  Barrett, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Heald, Oliver

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heath, David

  Bercow, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hermon, Lady

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Holmes, Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Jack, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Burnside, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Burt, Alistair

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cameron, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Leigh, Edward

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cotter, Brian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Maclean, rh David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dodds, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Doughty, Sue

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fallon, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Redwood, rh John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  615

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Teather, Sarah

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Thurso, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Walter, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simmonds, Mark

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Wiggin, Bill

  Wilkinson, John

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, rh Sir George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chaytor, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Berry, Roger

  Crausby, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cummings, John

  Blunkett, rh David

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  David, Wayne

  Bryant, Chris

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burnham, Andy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Denham, rh John

  Casale, Roger

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Caton, Martin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Challen, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Doran, Frank

  616

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Follett, Barbara

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonnell, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDougall, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Healey, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heyes, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hutton, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moran, Margaret

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jamieson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  617

  Olner, Bill

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Singh, Marsha

  Organ, Diana

  Skinner, Dennis

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Owen, Albert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Linda

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Soley, Clive

  Plaskitt, James

  Southworth, Helen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Spellar, rh John

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Squire, Rachel

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Pound, Stephen

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stevenson, George

  Prescott, rh John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Purnell, James

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stringer, Graham

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

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

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Salmond, Alex

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Ward, Claire

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N.

  618

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Watts, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Wishart, Pete

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  It being after Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message [1st December] relating to the draft Gambling Bill be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  That, in accordance with the Order of the House of 10th July, as amended by the Order of 20th October, in the last Session of Parliament, a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill, with the same terms of reference, powers and membership as in the last Session and that the proceedings of the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee; and
  That the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Lords on Thursday 1lth December at half-past Nine o'clock in Committee Room 5. —[Derek Twigg.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2780), dated 4th November 2003, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Derek Twigg.]

  Proportional Voting
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Derek Twigg.]
  7.15 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to have secured this debate this evening on a particularly topical issue, and I welcome the Minister to his place. As I have said already to him, I intend to make sure that I keep my comments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. May I say to other hon. Members that another debate has started? If they are not staying for it, they should leave. It is not helpful to have conversations going on while the hon. Gentleman is trying to address the House.
  Mr. Laws: As I was saying, I have already promised the Minister that I will leave him a good amount of time to respond to this debate and to take numerous interventions in order to clarify Government policy. I also promise not to go too much into the detail of different variations of proportional representation systems, as that is not only probably beyond me—although not beyond some of my colleagues —but it is not my intention to cover some of the detailed issues relating to proportional representation for elections. I want to concentrate on the broad issues relating to Government policy.
  I will not need to explain to the Minister why I have chosen to raise this topic today. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the speech that the Prime Minister made back in February 1996 as the John Smith memorial lecture, in which he said:
  "I do not regard changing the way we are governed as an afterthought, a detailed fragment of our programme. I regard it as an essential part of new Britain, of us becoming a young, confident country again."
  In spite of that speech, some of my colleagues in this place have questioned whether this is the right time to raise the issue of proportional representation. Some of them have seemed to imply that it is somehow well away in the long grass and that the Government do not intend to make progress on it. I therefore start the debate by clarifying the three reasons why it is particularly appropriate to discuss this matter today.
  First, clearly, PR systems, although they may not have been introduced for this place, are already being introduced across the country. I shall discuss that in further detail shortly. Secondly, it is clear that the benefits of PR systems that we are seeing in other parts of the United Kingdom ought to be captured by us in this place. Later, I want to refer briefly to some of the issues and problems that exist because of the electoral system that we use for this place, which could be addressed by a proportional system. Thirdly, there is the Government's manifesto commitment: the 2001 Labour party general election manifesto includes a commitment to review progress so far on proportional representation systems. It would be useful to seek Government clarification on that.
  Touching on the first of those points, because of the focus on Westminster in terms of the electoral system in this country—and perhaps the overwhelming power of
  620
  Westminster in this country in terms of our government—a perception exists that because the Government have essentially kicked PR for Westminster into the long grass for the time being, PR across the United Kingdom is also in the long grass. When we reflect on what has happened since 1997, however, we see an extraordinary expansion in the use of proportional election systems throughout the United Kingdom. We have one variant of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament and another system for the Welsh Assembly. There is proportional representation for the Northern Ireland Assembly and European elections, whether the system is liked or not. London elections and the mayoral elections use proportional representation. There may well be proportional representation for local elections in Scotland, and we understand that we will have proportional representation in the new regional assemblies, which will be established if the referendums are successful. Although it is difficult to follow all the twists and turns of the Government's policy on the House of Lords, there seems to be some recognition that if we do not have a proportional election, we will at least have a proportional non-elected system in which the Government accept that there should be a link between representation in the Lords and the polling by different political parties in a general election.
  The expansion of proportional election systems since 1997 is dramatic. A huge number of our citizens routinely take part in elections that are fought under proportional systems. Far from being in the long grass, the issue is very much in play. I pay tribute to those people in the Labour party and my party, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who have invested so much time and energy in pushing the constitutional reform agenda in the past decade and who have achieved so much. In that, I include my predecessor, Lord Ashdown, who was instrumental in pushing through some of the reforms.
  Another reason why we need to ensure that we do not lose sight of the possible benefits of PR in Westminster as well as in the rest of the country is that it remains obvious to many of us that the system of Westminster Government is crying out for a fairer and better electoral system. Nowhere is that more clear than in this Parliament where our power, and especially our ability as Back Benchers to influence Government policy, has been greatly reduced by the fact that the electoral system delivers a disproportionate majority to the Government, even on a minority of those people who vote.
  The situation in Parliament now is similar to the position after the 1997 election. About 43 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Labour party, which delivered around 64 per cent. of the seats. That has made this and the last Parliament impotent. The growth in prime ministerial power does not concern me greatly. It makes sense for the Prime Minister's department and powers to expand in comparison with the prevailing situation over the past 100 years. However, that increase in prime ministerial power has gone hand in hand with a weakening of parliamentary power, as a direct consequence of the electoral system for Westminster, which has made so much of what we do irrelevant to people in the rest of the country. The Government's majority is overturned only on small matters, on which

  621
  individual Members make up their mind on conscience issues, or on big issues, such as the top-up tuition fee, which may occur only once or twice in a Parliament.
  The other arguments for a PR system at Westminster are clear. They have been made over time, consistently and persistently, and relate to the fact that the existing electoral system means that votes count differently in different parts of the country. Many people's votes simply rack up in constituencies where they make no difference to the general election result. That is a problem not only at general elections, but in local elections, too. For example, the local elections for town and district councils were held in my constituency early this year. I am pleased to report that the Liberal Democrats have 23 out of 24 councillors on Yeovil town council. I see that that concerns the Minister. Perhaps it will encourage him to take action. A Labour member has the 24th seat only because no Liberal Democrat stood against him. That all happened while the Liberal Democrats probably polled no more than 50 per cent. of the votes in Yeovil town, with the other 50 per cent. of the electorate not being represented at all on the town council. That greatly concerns me, and the Minister should be worried about that happening across the country.
  Paul Flynn: Perhaps the most grotesque result of the current election system in Wales is that, although the Conservative party has managed to get 20 per cent. of the Welsh vote in the last two general elections, not a single one of the 40 Welsh MPs is Conservative. Is it not curious that the Conservatives appear to be satisfied with the system, given that none is present tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is generally out of order to make references to party questions during an Adjournment debate, which is the property of an individual Member.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. One benefit of the proportional systems introduced in Scotland and Wales is that small, unpopular parties that were not represented there in the past now are.
  Following on from the increasing use of proportional systems across the country since 1997, through the continuing strong case for PR for Westminster, which includes the problem of turnout in many constituencies, I come to the Government's own position on the matter. In 1993, John Smith, then leader of the Labour party, committed it for the first time to a referendum on the issue. The Prime Minister firmed up that position before the 1997 general election, and the 1997 Labour party manifesto contained commitments to hold a referendum on PR during the lifetime of the Parliament elected in 1997 and to set up the Jenkins commission. Although the commission reported, the referendum did not go ahead.
  Today, we are left with the position set out in the 2001 Labour party manifesto, on which I hope the Minister can shed some light. The Labour party declares:
  "The Independent Commission on the Voting System made proposals for electoral reform at Westminster. We will review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins report to assess
  622
  whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster."
  Now that different systems of election have been widely used across the country—not once but twice in Scotland—and we have already seen the benefits of using a PR system, many people hope that the Government will conduct their own review and consult as far as possible not only within but outside Government on what conclusions should be derived on the use so far of such systems.
  The Minister will be aware that there is already an independent commission on PR, chaired by the distinguished journalist Peter Riddell and by David Butler, and that it produced an interim report earlier this year. I believe that the final report will be produced early in 2004. I hope that the Government will examine that report carefully, draw conclusions from it, establish the review alluded to in the 2001 Labour party manifesto, and carry out that review and public consultation over the coming year. Perhaps the Minister will be able to shed light on that tonight.
  I wish to make sure that the Minister has time to respond in detail and to take interventions from me, if he will allow that, but I shall complete my comments by reminding him of a much-quoted paragraph—perhaps the most famous—in the rather famous and distinguished report that Lord Jenkins and the independent commission on the voting system produced in 1998. In paragraph 26, the commission—although the wording makes one suspect that the late Lord Jenkins had something to do with its drafting—reported:
  "The Labour party… has after many thirsty years had a cornucopia of luscious psephological fruit emptied over its head."
  The commission continued, saying that the first-past-the-post system
  "has rewarded it with 63.6 per cent. of the seats for 43.2 per cent. of the vote. On a 'what we have we hold' basis"
  it might be expected that now is
  "the most improbable period for the Labour party leadership to contemplate electoral reform. Yet, perhaps on grounds of wider statesmanship, perhaps with a shrewd instinct that when you have as much as this you are historically very unlikely to hold anything like the whole of it, the Labour government… has set up this Commission".
  The commission and Lord Jenkins went on to say:
  "If this disposition persists this Labour government will have the unique distinction of having broken the spell under which parties when they want to reform do not have the power and when they have the power, do not want to reform. As a result of this knot the existing electoral system, in many ways irrational, and, to judge from most opinion polls on the subject, not particularly loved either, has persisted."
  That is an accurate précis by Lord Jenkins and his commission of the position on PR for Westminster. I urge the Minister to plot a way forward on PR for Westminster and assure us that, in the interests of the country if not his own party, he will now take this issue out of the long grass.
  7.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on allowing us an opportunity to look in more detail at the

  623
  cornucopia of luscious psephological fruit that he has laid on the table. Despite his thirst for an immediate change to the system of voting for Westminster MPs, the Government have a relatively good record on proportional representation. We have shown a willingness to address the issue where appropriate and take action when necessary. In our first term, as we have heard, we set up an independent commission to look at proportional representation for Westminster, under the distinguished chairmanship of the late Lord Jenkins, which produced an interesting and significant report, parts of which have been cited.
  We introduced proportional representation for the European parliamentary elections in 1999, for the Scottish parliamentary elections and the Welsh Assembly elections in 1999, for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998, and for elections to the London assembly in 2000. Our European parliamentary elections use a regional list system of PR. For each of the nine electoral regions in England, and for Scotland and Wales, each party presents a list of its candidates ranked in an order determined by it. Individual candidates may, of course, also stand for election. I hesitate to mention in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) the counting system invented in 1899 by the esteemed Belgian psephologist Victor d'Hondt, a good friend of his. Perhaps it is enough to say that the votes are counted in a way that ensures that votes cast for the parties or individual candidates ensure a proportional result.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: While my hon. Friend is educating the House, nay the nation, he should mention that d'Hondt is truly proportional only when finessed by the Droop quotient.
  Mr. Leslie: Whenever I hear the word "d'Hondt" I think of my hon. Friend and will do so for evermore, particularly in respect of that variant.
  The list system is by far the most common system for elections to the European Parliament throughout Europe, so we are at one with most of our European colleagues. Some hon. Members argue that the system breaks the link between the voter and his or her representative, but others argue that voters have a choice about which Members in a multi-Member constituency they can go to with their problems or queries. They may even choose different Members with different interests depending on their problem. The list system makes sense for the large constituencies in the European elections in which one MEP represents about 700,000 constituents.
  Elections to the Scottish Parliament are conducted on the additional member system. In addition to the 73 MSPs elected on a first-past-the-post basis in each constituency, an additional 56 Members are elected from a list for the region as a whole. Again, the list candidates are arranged by party and the votes for them are counted by the d'Hondt method. The Welsh Assembly is also elected using the additional member system, but in that case there are 40 constituency Members and 20 list Members. Although all the evidence points to those systems working well and
  624
  producing proportionate results, I understand that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in both Wales and Scotland about, for example, the relative status of list and constituency Members. No one disputes, however, that the system produces a more proportionate result by political party and ensures that the voice of minor parties is more fairly represented. What the additional member system preserves is that link between the constituent and the representative. It also offers the opportunity of approaching a list member if the voter thinks that that member may represent them more effectively.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain why every time the Government introduce a new body such as the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or a regional assembly, they choose to use a proportionate voting system, while they refuse to move on proportional representation for this place?
  Mr. Leslie: I suspect that the reason for taking a fresh look at voting systems when we establish a new body is precisely because it is a new body that is established on a more blank canvass, so we have a capability to stand back and look at arrangements afresh. I shall mention some of those matters later.
  We know about the situation in Northern Ireland, where all elections except those to Westminster are held under the single transferable vote system. As we have seen in the recent Assembly elections, that is a complex system in which voters number the candidates in order of preference, but its advantage in Northern Ireland is that at least strict party proportionality can be the result.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for referring to the recent Assembly elections. May I urge him to have a quiet word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that, when we have proportional representation, procedures are put in place to ensure that the count does not take two days to produce a result in a small constituency or in any of the moderately sized constituencies in Northern Ireland? If we have proportional representation, there must be procedures to advance that voting system.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Lady refers to an important general principle about the need for a clear and understandable system that can be interpreted relatively easily, and I suppose relatively quickly, if accountability is to work. I shall certainly consider in a little more detail any delays that have taken place in the production of a result following an election.
  Although some may argue with the way in which proportional representation is working in the bodies to which I have referred, it is clear that the system can work in such circumstances on a relatively practical basis. The Parliaments and Assemblies in question are mainly new bodies with new systems of election—the hon. Member for Yeovil made this point earlier—and the proportional representation systems that have been set up for them have been designed with more local circumstances in mind and reflect the need of the particular bodies concerned.

  625
  An altered system of election to the House of Commons would, however, apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. That would be a particularly big step representing a major change.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think that he is making an important point, not least about the complexity of making changes for the House of Commons and the need that would arise in respect of boundary changes and so on if one went the whole way. Will he comment on the fact that the Leader of the House has now suggested on several occasions that an incremental approach with regard to the House of Commons would be much more likely to work and much more practical? If an alternative vote were introduced at one stage, with a view to moving on in due course, the changes could be made overnight. Is it Government policy to support the view that an alternative vote should be considered for the House of Commons?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to move towards the conclusion of my speech and the policy denouement for which I know he is anxiously waiting. The issue that he raises is very important, especially in looking at the UK as a whole, and we need to consider such matters very carefully. That is exactly what we intend to do.
  As I said, following the 1997 general election and in line with our manifesto, we set up the independent commission on the voting system, which reported in October 1998. The report recognised that there was no possibility of PR being in place in time for the 2001 general election, and the Government therefore decided to defer any decision until after that date. Our 2001 manifesto referred to the major innovations that we had already introduced in the electoral systems for the devolved Administrations, the European Parliament, the London assembly and so on, and confirmed that we would review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons.
  That commitment still stands. Any review could draw upon previous work and the experience that we have gained in elections in various parts of the UK. There are, however, several different options regarding both timing and the structure of any review. While no decisions have yet been made, there are various options that could be considered. It was clearly not sensible to begin a review until after the second set of elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales were complete. They were held last May, and the Electoral Commission's report on them was published in November.
  It is equally arguable that any review should wait until after the results of the proportional representation elections that are to come in June 2004—namely, the elections to the European Parliament and the London assembly. This is only the second time that elections to those bodies have been run under their respective proportional systems. We are considering when best to initiate any review so that it can be comprehensive and consider the practical experience gained.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some details of the Government's planning of the
  626
  review. Is it still guaranteed to take place in this Parliament, and will it be published when it is completed?
  Mr. Leslie: As I said, we stand by our commitment to undertake a review. There are lessons to be learned from the practical experience of running the elections.
  Another reason why it might be wise to wait before commencing any review is that the Independent Commission on Proportional Representation, which was set up by the constitution unit of University College London, is investigating the matter. Its study is being carried out by a team of electoral experts who will not only consider how things are working at the moment, but, in due course, make recommendations about Westminster. We expect that the final report will be published by March 2004. Any review that we might initiate will wish to draw not only on the Jenkins report, the Electoral Commission's reports on particular elections and our own views on the experiences of the devolved legislatures, but on the findings of the ICPR report.
  Mr. Laws: Will it be published?
  Mr. Leslie: Once we get round to finding the right time and circumstances for the review, I anticipate that we shall want to put it into the public domain.
  There is a difference between putting in place an appropriate system for, say, a new body such as the London assembly and changing a well-established, familiar and effective system for an existing body. As there is no general agreement among Members of Parliament about the most appropriate voting system for Westminster, it is right that the issue is comprehensively debated and carefully considered. Any review will need to examine very thoroughly the detailed arguments for and against change.
  The argument that a national Parliament should match as closely as possible the national share of the vote is attractive and compelling. However, the nature of Parliament, based as it is both on parties and on individual representatives, means that there is an immediate tension between the national and the local. Some feel that the party share of the vote is most important; others point to the overriding importance of a particular constituency being represented by a particular individual. Those issues are not impossible to reconcile, but my judgment is that most colleagues and the public find that accountability more conveniently occurs where there is a single Member of Parliament for a defined geographical area.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leslie: I am not sure that I have sufficient time, but I shall do so very quickly.
  Mr. Tyler: As the Leader of the House has said, accountability and the connection with the constituency is fully reflected in the alternative voting system, with the additional advantage that at least 51 per cent. of the electorate would know that they had voted for their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes the case for one of many possible variants of a system to reflect party

  627
  share of the vote more proportionately. I am sure that the review that we eventually undertake will consider these matters in detail.
  Finally, I should emphasise that, as stated in the 1997 and 2001 Labour party manifestos, we remain committed to any proposed change for Westminster elections requiring agreement in a referendum. We would not contemplate any change to the voting system for elections to this House without the consent of the people.
  628
  No one can question this Government's appetite for undertaking constitutional reform when it is necessary, but issues of priorities and timing are involved—we cannot do everything at once. The subject is significant both for Members of this House and for the electorate, and it is only right that we take time to consider it carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the projects to be funded by the sums pledged by (a) the UK and (b) the EU as reconstruction aid to Iraq indicating the sum allocated to each project; what the expected UK contribution to (i) the World Bank loan and (ii) the IMF loan is; to what purposes these contributions are expected to be put; and if he will make a statement. [141118]

  Hilary Benn:
  It is too early to say how the money pledged at Madrid will be allocated by DFID and the EU as priorities are still being determined in coordination with the interim Iraqi Administration and other donors. Equally it is too soon to say what the UK contribution to the World Bank and IMF loans will be.

  As soon as DFID approves its reconstruction projects for Iraq, details will be placed in the House Library and published in the weekly sitrep that can be obtained on the DFID website www.dfid.gov.uk

  Mr. Hammond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the projected aid budget for reconstruction in Iraq has been funded by changes in the aid budget for other countries in financial year 2003-04. [141256]

  Hilary Benn:
  None of the funding for reconstruction in Iraq this financial year has been found from planned expenditure for other countries. Of the £312 million budget for 2003–04 £180 million is additional resources for reconstruction from Treasury reserves and a further £75 million has been sourced from the DFID contingency reserve. The rest has been found from existing allocation for Iraq, MOD funds, the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and our share of EC funding for Iraq.

  Gender Advisers
  Mr. Gummer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the sexual balance is of the team of gender advisers he has assigned to Iraq. [141828]

  Hilary Benn:
  Both members of the team are female.

  Malaria
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many (a) children and (b) pregnant mothers died of malaria in developing countries in each of the last five years, using figures from his Department's research. [141193]
  50W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  Children and pregnant women are at the greatest risk of dying from malaria. The WHO'S most recent official estimates of children under-5 dying of malaria for year 2000 are close to 1 million deaths globally. There are no official WHO estimates of malaria related mortality for pregnant women. WHO and Roll Back Malaria (RBM) recognise the importance of having more accurate estimates, which are important to measure progress and ensure that global targets are met.

  DFID has contributed £48 million over four years (1999 to 2003) to RBM, a global partnership which includes national governments, UN agencies, pharmaceutical companies and NGOs, with the objective of working to half the world's malaria burden by 2010. This will be done through expanding coverage for preventative interventions (e.g. insecticide-treated mosquito nets), expanding effective treatment for the disease and strengthening national capacity for surveillance, monitoring and planning.

  Middle Income Countries
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of his Department's programmes for middle income countries will (a) be ended early and (b) have their funding reduced in (i) 2004–05 and (ii) 2005–06. [140869]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  The Secretary of State outlined intended changes to programmes for middle-income countries in his statement to the House of 6 November 2003, Official Report, column 42WS. More detailed plans are now being made, in consultation with partner countries and other donors. They will be embodied in the annual revision of DFID's Aid Framework, which is expected to be completed over the next two months.

  Namibia
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response he will make to the drought relief appeal in Namibia.[141370]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Government of Namibia launched an appeal to donors at a meeting in Windhoek on 20 November. We and other agencies are currently considering this appeal and the wider issues it raises for emergency planning and response in Namibia.

  Uganda
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to address the humanitarian crisis (a) in Northern Uganda and (b) in the Anglican Diocese of Soroti. [141514]

  Hilary Benn:
  The situation in Northern and Eastern Uganda has resulted in the UK disbursing an additional £4.4 million over the last 12 months specifically targeted at the humanitarian situation. This assistance has been channelled through the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the Uganda Red Cross Society to support those affected by the conflict. We are currently considering how best to programme a further £4.1 million for urgent humanitarian needs. This will include additional support to the Red Cross specifically for helping those suffering in Eastern Uganda, including Soroti.

  UNICEF
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the secretary of State for International Development if the Government will support the UNICEF strategy for orphans and vulnerable children.

  Hilary Benn
  The UK supports UNICEF's Medium Team Strategic Plan 2002–05 which provides support to orphans and vulnerable children through its five priority areas of: child protection; girls' education; immunization; early childhood development; and tackling HIV/AIDS. The UK supports UNICEF's regular resources. In 2002, the UK provided a further £34 million in extra-budgetary support.

TRANSPORT

  Air Accidents
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air accidents or serious incidents, in addition to total losses, involving United Kingdom-registered airlines are registered on the Airclaims CASE database for the last 10 years for which information is available; and what the comparable accident level was for airlines registered in (a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) Germany. [141246]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The following table sets out the number of major partial loss and minor loss accidents for United Kingdom, German and Irish airlines contained in the Airclaims CASE database for the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2002.

  Accidents other than total loss accidents for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 2003

  Passenger operations Aircraft >5,700 kg mtwa

  Cargo operation Aircraft <5,700 kg mtwa

  Aircraft >5,700 kg mtwa

  Aircraft <5,700 kg mtwa

  UK airlines

  29

  0

  5

  0

  German airlines

  12

  0

  2

  0

  Irish airlines

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Note:

  Mtwa = maximum total weight authorised.

  These figures are not directly comparable because of differences in other factors such as the number of hours flown.

  Cycling (Helmets)
  Mrs. Brooke:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cycling (a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries occurred among (i) adults and (ii) children in each of the last three years; and in each category what percentage of these adults and children were wearing helmets. [140472]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The following table shows fatal and serious pedal cycle casualties among adults and children for each of the last three years.
  52W

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Severity

  Child

  Adult

  Child

  Adult

  Child

  Adult

  Fatal

  27

  98

  25

  111

  22

  107

  Serious

  731

  1,856

  649

  1,840

  572

  1,694

  Note:

  Figures exclude cases where the age of the casualty was unknown.

  Information on the percentages of adults and children in each category wearing helmets is not held centrally.

  Highway Land
  Bob Russell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require statutory undertakers and private companies to pay a rent to local authorities for the stationing of (a) fixed equipment and (b) street furniture on highway land; and if he will make a statement. [141034]

  Mr. McNulty:
  We have no plans to introduce legislation to require statutory undertakers and private companies to pay a rent to local authorities for such activities on highway land.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for replacement of rolling stock on the London Underground Victoria Line; and if he will make a statement. [141178]

  Mr. McNulty:
  Responsibility for London Underground transferred from the Government to Transport for London in July this year. Improvements to the Victoria Line infrastructure are the responsibility of Metronet Rail BCV. Metronet are committed to the delivery of 47 new trains on the Victoria Line, all of which will enter service between 2009 and 2012.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  John Thurso:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of amalgamation and rationalisation of (a) services, (b) management, (c) premises, (d) depots and (e) fleet provided by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other bodies responsible for maritime safety in UK territorial waters. [141746]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  No specific assessment has been made nor is it considered necessary. The UK land, sea and air Strategic Committee, through its Operators' Group, keeps opportunities for amalgamation and rationalisation of resources for the promotion of maritime safety under review.

  The Strategic Committee, which reports directly to Ministers, and the Operators' Group are chaired by my Department and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency respectively. They include representatives from all the UK emergency services, Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), Ministry of Defence, Home Office, Mountain and Cave Rescue Teams.

  John Thurso:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Coastguard calls relating to (a) commercial shipping, (b) leisure craft, (c) fishing

  53W
  vessels and (d) passenger ferries there were in each of the last five years; and what the cost was in each case. [141821]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  HM Coastguard receives calls relating to commercial shipping, leisure craft, fishing vessels and passenger ferries either directly from the vessel via radio or satellite communication, or from interested parties ashore via telephone. A record is not kept of the number of individual calls received and as the receiver of such calls there is no cost to HM Coastguard.

  Powershift Initiative
  Mr. Djanogly:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many individuals he expects to apply for grants under the Powershift initiative for the (a) conversion of vehicles and (b) for the purchase of low emission vehicles in (i) the current financial year and (ii) each of the next three financial years; [141491]

  (2) what the level of unallocated funds is for grants for (a) the conversation of vehicles and (b) the purchase of low emission vehicles under the Powershift initiative, in this financial year; [141492]

  (3) what the total cost has been of the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift initiative in each of the years since its commencement; [141493]

  (4) what the total reduction in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide attributable to the Powershift initiative has been in each of the years since its commencement; [141494]

  (5) what steps he will take to encourage the introduction and development of (a) gas driven, (b) electric, (c) biomass fuelled, (d) hybrid low emission and (e) hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. [141495]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  "Powering Future Vehicles—The Government Strategy", published in July 2002, describes the action which the Government are taking to promote the shift to clean, low carbon fuels and vehicles, including low duty rates for liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, hydrogen and biofuels, the introduction of CO2-based graduated VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) and company car tax, and grants towards the purchase or conversion of cleaner fuelled vehicles, including electric and hybrid vehicles. The First Annual Report on implementation of the Strategy was published in October. Copies of both documents have been placed in the House Library. In this financial year the Energy Saving Trust estimate that they will provide grants for around 4000 vehicles under the PowerShift programme, compared to some 2000 vehicles last year. My Department is currently discussing with the Trust how they can support the Government's environmental objectives in future years. Estimates are not yet available for the number of PowerShift grants in future years. In the current financial year, take-up of PowerShift grants has been strong, and the year's resources have been fully allocated. However, if existing offers are not fully taken up, the resources will be allocated to organisations or individuals whose grant applications have been placed on the PowerShift waiting list. The financial outturn for PowerShift are detailed in the following table.
  54W

  Financial year

  Outturn (£ million)

  1997–98

  1.684.

  1998–99

  2.254

  1999–2000

  3.837

  2000–01

  8.147

  2001–02

  9.201

  2002–03

  5.201

  2003–041

  9.125

  1 Forecast outturn to end March 2004

  The Energy Saving Trust is currently carrying out a detailed review of CO2 and NOx savings resulting from the PowerShift programme since its inception in 1997. This will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Railcards
  Martin Linton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the outcome of discussions between the train operating industry and the Strategic Rail Authority to develop a national discount railcard. [141309]

  Mr. McNulty:
  Following the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA) Fares Review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the SRA to explore options for the introduction of a well-targeted National Railcard. The SRA is in discussion with the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) about the best way of taking this forward.

  Martin Linton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the effect on sales of Network Railcards of limiting their application to journeys costing more than £10 in the South East; [141329]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of leisure journeys made in the South East between June 2002 and June 2003 which (a) cost less than £10 and (b) did not attract Network Railcard discounts. [141330]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The South East Network card is a commercial "product" and as such is not subject to Government regulation. It's conditions of issue and use are matters for the train operating companies. Information on its use is not held centrally.

  Railways (Toilets)
  Mrs. Calton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to oblige franchised train operators to provide toilet facilities (a) on trains and (b) in stations. [141526]

  Mr. McNulty:
  There are no plans to oblige franchised train operators to provide toilet facilities on trains or in stations.

  Train operators provide toilet and other facilities where they consider it appropriate, bearing in mind their obligation to achieve improved levels of customer satisfaction.

  Shipping Safety
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times foreign ships have been detained for falling short of safety standards following inspection in British ports in each year since 2000––01;

  55W
  what (a) prosecutions and (b) penalties have resulted; what the current annual budget is for the inspection and enforcement of international, European and national safety standards; and if he will make a statement. [141360]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  The number of foreign flag ships detained in UK ports as a result of Port State Control inspections in each year since 2000–01 is as follows:

  Number of Detentions

  2000

  112

  2001

  114

  2002

  116

  2003 to date

  91

  Total

  433

  None of these detentions have needed to be followed by a formal prosecution.

  In the current financial year the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's budget for ship inspections and related activity including enforcement is £25,769,000.

  South Central Trains
  Mr. Maude:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the new level of subsidy to South Central Trains each year is for the revised length of the franchise.[140483]

  Dr. Howells:
  The subsidy per year is as follows:

  Financial year

  Subsidy (£ million)

  2003–04

  79.5

  2004–05

  104.5

  2005–06

  110

  2006–07

  104.5

  2007–08

  98.5

  2008–09

  90

  2009–10

  84

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the results of the Assembly elections. [141220]

  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Michael Fabricant:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards the restoration of self-government in the Province. [141222]

  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  I refer my hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [141226]
  56W
  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Ann Winterton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of power-sharing in Northern Ireland. [141227]

  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Reform and Reinvestment Initiative
  John Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative. [141223]

  Mr. Pearson:
  On 19 February 2003 I announced details of a five year £2.1 billion Strategic Investment Programme. A Strategic Investment Board has been established and made considerable progress in improving the performance of Northern Ireland's capital expenditure programme. It is actively involved in many key projects, including eight which it sponsors directly.

  In addition six former security sites have been made available for social and economic regeneration. One site is to he sold with the proceeds ring-fenced for Reinvestment and Reform Initiative purposes. An Urban Regeneration Company has been established to regenerate the Ebrington Barracks site and consultation is under way to determine the best possible use for the other four sites.

  The Government remains committed to reflecting the intentions of the former Executive to drive forward a programme to improve our public services through reform and modernisation.

  Belfast Airport (Policing)
  Mr. Beggs:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions his Department has held with Belfast International Airports Authority regarding future policing arrangements at the airport; and if he will make a statement. [141224]

  Jane Kennedy:
  A Security Co-ordinating Committee, chaired by a NIO Official and including representatives from PSNI, RAF Aldergrove, Department for Transport, Department for Rural Development and the Airport Authority, oversees the provision of security at Belfast International Airport. Earlier this year a review of security was carried out by PSNI, the results of which were approved by the Security Coordinating Committee.

  The implementation of these recommendations will impact on policing numbers at the airport and the Airport Authority has apprised the Department of their implementation plan.

  Religious Schools
  Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps religious schools have to take to teach ethical, moral and religious views other than their own faith; and if he will make a statement. [141225]
  57W
  Jane Kennedy:
  Religious Education is a compulsory subject in all grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. While the RE core syllabus is Christian in content, it is intended to comprise only 50 per cent. of teaching time for RE, allowing schools scope to include study about other world religions if they so wish. A revised core syllabus, currently under development, includes proposals for the study of other world religions.

  National Sports Stadium
  Mr. Grogan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had on building a national sports stadium for Northern Ireland. [141228]

  Angela Smith:
  Support remains for the principle of a national sports stadium but this must be considered on the grounds of need, long term sustainability and in light of other priorities. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland is presently re-considering options for the way forward on a national stadium and this may provide a basis for discussions with the appropriate stake holders in due course.

TREASURY

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. George Osborne:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many births were registered for (a) 1 September 2002 and (b) 31 August 2002. [141707]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. George Osborne, dated 3 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of births registered for (a)1 September 2002 and (b) 31 August 2002.

  In England and Wales, 1,460 livebirths and 14 stillbirths occurred on 31 August 2002; on 1 September 1,349 livebirths and 15 stillbirths occurred.

  Consumer Prices (Harmonised Index)
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the harmonised index ofconsumer prices will apply to index-linked pay in (a) central government employment, (b) the National Health Service and (c) independent statutory agencies and regulators. [141727]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Pay is not index-linked to inflation in any part of the public sector. Pay remains the responsibility of individual departments and employers.

  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to link index-linked public sector (a) pay and (b) pensions to the harmonised index of consumer prices; and what estimate he has made of the change in annual public sector annuities which would result. [141728]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Pay is not index-linked to inflation in any part of the public sector. Pay remains the responsibility of individual departments and employers.
  58W
  Nor are there any plans to link index-linked public service pensions to the harmonised index of consumer prices. When the Chancellor announced his intention to change the inflation target to one set on the consumer prices (HICP) definition, in his statements on Economic and Monetary Union on 9 June and 10 July, he also confirmed that pensions such as State second pension and public service pension benefits would he calculated on exactly the same basis as now. Public service pensions will continue to be increased in line with the September to September movement in the retail prices index, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). benefits would be calculated on exactly the same basis as now. Public service pensions will continue to be increased in line with the September to September movement in the retail prices index, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the interest paid on index-linked government securities was in each year since 1997; and what the interest payments would have been if the harmonised index of consumer prices had been applied. [141729]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The following table sets out the actual interest paid on index-linked gilts each year between 1997–98 and 2002–03.

  Interest paid on index-linked gilts1

  £ billion

  Year

  Total

  1997–98

  3.1

  1998–99

  3.6

  1999–2000

  2.5

  2000–01

  3.9

  2001–02

  3.0

  2002–03

  3.0

  1Including RPI inflation uplift

  No estimates have been produced of the interest costs of index-linked gilts based on a calculated inflation uplift using the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP) rather than the general index of retail prices (RPI).

  Correspondence
  David Davis:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 25 September from the honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden concerning the signing off of the EU's accounts by the Council of Ministers and Commissioner Kinnock's conduct as Vice President of the Commission and Commissioner for Administrative Reform. [140554]

  Mr. Gordon Brown:
  I have done so.

  Customs (Shoreham Harbour)
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many inspections were carried out by HM Customs on (a) vessels entering Shoreham Harbour and (b) aircraft landing at Shoreham Airport in the last year. [141095]

  John Healey:
  HM Customs and Excise do not publish precise details of how many searches or examinations are conducted at specific locations as there is a risk of prejudicing ongoing and future law enforcement operations.
  59W
  Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Graduate Earnings
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the (a) average and (b) median earnings of graduates who are full-time employees in each age cohort from the age of 25. [141203]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Jim Cousins, dated 3 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the average and median earnings of graduates who are full-time employees. (141203)

  The attached table gives the available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). These estimates are for the three month period ending August 2003.

  Mean and median earnings of graduates1,2 who are full-time3

  employees by age United Kingdom

  Three months to August 2003

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Average gross weekly earnings (£s)

  Age group2

  Mean

  Median

  25 and over

  669

  577

  25–34

  547

  481

  35–49

  754

  654

  50 and over

  733

  678

  1People whose highest qualification is degree level or above

  2Upper age limit is 64 for men and 59 for women.

  3The definition of full-time/part-time is based on respondents' self-assessment.

  Note:

  These estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (ONS)

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people have been successfully prosecuted in each of the last six years for illegally importing meat products; [140994]

  (2) how much has been spent by local authorities in Sussex in each of the last six years on prosecuting cases involving illegal importation of meat. [141055]

  John Healey:
  In respect of HM Customs and Excise I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 143W. They brought two prosecutions in 2001.

  In respect of prosecutions undertaken by agencies other than Customs, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 10 March 2003, Official Report, column 70W.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many seizures of illegal meat imports by Customs have taken place at Heathrow airport since April; [140995]
  60W
  (2) what amount of illegally imported meat products has been seized by HM Customs and their agents at UK ports of entry in each of the last six years. [140998]

  John Healey:
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) on 27 October 2003, Official Report, column 40W. The figures published by Defra for total seizures of imported goods by all agencies, at ports of entry and elsewhere in 2001–02 and 2002–03 are 2,053 (114,790 kg) and 7,819 (109,211 kg) respectively. Figures for earlier years are not held centrally.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inspections are carried out on imported cargo at Heathrow airport, and where, to check for illegally imported meat products. [140997]

  John Healey:
  HM Customs and Excise inspect imported cargo on a risk-based and intelligence-led basis. Since 11 April 2003 risk assessments have included illegally imported meat products. Checks are carried out in the Customs controlled freight area and can vary from simple visual inspections to full physical examinations.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what specialist training is available to customs officers to detect illegally imported meat products. [140999]

  John Healey:
  The operational skills required for detecting illegally imported meat and other animal products are the same as for Customs and Excise other anti-smuggling responsibilities. All customs officers involved in such work are trained in anti-smuggling techniques before commencing operational duties.

  As part of the implementation of their new responsibilities in respect of illegal imports of meat and products of animal origin, HM Customs and Excise have provided specific training to existing anti-smuggling staff across the United Kingdom. Similar training has been incorporated into formal training programmes for staff who are new to anti-smuggling work or who are receiving structured refresher training.

  The training covers the scope of the relevant regulations and the ontrols, the nature of the products subject to prohibition or restriction, dealing with seizures, links to other agencies and where to seek advice.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trained sniffer dogs are deployed for the detection of illegal meat imports at UK ports of entry; and where they are located. [141056]

  John Healey:
  Customs deploy two meat detector dogs and a further four will be deployed early in the new year, as soon as their training is complete. All of these dogs can be deployed at any port or airport across the UK.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers of arrest are available to law enforcement officers operating at UK airports against people suspected of importing meat products illegally. [141058]
  61W
  John Healey:
  Customs officers have powers under Sections 50 and 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to arrest any persons suspected of knowingly importing meat products illegally.

  Imported Cargo
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is responsible for inspecting imported cargo at each major UK airport. [140996]

  John Healey:
  HM Customs and Excise inspect imported cargo at airports and ports where there is reason to do so, for example to verify the import declaration or to check for prohibited or restricted goods. Other government departments or local authorities may also inspect specific cargoes in which they have a specific interest, in order to carry out their statutory duties.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much would be raised by increasing the basic rate of income tax by one pence on the residents of (a) Portsmouth Unitary Authority and (b) Southampton Unitary Authority. [141735]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Additional full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p in 2000–01

  £ million M

  (a) Portsmouth Unitary Authority

  13.0

  (b) Southampton Unitary Authority

  9.1

  Estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. The results exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Payroll Giving
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been donated by his Department as part of the Payroll Giving scheme in each year since 1995. [141376]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Currently, 143 staff give a total of £3,400 each month to their chosen charities through payroll giving. This figure represents 12 per cent. of Treasury staff.

  Information from the payroll prior to May 2003 is not available.

  John Barrett:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Payroll Giving scheme. [141377]

  John Healey:
  In April 2000, the Government set a target to raise the amount given through Payroll Giving to £60 million by April 2003 and to increase the proportion of employees who have access to Payroll Giving schemes from an estimated 1 in 5 to 1 in 3. The total given in 1998–99 was £29 million and by 2002–03 was £86 million. The number of donors has risen from around 400,000 in 1998–99 to around 520,000 in
  62W
  2002–03, although survey data from July 2003 indicated that there has been little increase in the proportion of employees with access to schemes.

  While the growth in levels of giving has clearly exceeded expectations, and the rise in the number of donors is welcome, the Government remains keen to find ways to encourage greater access to schemes.

  In the 2002 Pre-Budget Report we launched the Corporate Challenge. The aim of the Corporate Challenge is to increase business involvement in community activity in three main areas, one of which is corporate support for and promotion of Payroll Giving schemes.

  John Barrett:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to promote use of the Payroll Giving to charities scheme. [141378]

  John Healey:
  In April 2000, the Government introduced a number of measures to encourage charitable giving through Payroll Giving schemes. The maximum amounts that could be given each year under Payroll Giving was abolished; we announced a three-year publicity campaign to promote the scheme to employers and their employees and introduced a ten per cent supplement on all Payroll Giving donations until April 2003. The cost of the supplement is met from public expenditure. The supplement was extended for a further year until April 2004, to allow charity fundraisers to make the most of the boost to this method of giving.

  In the 2002 Pre-Budget we launched the Corporate Challenge. The aim of the. Corporate Challenge is to increase business involvement in community activity in three main areas, one of which is corporate support for and promotion of Payroll Giving schemes.

  We also support The Giving Campaign, an independent, three year national campaign established as a partnership between Government and the voluntary sector, to encourage charitable giving and a culture of giving. The Campaign has, as one of its initiatives, been encouraging employers to develop strategies for giving by employees.

  The amount given under Payroll Giving has increased from £29 million in 1998–99 to £86 million in 2002–03.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Meacher:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has completed the further work and analysis on the design of a possible pesticides tax or other economic instrument to minimise the adverse effects of pesticide use as referred to in the Pre-Budget Report presented in autumn 2002. [141741]

  John Healey:
  In 2001, the Government introduced the Voluntary Initiative to reduce the environmental impacts of pesticide use. Work on further or complementary measures, which could take the form of economic instruments, is on-going. The case for using any alternative measures will depend on the progress of the Voluntary Initiative.

  Security Equipment (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has for tax relief on investment made by retailers in specified security equipment for stores under 3,000 square feet. [140863]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Capital spending by businesses, including retailers, on security equipment can qualify for tax relief through the capital allowances system. The generally available rate of writing-down allowances for spending on plant and machinery is 25 per cent. a year on the reducing balance basis. Small and medium-sized enterprises can claim 40 per cent. first-year allowances on their spending.

  Suicides
  Charles Hendry:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of (a) males and (b) females under the age of 30 died as a result of suicide in each of the last 10 years. [140787]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Charles Hendry, dated 3 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the proportion of (a) males and (b) females under the age of 30 who died as a result of suicide in each of the last 10 years. (140787)

  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2002 and cover England and Wales. The attached table contains suicide figures for each year from 1993 to 2002.

  Number of total deaths and proportion of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted1, aged under 30 by sex, England and Wales. 1993 to 20022

  All deaths

  Percentage due to suicide

  Age-standardised suicide rate3

  Calendar year

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1993

  7,840

  4,399

  12.9

  5.3

  8.8

  2.1

  1994

  7,642

  4,134

  14.0

  5.2

  9.4

  1.9

  1995

  7,594

  4,054

  12.9

  5.6

  8.8

  2.1

  1996

  7,411

  4,077

  12.4

  5.6

  8.5

  2.1

  1997

  7,319

  3,941

  13.3

  5.7

  9.2

  2.1

  1998

  6,983

  3,811

  14.0

  6.0

  9.4

  2.2

  1999

  6,839

  3,741

  12.9

  5.9

  8.6

  2.2

  2000

  6,472

  3,566

  12.7

  6.0

  8.0

  2.1

  2001

  6.210

  3,510

  11.5

  5.2

  7.0

  1.8

  2002

  6,128

  3,287

  11.2

  6.1

  6.8

  2.0

  1The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950 E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1990 to 2000, and, for the year 2001 and 2002, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60–X84 and Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring per calendar year.

  3 Age-standardised rate per 100,000 standardised to the European standard population.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Activity Co-ordination Team
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the
  64W
  recommendations the Activity Co-ordination Team has made on a methodology to secure better evidence and data on participation; [140494]

  (2) if she will list the (a) interventions and (b) pilot projects for which the Activity Co-ordination Team has provided funding; [140502]

  (3) if she will list the recommendations the Activity Co-ordination Team has made to her to raise mass participation in sport and physical activity. [140504]

  Mr. Caborn:
  The Activity Co-ordination Team (ACT) has been established by government to increase participation in physical activity and sport. ACT is not a funding body but in spring 2004 will provide ministers with a delivery plan setting out recommendations to coordinate initiatives and research across government for the three years up until March 1997.

  I am arranging for copies of the Terms of Reference for ACT to be placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Thornborough Henges
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with North Yorkshire County Council on allowing quarrying of sand and gravel in the setting of the henges; what assessment she has made of the effect on the archaeological value and integrity of the surrounding of the henges of such quarrying; and whether further planning applications have been lodged for further quarrying in the setting. [141446]

  Keith Hill:
  I have been asked to reply

  The responsibility for minerals planning in North Yorkshire rests with the County Council. It is required to consult widely when preparing its minerals development plan, including taking advice from English Heritage on archaeological matters. Similarly, English Heritage may make representations in respect of planning applications for sand and gravel extraction if it considers these may affect archaeological interests. No planning application for extraction of sand and gravel in the vicinity of Thornborough Henges has been received, to date, by North Yorkshire County Council. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made any assessment of the effect of any possible sand and gravel extraction on the archaeological value and integrity of the surrounding of the henges because that is the responsibility of the mineral planning authority.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure that Ministers representing the United Kingdom abroad are adequately briefed on the London 2012 Olympic bid. [140506]

  Tessa Jowell:
  All Ministers have been briefed on the International Olympic Committee's Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct that applies to Applicant Cities. This advice included details of what Ministers could and could not do in support of the London 2012 bid, particularly in relation to overseas promotion, which cannot be undertaken until after November 2004.
  65W
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have in place arrangements for overseas missions to alert their Public Diplomacy Policy Department to relevant visits by Ministers so that appropriate briefing on the London 2012 bid can be provided.

  A working group of officials from Government Departments has been formed, chaired by DCMS, and has met regularly. The terms of reference for the group are to provide advice to the bidding organisation, London 2012, on the relevant Government interests in the bid and to provide advice on Olympic bid matters to Government Ministers.

DEFENCE

  D-Day Anniversary
  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Royal representation at the D-Day commemoration events in Normandy in 2004. [141207]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Invitations have now been received and are being considered. I will make a further announcement to the House shortly.

  HMS Diligence
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace repair ship HMS Diligence when she is decommissioned; and if he will make a statement. [140911]

  Mr. Ingram:
  It is planned that the Forward Repair Ship Royal Fleet Auxiliary Diligence will remain in service until around the end of the decade. Decisions have yet to be taken on how best to deliver future Forward Repair capability.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total annual cost of the United Kingdom military commitment to Iraq is, assuming current manning and equipment levels. [141184]

  Mr. Ingram:
  For 2002–03, the cost of operations in Iraq totalled £847.211 million, comprising £629.531 million Operating Costs and £217.680 million Capital Costs.

  For 2003–04, at the moment, the Ministry of Defence intends to seek a further £1.2 billion at Winter Supplementary Estimates to cover the likely costs of Operation Telic in 2003–04. This will cover primarily the cost of peacekeeping and associated Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs). It does not include the cost of the Recuperation of my Department's operational capability. This is still being assessed. The forecast for 2003–04 may change as a result of stock being returned from Iraq and its value being credited against the overall cost of the operation. An updated forecast of costs for 2003–04 will be published in the Spring Supplementary Estimates.

  It is too early to say what costs might be incurred after 2003–04.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of merchant ships chartered by his Department to support allied efforts in the 2003 Iraq war (a) were over 20-years-old and (b) flew the red ensign. [140675]

  Mr. Ingram:
  Some 37 per cent. of merchant ships chartered in support of the Iraq campaign were over 20-years-old. Some 31 per cent. of ships chartered flew the Red Ensign.

  Missile Defence
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is a memorandum of understanding involving the UK Government in connection with missile defence; to what it commits the UK; and if he will make a statement. [141101]

  Mr. Hoon:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 June 2003, Official Report, column 57WS announcing the signature of a Ballistic Missile Defence Memorandum of Understanding with the United States. A copy of the MOU is available in the Library of the House (Reference: DEP 03/2054).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he will take to increase the proportion of parliamentary questions tabled by hon. Members answered within the target time. [141077]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Every effort is made to answer all parliamentary questions tabled by right hon. and hon. Members within the target time. Working practices and procedures, including IT, are continually reviewed to identify problem areas and improve performance.

  Personnel Costs
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much of its personnel budget the Defence Aviation Repair Agency spent in Scotland in 2002 in (a) monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; how these figures compare to the previous year; and if he will make a statement; [141021]

  (2) how much of its personnel budget the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory spent in Scotland in 2002 in (a) monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; how these figures compare to the previous year; and if he will make a statement; [140986]

  (3) how much of its personnel budget the MOD Police spent in Scotland in 2002 (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what the equivalent figures were for 2002; and if he will make a statement; [141010]

  (4) how much of its personnel budget the (a) Defence Bills Agency and (b) Meteorological Office spent in Scotland in 2002 in (i) monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; how these figures compare to the previous year; and if he will make a statement; [140981]
  67W
  (5) how much of its personnel budget the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency spent in Scotland in 2002 in (a) monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what these figures were 12 months previously; and if he will make a statement; [141006]

  (6) how much of its personnel budget the (a) UK Hydrographic Office and (b) Defence Analytical Services Agency spent in Scotland in 2002 in (i) monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what the figures were 12 months previously; and if he will make a statement; [140971]

  (7) how much of its personnel budget Defence Estates spent in Scotland in 2002 (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what the equivalent figures were 12 months previously; and if he will make a statement; [141004]

  (8) how much of its personnel budget the (a) Veterans Agency and (b) Disposal Services Agency spent in Scotland in 2002 in (i) monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what the figures were 12 months previously; and if he will make a statement; [140958]

  Allowance (£)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Boarding

  Junior

  5,943

  6,243

  6,507

  7,314

  7,554

  8,034

  8,700

  9,525

  Senior

  7,050

  7,407

  7,707

  8,649

  9,216

  10,146

  11,166

  12,060

  Day

  Junior

  -

  3,606

  3,954

  4,263

  4,482

  4,797

  5,163

  5,742

  Senior

  4,578

  4,845

  5,550

  5,871

  6,375

  6,900

  7,494

  Special Educational Needs (SENA)

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  18.000

  SENA(Day)

  12.000

  12,000

  12.000

  12,000

  Junior rates are usually paid for Service children aged eight to 11. Senior rates are usually paid for Service children aged 11 to 18.

  Service Pensions
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking to ensure that members of the armed forces are not affected by future pension troughs; [141641]

  (2) what the outcome was of recent discussions between his Department and the Forces Pension Society on remedying the effects of the pensions trough affecting Service personnel between 1976 and 1978. [141640]

  Mr. Caplin:
  I met Air Chief Marshal Sir Roger Palin and Major General James Gordon from the Forces Pension Society (FPS) on 19 November 2003. During our discussions, I recognised the strength of feeling among those ex-Service personnel affected by pension troughs and the Society's concern that a remedy should be found for this. However, after careful consideration of the matter, I informed the Society that I did not intend to revisit this issue.
  68W
  (9) how much of its personnel budget the (a) British Forces Post Office and (b) Warship Support Agency spent in Scotland in 2002 in (i) monetary terms and Iii) as a percentage of the total personnel budget; what the figures were 12 months previously; and if he will make a statement. [140967]

  Mr. Ingram:
  Regional spending figures for personnel costs are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Places
  Mr. Foulkes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the money his Department spent on school places for children of service personnel was spent in the independent sector in each year since 1996; and what he estimates the proportion will be in 2003; [140563]

  (2) what the average cost to his Department was of the school places provided for the children of service personnel in independent and private schools in each year since 1996. [140564]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The information is not held in the format requested.

  The various annual rates of Service Education Allowances per child, from 1996 onwards are shown in the following table:

  The cost of uplifting only future payments of those affected by the mid-1970s trough would be very substantial and it would be impossible to avoid extending any change to those, whether in the armed forces or more widely, affected by other pensions troughs. It has been the policy of successive Governments that it would not be appropriate to make retrospective change to pension entitlements.

  For the future, and reflecting the Society's concerns, Service personnel who become members of the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme will be less exposed to the effects of any periods of pay restraint and high inflation because their pensions will be based on their best earnings in the last three years of Service, with earlier years' earnings up-rated for inflation.

  Typhoon
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Typhoon will be fitted with the technology to make it capable of integrating with a network-centric warfare environment; [140568]
  69W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of a lack of network-centric warfare technology on the Typhoon's ability to fight effectively in a network-centric warfare environment. [140569]

  Mr. Ingram:
  We plan to fit Typhoon with technology which will make it capable of integrating with a network-centric warfare environment. Specifically, we plan to equip it with a Multi-function Information Distribution Systems (MIDS). This will allow it to access National, NATO and coalition Link-16 networks. This will enable Typhoon to access threat and targeting data supplied by other aircraft as well as by maritime and land based units.

  Consequently, no assessment is required of the effect of the lack of such a capability.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by his Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141131]

  Caroline Flint:
  The Home Office sponsored five Bills during the 2002–03 Session, which made a total of approximately 868 pages once enacted. One of the Bills (now the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, 90 pages) predominantly implements EU requirements. Another (now the Extradition Act, 136 pages long) partly implements EU requirements. The other three Bills were not introduced to implement EU requirements.

  Of the 240 Statutory Instruments produced by the Home Office during the same Session that fell to be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments only five were introduced to implement EU requirements. These Instruments made up only 74 pages out of the total of 438 pages of Instruments produced during the Session.

  Murder Investigations
  John Mann:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detectives are working full-time on murder investigations in Nottinghamshire, expressed as a percentage of all detectives. [140578]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: We do not hold this information centrally. The deployment of police in a particular force is an operational matter for the Chief Constable to allow him/her to respond to local needs.

  Police
  Paddy Tipping:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) police officers and (b) police civilian staff were employed by Nottinghamshire Police on 31 March of each year since 31 March 1997. [140768]
  70W
  Ms Blears:
  The information requested is set out in the table and includes the latest published police officer strength for 31 August 2003. At the end of August Nottinghamshire Constabulary had record strength.

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  Police officers1

  Police staff1

  31 March 1997

  2,323

  1,003

  31 March 1998

  2,232

  987

  31 March 1999

  2,225

  1,039

  31 March 2000

  2,204

  1,024

  31 March 2001

  2,275

  1,039

  31 March 2002

  2,330

  1,087

  31 March 2003

  2,468

  n/a

  1 Data is for full-time equivalent strength

  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers served (a) St Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West region in each year since 1992. [141291]

  Ms Blears:
  Information for police strength in the Merseyside Police and the police forces that make up the Government Office area for the North-west are set out in the table for each year since 1992.

  Information on police strength at Basic Command Unit level has only been collected on a regular basis since 2002. The St Helen's Basic Command Unit's strength has increased from 316 police officers on 31 March 2002 to 322 on 31 March 2003.

  I am told that Merseyside Police aim to have 4,208 police officers by 31 March 2004. On 31 March 2003 Merseyside Police had 1,752 police (support) staff which is 409 more than in March 1997. The force also plans to have 100 Community Support Officers by 31 March 2004.

  Police strength for Merseyside Police and North West region for March 1992 to August 2003

  Year1

  Merseyside police

  North West Region

  1992

  4,621

  17,933

  1993

  4,669

  18,040

  1994

  4,693

  17,906

  1995

  4,659

  18,007

  1996

  4,411

  17,633

  1997

  4,230

  17,590

  1998

  4,216

  17,628

  1999

  4,211

  17,463

  2000

  4,085

  17,153

  2001

  4,081

  17,296

  2002

  4,125

  17,804

  2003

  4,099

  18,040

  20032

  4,123

  18,508

  1As at 31 March

  2As at 31 August

  Road Safety
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of speed cameras are in compliance with European standards of accuracy. [141545]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: From July 2003, in line with European standards, all new speed cameras will be required to be accurate to ±2 mph up to 66 mph and ±3 per cent. above 66 mph.
  71W
  This has not yet been implemented for existing cameras, but we consider that all cameras are in fact already accurate to this level.

  Speed camera accuracy is enforced by the type approval system. In order for evidence from them to be used in Court proceedings, all speed cameras have to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State after rigorous testing against set specifications. Testing ensures that devices are robust, reliable and can produce accurate readings or images under a variety of extreme conditions. In addition all cameras are subjected to annual checks to ensure their continuing accuracy.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to implement the recommendations in "Tackling Vehicle Crime: a First Year Strategy", on promoting the use of vehicle perimeter security and laminate glazing; and if he will make a statement. [141546]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: The Home Office New Car Security Guidance published in 1998 encouraged manufacturers to make further improvements in car security. This included more widespread fitting of laminated glazing on side and rear windows which could resist attack by methods commonly used by criminals for a minimum of 30 seconds; and locks that could resist criminal attack for a minimum of two minutes.

  We aim to raise motorists awareness of the value of better perimeter security through Home Office publicity material, particularly the booklet "Steer Clear of Car Crime" and our website www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk. We have also worked with the AA Motoring Trust, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the insurance industry to translate the insurers' security assessments used for insurance group ratings into a five star rating system (available on www.ncsr.co.uk). This allows car buyers to compare the ability of different makes and models of cars to resist theft, both of the car and of its contents. The insurance industry now also provides similar information in relation to vans and trucks. We help raise motorists' awareness of all this information through links from Home Office and Department for Transport websites.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many acres of land are occupied by the United States on (a) Wide Awake airfield and (b) Ascension Island; and how many acres of land the United States lease in addition to Wide Awake airfield from (i) the UK Government and (ii) the Ascension Island Government for their exclusive use and at no rent. [141551]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  The United States occupy 1,196 acres for Wide Awake Airfield and 2,404 additional acres of land on Ascension Island, making a total of 3,600 acres. This land is provided, rent-free, under the terms of the 1956 Bahamas Long Range Proving
  72W
  Ground Agreement (and subsequent Exchanges of Notes) between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are no Agreements between the United States and the Ascension Island Government.

  Commonwealth Summit
  Mr. Ancram:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his counterpart from Nigeria concerning the attendance of Zimbabwean officials at the Commonwealth Summit to be held in Abuja in December: and if he will make a statement. [140821]

  Mr. Straw:
  I hope to meet the Nigerian Foreign Minister during Her Majesty's pre-CHOGM State Visit to Nigeria. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke to President Obasanjo about Zimbabwe in the margins of the latter's inauguration in May. I met President Obasanjo in New York in September during which we discussed Zimbabwe. Our High Commissioner in Abuja has made our position on Zimbabwe clear to the President and other leading Nigerian politicians and officials on many occasions. We have also made the Nigerian High Commission in London aware of our position. President Obasanjo has announced that Zimbabwe will not be invited to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has for celebrations to mark the 300th anniversary of British rule in Gibraltar; what plans his Department has to promote the anniversary; and if he will make a statement. [140837]

  Mr. Straw:
  I refer the right hon. Member to the statement of the Government's intentions on this matter given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence during his intervention in the debate on the Gracious Speech on 27 November 2003, Official Report, columns 224–25.

  United States
  Ann Clwyd:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with its US counterparts about the US Blue Lantern end-use monitoring programme; and if he will make a statement. [140725]

  Mr. MacShane:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 202W.

  War on Terrorism
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the conflict in Iraq on the war on terrorism. [140585]

  Mr. MacShane:
  International co-operation has had and is continuing to have a substantial negative effect on al-Qaeda and associated groups. This co-operation has not been affected by coalition action in Iraq and is continuing at a high level. The establishment of a stable,

  73W
  democratic Iraq enjoying the proper rule of law will be Iraq's best defence against terrorism and will more effectively defeat the cause of al-Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.

HEALTH

  Ambulances
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all ambulances are required to carry at least one paramedic on every call. [140814]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Current departmental guidance requires that front line ambulances should have a paramedic if responding to an emergency call. Ambulances answering urgent or non-emergency calls are not required to have a paramedic crew member.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of changes in the level of alcohol abuse among young women; and what measures he will take to reduce it. [1046]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Data on the level of alcohol abuse among young women are shown in the table This suggests that, although a cause for concern, the numbers remain constant.

  Region of treatment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Y00 Not known

  2

  Y01 Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office

  1,700

  1,934

  2,030

  2,272

  2,323

  Y02 Trent Regional Office

  1,143

  1,256

  1,588

  1,795

  1,765

  Y03 Anglia and Oxford Regional Office

  1,033

  1,180

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Y04 North Thames Regional Office

  1,795

  1,640

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Y05 South Thames Regional Office

  1,504

  1,620

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Y06 South and West Regional Office

  1,555

  1,741

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Y07 West Midlands Regional Office

  1,688

  1,786

  1,857

  1,907

  1,982

  Y08 North and West Regional Office

  2,627

  2,532

  2,985

  3,226

  3,600

  Y09 Eastern Regional Office

  n/a

  n/a

  1,348

  1,588

  1,696

  Y10 London Regional Office

  n/a

  n/a

  2,273

  2,255

  2,284

  Y11 South East Regional Office

  n/a

  n/a

  1,872

  1,796

  2,055

  Y12 South West Regional Office

  n/a

  n/a

  1,419

  1,583

  1,701

  England

  13,047

  13,689

  15,372

  16,422

  17,406

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bed days relating to alcoholic liver disease there were in England in 1997–98. [140476]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The number of bed days in national health service hospitals in England in 1997–98, where patients were admitted with a primary diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease, was 106,943.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in meeting targets set by the National Cancer Plan. [140545]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Thanks to major additional investment and the hard work of those working in the national health service, we are making real progress in
  74W

  Drinking last week among women aged 16 to 24, England, 1998 to 2001

  Percentages

  1998

  2000

  2001

  Drank nothing last week

  38

  41

  Drank up to three units on at least one day

  20

  23

  20

  Drank more than three and up to six units on at least on day

  19

  13

  13

  Drank more than six units on at least one day

  23

  26

  26

  Source:

  Derived from Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey, published as "Living in Britain, Results from the 2001 General Household Survey", available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib2001/index.html

  Alcohol use and misuse among young women will be examined as part of the work on the development of the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. The strategy will be published in time for implementation to begin in 2004, in line with the commitment given by the Government in the NHS Plan.

  Alcoholic Liver Disease
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes related to alcoholic liver disease there were in (a) England and (b) each region in each year since 1997. [140475]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The number of finished consultant episodes related to alcoholic liver disease within national health service hospitals by region and nationally are shown in the table.

  implementing the NHS Cancer Plan and patients are benefiting from improvements across all aspects of cancer care.

  For example, there are an extra 941 cancer consultants compared with 1997; nearly 99 per cent. of people with suspected cancer are now seen by a specialist within two weeks of being referred by their general practitioner; we have improved the quality of breast screening by the introduction of two view mammography and are extending the breast screening service to include women aged 65 to 70. This has resulted in nearly 200,000 extra women being invited for breast screening since April 2001. Since April 2000, we have delivered over 950 of the most modern pieces of equipment to diagnose and treat cancer to hospitals. We have increased the NHS funding

  75W
  of specialist palliative care by £50 million a year, an increase of nearly 40 per cent., and latest figures show a reduction of 10 per cent. in the death rate from cancer.

  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on radiotherapy capacity in the UK relative to that in other European countries. [140551]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department is aware of the recent Royal College of Radiologists publication on radiotherapy capacity, which included a selective comparison with three European countries. It provided data on `megavoltage machines' (including cobalt units) rather than linear accelerators (linacs). Linacs in England are provided with modern treatment facilities as standard, rather than older cobalt units.

  The number of linacs installed is projected to increase from 140 in 1997 to over 200 by the end of 2004 through central funding, in line with the commitment in the NHS Cancer Plan to achieve four linacs per million population.

  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to increase radiotherapy capacity in line with increased demand. [140552]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Access to radiotherapy equipment has improved steadily since 1997. The number of linear accelerators (linacs) installed is projected to increase from 140 in 1997 to over 200 by the end of 2004 through central funding, in line with the commitment in the NHS Cancer Plan to achieve four linacs per million population.
  Capacity and demand projections are being determined locally by cancer networks alongside local stakeholders.

  Carers
  Dr. Starkey:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the administrative costs of the voucher system for Carers' Short Breaks; and what proportion they are of the total spending; [140685]

  (2) how much funding was allocated this financial year for the Carers' Short Break scheme; and what proportion of this has been spent on voucher schemes; [140686]

  when his Department will review the operation of the vouchers available under the Carers' Short Break scheme, introduced in May 2003. [140687]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, councils have discretion to establish short break voucher schemes for carers. The intention is that flexible schemes should be developed in consultation with stakeholders according to local need. Voucher schemes will be attractive to some carers, but it is not the intention that all breaks services should be delivered through vouchers. Vouchers were introduced to widen the choice available to carers.

  In 2003–04, the Carers Grant is worth £100 million to support councils in the provision of breaks and services direct to carers. The conditions of the grant ensure that
  76W
  the majority of this money is for flexible breaks services. Information about the proportion of this sum, that is delivered through vouchers, is not held centrally.

  The Government have no current plans to review the operation of voucher schemes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 10 October from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning continuing care. [140786]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: The reply was sent on 25 November 2003.

  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 15 September, from the hon. Member for Billericay, regarding the group known as Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure. [140635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  A response was sent to the hon. Member on 27 November 2003.

  Debt Payment
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to his Department under the terms of the Late Payment of Commercial Debt (Interest) Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141600]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Department has not received any claims for interest under the terms of the Late Payment of Commercial Debt Act 1998, and no interest has been paid since the Act came into force on 1 November 1998.

  Dockyard Radiation Workers
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has (a) initiated and (b) evaluated on the possible leukaemia threat to the children of dockyard radiation workers. [140921]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department is funding an investigation of the geographical distribution of childhood cancer and leukaemia in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and how the pattern of cases around nuclear installations compares with the national pattern.

  When the study is complete, the Department will ask the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) to advise on which, if any, nuclear installations in Great Britain have incidences of childhood cancer and leukaemia in their vicinity which are statistically outside the distribution seen nationally. COMARE is hoping to report on this aspect of the study to the Department in 2004. The study includes all cases of childhood cancer registered from the 1960s up to the late 1990s, and will include the children of dockyard radiation workers.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Stunell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the EU meetings held in 2003 which

  77W
  (a) Ministers and (b) officials from the Department have attended where the maximum permitted level of nutrients in food supplements was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [141411]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The European Commission has not yet made a proposal listing European Union maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements and we do not expect it to do so for another two to three years. There have been no EU meetings dedicated to the discussion of these levels in 2003.

  Until discussions on a formal proposal begin, the United Kingdom will continue to take every opportunity to press its view that maximum levels should be set on a safety basis. To this end, the UK is using its influence in both scientific and political forums. In 2003, Food Standards Agency officials attended two scientific meetings at which maximum permitted levels were discussed in the context of risk assessment and the UK approach was clearly stated on both occasions.

  I intend to raise this issue with Ministers in other member states as and when appropriate, although no specific discussions have taken place in 2003. I am also seeking to arrange a meeting with Commissioner David Byrne at the earliest practical opportunity.

  Influenza
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to (a) acquire and (b) store drugs to treat influenza.

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  General practitioners order their own supply of flu vaccine direct from one of the six suppliers of vaccine this year, based on the timing of their flu clinics and storage capabilities.

  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the (a) effectiveness and (b) benefit for use in the NHS of FluMist as a vaccine for influenza. [141312]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  FluMist is not currently licensed for use in Europe or the United Kingdom.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds were available in the NHS on (a) 1 April and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [141318]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: A census of critical care beds is conducted twice every year in January and July. The latest figures available for 2003 are shown in the table.

  Open and staffed adult critical care provision on census day—NHS Organisations, England

  Census Day

  Level 3 Intensive Care

  Level 2 High Dependency

  Total critical care

  15 January 2003

  1,746

  1.351

  3,097

  16 July 2003

  1,731

  1,397

  3,128

  The census on critical care provision is a snapshot of the number of beds open, available and staffed for critically ill patients at a point in time. As a result, both
  78W
  the overall number of beds and the number of level 3 (equivalent of intensive care) and level 2 (equivalent of high dependency) beds will fluctuate from day-to-day and hour-to-hour, according to patient need and staff availability.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Wiggin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what programmes are in place for training doctors in treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis. [141190]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Responsibility for the content, standards, management and delivery of medical education is shared between regulatory bodies, for example, the General Medical Council and the Specialist Training Authority, professional bodies, notably the medical Royal Colleges, universities, the Department and the national health service. We expect that these bodies will take account of the latest developments in medicine when developing their syllabuses.

  General practitioners are expected to keep their professional skills up-to-date, and learning will always continue even if formal training has ceased.

  We are however taking steps to improve services for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). On 12 May 2003, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), announced pump priming funding of £8.5 million to develop services for people with CFS/ ME.

  The Medical Research Council published a research strategy for CFS/ME on 1 May 2003. The strategy will enable researchers and funders to develop research proposals on all aspects of this illness. It was developed by an independent research advisory group in response to a request from the Chief Medical Officer, and was informed by contributions from patients, carers, charities, researchers and clinicians via a consultation exercise in summer 2002.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 November 2003, Official Report, column 136W, on multiple sclerosis, if he will break down by nominated prescribing centres (a) the MS patients receiving treatment as at 10 November 2003 and (b) the MS patients waiting to be assessed for treatment with disease modifying therapies; and if he will make a statement on significant differences between health authorities in the prescribing of beta interferon. [140721]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]We do not hold appropriate data to provide such a breakdown. It is estimated that at the end of October 2003, about 7,000 patients were being treated with a disease modifying treatment for their multiple sclerosis.

  National Service Framework
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the development of the National Service Framework for long-term conditions. [140720]
  79W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]The national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions will focus on improving the standard of neurology services across England. It will also address some of the generic issues that are important to people with non-neurological disabilities, such as access to rehabilitation services; provision of good quality information; support for carers; and, access to community equipment, assistive technology and wheelchairs.

  We appointed the external reference group last November and have since set up several working groups which have been making recommendations and considering areas and issues for proposed standards. We are making good progress and currently plan to publish the NSF at the end of next year for implementation from 2005.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what 0percentage of people in nursing homes are in each costings band; what determines which band people are placed in; and if he will make a statement. [141945]

  Table 1: Sexually Transmitted Disease data for England correct as at 28 November 2003

  1996

  1997

  ‥ change 1996–97

  1998

  ‥ change 1997–98

  1999

  ‥ change 1998–99

  Primary and secondary infectious syphilis1

  Male (all)

  84

  98

  +17

  87

  11

  156

  +79

  Female

  32

  49

  +53

  44

  10

  55

  +25

  Total

  116

  147

  +27

  131

  11

  211

  +61

  Early latent syphilis (first two years) 1

  Male (all)

  88

  77

  13

  87

  +13

  122

  +40

  Female

  57

  55

  4

  58

  +5

  75

  +29

  Total

  145

  132

  9

  145

  + 10

  197

  + 36

  Uncomplicated gonorrhoea

  Male (all)

  7,911

  8,418

  +6

  8,446

  0

  10,677

  +26

  Female

  3,977

  3,981

  0

  4,089

  + 3

  4,880

  +19

  Total

  11,888

  12,399

  +4

  12,535

  +1

  15,557

  +24

  Uncomplicated genital chlamydial infection

  Male (all)

  13,946

  16,180

  +16

  18,937

  +17

  21,808

  +15

  Female

  18,526

  22,659

  +22

  24,975

  +10

  29,196

  +17

  Total

  32,472

  38,839

  +20

  43,912

  +13

  51,004

  +16

  Uncomplicated nongonococcal/nonspecific urethritis in males

  Male (all)

  46,781

  48,677

  +4

  51,951

  +7

  53,333

  +3

  Female

  Total

  46,781

  48,677

  +4

  51,951

  +7

  53,333

  +3

  Trichomoniasis

  Male (all)

  242

  255

  +5

  298

  +17

  641

  +115

  Female

  5,360

  5,713

  +7

  5,877

  +3

  5,448

  7

  Total

  5,602

  5,968

  +7

  6,175

  +3

  6,089

  1

  Genital herpes simplexfirst attack

  Male (all)

  5,755

  5,597

  3

  6,140

  +10

  6,039

  2

  Female

  9,453

  9,482

  0

  9,675

  +2

  9,852

  +2

  Total

  15,208

  15,079

  1

  15,815

  +5

  15,891

  0

  Genital warts first attack

  Male (all)

  27,113

  30,239

  +12

  30,782

  +2

  31,908

  +4

  Female

  27,583

  28,472

  +3

  28,899

  +1

  29,322

  +1

  Total

  54,696

  58,711

  +7

  59,681

  +2

  61,230

  +3

  80W
  Dr. Ladyman:
  This information is not collected centrally. National health service nurses are responsible for assessing the band or level of input from a registered nurse to someone's care in a care home.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) males and (b) females were diagnosed with (i) syphilis, (ii) gonorrhoea, (iii) chlamydia (uncomplicated), (iv) herpes (first incidence), (v) genital warts (first incidence), (vi) HIV/AIDS, (vii) trichomonas vaginalis and (viii) non-specific urethritis in each year from 1996 to the latest available date; and what the percentage change in the number of people diagnosed with each condition was in each year. [140600]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The number of diagnoses of syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia (uncomplicated), herpes (first incidence), genital warts (first incidence), trichomoniasis vaginalis and non-specific urethritis diagnosed in genitourinary medicine clinics in England between 1996 and 2002 are shown in table 1. The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection in England made to the Health Protection Agency, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre over the same period are shown in table 2.
  81W

  Diagnoses

  2000

  ‥ change 1999–2000

  2001

  ‥ change 2001–01

  2002

  ‥ change 2001–02

  Primary and secondary infectious syphilis1

  Male (all)

  247

  +58

  618

  +150

  1,062

  +72

  Female

  75

  +36

  99

  +32

  137

  +38

  Total

  322

  +53

  717

  +123

  1,199

  +67

  Early latent syphilis (first two years) 1

  Male (all)

  126

  +3

  268

  +113

  331

  +24

  Female

  93

  +24

  99

  +6

  121

  +22

  Total

  219

  +11

  367

  +68

  452

  +23

  Uncomplicated gonorrhoea

  Male (all)

  14,290

  +34

  15,666

  +10

  16,980

  +8

  Female

  6,225

  +28

  6,747

  +8

  7,417

  +10

  Total

  20,515

  +32

  22,413

  +9

  24,397

  +9

  Uncomplicated genital chlamydial infection

  Male (all)

  26,632

  +22

  29,602

  +11

  34,341

  +16

  Female

  34,815

  +19

  38,644

  +11

  43,796

  +13

  Total

  61,447

  +20

  68,246

  +11

  78,137

  +14

  Uncomplicated nongonococcal/nonspecific urethritis in males

  Male (all)

  56,147

  +5

  59,677

  +6

  62,068

  +4

  Female

  Total

  56,147

  +5

  59,677

  +6

  62,068

  +4

  Trichomoniasis

  Male (all)

  731

  +14

  733

  0

  571

  22

  Female

  6,036

  +11

  6,282

  +4

  6,639

  +6

  Total

  6,767

  +11

  7,015

  +4

  7,210

  +3

  Genital herpes simplex—first attack

  Male (all)

  6,190

  +3

  6,507

  +5

  6,526

  0

  Female

  9,976

  +1

  10,575

  +6

  10,990

  +4

  Total

  16,166

  +2

  17,082

  +6

  17,516

  +3

  Genital warts—first attack

  Male (all)

  32,067

  +0

  32,819

  +2

  34,006

  +4

  Female

  28,711

  2

  29,777

  +4

  29,992

  +1

  Total

  60,778

  1

  62,596

  +3

  63,998

  +2

  1Numbers will increase, particularly for recent years as late reports are received.

  Notes:

  Numbers of diagnoses of syphilis, broken down into:

  (a) Primary and secondary infectious syphilis

  (b) Latent syphilis in the first two years of infection

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency.

  Table 2: Number of new diagnoses of HIV infection in England by sex and year of diagnosis

  Sex

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  20021

  Males

  1,937

  1,895

  1,914

  1,979

  2,298

  2,882

  3,112

  Percentage increase from previous year

  2.2

  1

  3.4

  16.1

  25.4

  8

  Females

  537

  613

  703

  895

  1315

  1,849

  2,281

  Percentage increase from previous year

  14.2

  14.7

  27.3

  46.9

  40.6

  23.4

  Total2

  2,474

  2,509

  2,618

  2,876

  3,613

  4,731

  5,393

  Percentage increase from previous year

  1.4

  4.3

  9.9

  25.6

  30.9

  14

  1Numbers will increase, particularly for recent years as late reports are received.

  2Totals include (four) individuals where sex was not reported.

  Note:

  Data are as reported to the end of September 2003

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Waterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times the Ministerial Group for Older People and Age Discrimination has met in the last 12 months. [141588]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This is covered by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets Child Support Agency staff have for the transfer of old CSA cases to the new scheme. [140877]

  Mr. Pond:
  There are no Public Service Agreement or Secretary of State's operational performance targets for the transfer of old cases to the new scheme. We will make a decision on the transfer of old scheme cases only once we are sure that the new scheme is working well.

  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will put inactive Child Support Agency cases waiting to be transferred from the old to the new scheme into abeyance; and if he will make a statement. [140901]

  Mr. Pond:
  Plans for transferring the old scheme caseload to the new scheme have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Goodman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the mechanisms for phasing in child support payments by people who transfer to the new scheme. [140903]

  Mr. Pond:
  To give parents who have existing child support assessments time to adjust to the new amounts, child support liability will be phased over a period of five years and in stages of £2.50, £5 or £10, depending on the non-resident parent's net weekly income.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Carmichael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many applications were made for community care grants in each of the last six years in (a) Orkney and Shetland and (b) Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland District; what proportion

  Community Care Grants budget for Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland Jobcentre Plus District (previously Grampian and Shetland) in each of the last six years

  £

  Original budget (cash terms)

  Boundary change reallocation (cash terms)

  Original budget (real terms)

  Boundary change reallocation (real terms)

  Underspend (cahs terms)

  1997–98

  564,620

  0

  633,856

  0

  146

  1998–99

  570,865

  0

  623,848

  0

  1,251

  1999–2000

  570,865

  0

  612,542

  0

  387

  2000–01

  577,970

  0

  609,660

  0

  1,733

  2001–02

  589,529

  0

  606,330

  0

  3,760

  2002–03

  632,989

  69,727

  632,989

  69,727

  97

  84W
  of applications were rejected; what proportion were considered (i) high, (ii) medium and (iii) low priority; what proportion of high priority, medium priority and low priority awards were paid; and what the average amount (A) applied for, (B) awarded and (C) paid was in each category of priority; [140598]

  (2) what the Social Fund Budget for community care grants was in (a) Orkney and Shetland and (b) Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland District in the last six years in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; how much the budget has been overspent or underspent: and what the value was of in-year allocations for each year. [140599]

  Mr. Pond:
  The available information is in the tables.

  Community Care Grant applications received and proportions refused for Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland Jobcentre Plus District (previously Grampian and Shetland) in each of the last six years

  District

  Applications received

  Proportion refused (percentage)

  1997–98

  Grampian and Shetland

  6,760

  79.3

  1998–99

  Grampian and Shetland

  7,010

  79.2

  1999–2000

  Grampian and Shetland

  4,160

  64.8

  2000–01

  Grampian and Shetland

  3,890

  62.9

  2001–02

  Grampian and Shetland

  3,730

  55.1

  April to October 2002

  Grampian and Shetland

  2,110

  62.4

  November 2002

  Area covered by new district

  370

  39.4

  December 2002 to March 2003

  Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland

  1,480

  55.4

  Notes:

  1. In November 2002, the Jobcentre Plus district of Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland was formed by combining Grampian and Shetland Social Fund district with part of Highlands and Islands Social Fund district. For the months before the boundary change as a whole data are given for the old district, for the month of the boundary change data is given for the area covered by the new district, and for the months after the boundary change as a whole data is given for the new district. Data are not available for part months.

  Data are not available by parliamentary constituency or local authority.

  Prior to April 1999, it was possible to make a dual application for a Community Care Grant (CCG) and for a Budgeting Loan (BL). One dual application is counted as one application for a CCG and one for a BL.

  The number of applications is rounded to the nearest 10.

  When an application is refused, no award is made. Figures refer to initial decisions only.

  The data requested on CCG priority are not available.

  Source:

  All data are taken from the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.
  85W
  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Real term costs are based on the GDP deflator and are expressed at 2002–03 values.

  There were no allocations of contingency funds to this district during this period.

  There were no overspends during this period.

  In November 2002, the Jobcentre Plus district of Grampian, Moray, Orkney and Shetland was formed by combining Grampian and Shetland Social Fund district with part of Highlands and Islands district.

  Data are not available by parliamentary constituency or local authority.

  Source:

  All data are taken from the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Pension Credit (Christchurch)
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Christchurch constituency are in receipt of Pension Credit. [141521]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  As at 17 October 2003, the number of pensioner households receiving Pension Credit in Christchurch constituency was 2,685.

  Notes:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Figures are based on 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (CMS) data.

  Parliamentary constituencies are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Pensions
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the means-testing of pensions. [141448]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  Under Pension Credit pensioners are subject to a new form of assessment, which is much less intrusive and burdensome. Pension Credit has removed the old weekly means test. Instead, most pensioners aged 65 and over have their award fixed for five years and have to tell us only about major changes in their circumstances.

  Around half of all pensioner households are eligible for Pension Credit and other income related benefits, and stand to gain, on average, £400 a year. Our priority is to target help on the poorest pensioners and there are already over 1.2 million pensioner households (around 1.4 million individuals) getting more money than they did before.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    European Union Citizenship
    Mr. Austin Mitchell:
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs under which Act of Parliament citizens of the United Kingdom became citizens of the European Union; and on what electoral mandate. [141204]

    Mr. Leslie:
    Article 17 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, as amended by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) and by the Treaty of Amsterdam, provides that any person holding the nationality of a member state is also a citizen of the European Union. The amended Treaty is given effect in the United Kingdom by the European Communities Act 1972.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Allen:
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many lay magistrates live in each constituency in the East Midlands region. [140614]

    Mr. Leslie:
    Statistical data for the magistracy are recorded by Commission Area and Bench rather than constituency. The numbers of magistrates in the Commission Areas comprising the East Midlands constituencies are as follows:

    Number

    Derbyshire

    425

    Leicestershire

    511

    Lincolnshire

    381

    Northamptonshire

    344

    Nottinghamshire

    664

    Mr. Allen:
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to increase the number of magistrates from working class constituencies. [140616]

    Mr. Leslie:
    On 7 October 2003 the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor published his National Strategy for the Recruitment of Lay Magistrates. One of the key aims of this strategy is to recruit magistrates from under-represented groups, including those from working class communities, and by doing so to improve the diversity of local benches. A more accurate way of determining the socio-economic balance of the bench, and of applicants, has been put in place. Various recruitment initiatives are being tried, including targeting community and social groups, local employers and trade union organisations. A regional bus advertising campaign began on 3 November highlighting the need for magistrates from all walks of life. The local Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace actively attempt to recruit from underrepresented sectors by approaching relevant special interest groups and advertising in community and trade media.

    Polling Stations
    Mr. Jim Cunningham:
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action his Department has taken to raise awareness of the need for accessibility to polling stations. [140866]

    Mr. Leslie:
    Local authorities are responsible for designating polling places and for keeping them under review. They are obliged, so far as it is reasonable and practicable, to designate as polling places only places which are accessible to disabled people. National minimum standards for access were re-issued to electoral

    87W
    administrators for the general election. Administrators can also apply for grants from central funds to purchase temporary ramps to improve polling station accessibility and are encouraged by my Department to do so.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  City Academies
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what (a) capital and (b) revenue support was made available for each city academy in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) each of the last two financial years. [140974]

  Mr. Miliband:
  Academies are funded comparably with local maintained schools with similar characteristics. The table sets out the revenue funding made available to open Academies in the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04; there were no open Academies in the financial year 2001–02. The figures include grant to cover annual running costs and the start-up costs associated with opening new schools.

  £

  Academy

  Revenue 2002/03

  Revenue 2003/04

  Bexley Business Academy, Bexley

  4,244,838

  4,232,598

  Greig City Academy, Haringey

  4,822,377

  3,966,945

  Unity City Academy, Middlesbrough

  5,705,520

  5,381,861

  Capital City Academy, Brent

  n/a

  4,4 I 9,823

  The City Academy, Bristol

  n/a

  5,437,152

  West London Academy, Ealing

  n/a

  4,644,164

  Manchester Academy. Manchester

  n/a

  3,516,223

  King's Academy, Middlesbrough

  n/a

  5,940,095

  Djanogly City Academy, Nottingham

  n/a

  7,293,347

  City of London Academy, Southwark

  n/a

  1,868,433

  The Academy at Peckham, Southwark

  n/a

  5,998.577

  Walsall City Academy, Walsall

  n/a

  2,927,266

  Capital funding made available to open Academies, outside of the initial build or refurbishments costs, are made through the devolved capital Standards Fund and are administered by the Academies local LEA in the same way as for maintained schools. The Department does not hold records of these individual allocations as they are the responsibility of the LEA.

  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out the funding formula used to calculate amounts payable to city academies. [140976]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]Academies are funded comparably to local authority maintained schools, with similar characteristics, in their local area. The main elements of Academies funding are made up of the following:Formula Funding—Funding comparable to the level which would be provided through the funding formula of the LEA in whose area the Academy is situated, to a maintained school which had all of the Academy's characteristics, including the number of pupils;
  LEA Holdback—Funding representing a proportion of the LEA education budget money which the LEA would usually retain for services it provides to maintained schools;
  Specialist Schools Allowance—Funding equivalent to that which a maintained school with the Academy's characteristics would receive in respect of their participation in the specialist schools programme.
  88W
  In order to ensure comparability with maintained schools, Academy funding also includes additional elements, these currently include:
  School Standards Grant;
  Teacher Threshold payments—funded on the same basis as maintained schools for all of an Academy's teachers who are entitled to threshold payments;
  LOPS contributions—to cover extra costs being charged to Academies, above those paid by maintained schools, in order to be a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme, due to having a small number of employees partaking in the scheme.

  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what basis sites of city academies were transferred to them from local education authorities. [140978]

  Mr. Miliband:
  Sites are transferred from local education authorities to Academies voluntarily, at nil local education authorities may transfer sites on either a leasehold or a freehold basis. On whichever site is transferred, it will revert to the local on authority in the event that it is no longer for the purposes of the Academy.

  Education (North West)
  Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people in St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West achieved one or more A Level passes in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997, (iii) 2001 and (iv) the last year for which figures are available. [141278]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The proportion of 16 to 18-year-old students in (a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside, and (c) the North West region who achieved one or more A Level (an equivalent) passes in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2003 in all maintained schools and further education sector colleges are:

  1992

  1997

  2001

  2003

  (a)

  t. Helens

  86.9

  91.8

  96.2

  93.1

  (b) Merseyside

  85.5

  92.9

  93.7

  94.5

  (c) North West

  88.3

  93.7

  94.6

  95.4

  Figures for 2003 are provisional. Revised figures will be published in January 2004. Qualifying for Success reforms were introduced in September 2000, thus A Level results for 2001 were the first year in which the impact of these reforms became apparent. Further information about the effect of the Qualifying for Success reforms can be found in the Statistical Bulletin "GCSE/GNVQ and GCE A/AS/VCE/AGNVQ Examination Results 2000/01—England", published on the Department's website in May 2002 (http://www. dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000334/index.shtml).

  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children in (a) St. Helens, (b) the North West and (c) England remained in education after completion of their GCSEs in each year since 1997. [141467]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education, and in education and training, in St. Helens local education authority, the

  89W
  North West Region and in England for end 1997 to end 2000, the latest available year, are shown in the following table:

  Participation by 16-year-olds

  End 1997

  End 1998

  End 1999

  End 2000

  Full-time education

  St. Helens

  73

  72

  73

  75

  North West

  65

  65

  67

  68

  England

  70

  70

  71

  71

  Education and training

  St. Helens

  1n/a

  88

  84

  86

  North West

  84

  82

  82

  82

  England

  84

  83

  83

  83

  1Education and training figures by LEA were first published for 1998.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England".

  Education Spending
  Michael Fabricant:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will break down by local education authority, (a) in descending order of share and (b) alphabetically, the average (i) primary and (ii) secondary formula spending share per pupil in each local education authority in England and Wales for 2004–05. [140593]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 1 December 2003.]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Education, Youth and Culture Council
  Mr. Hood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education, Youth and Culture Council held on 24 and 25 November 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [141076]

  Mr. Charles Clarke:
  I attended the Education session of this Council. Peter Peacock, Minister for Education and Young People at the Scottish Executive, also attended, and led on Youth issues.

  The Council adopted the Erasmus Mundus and eLearning Programmes. Erasmus Mundus aims to provide higher education institutions with scholarships, offering further opportunities to attract overseas students, helping them to forge partnerships within existing EU countries and with third countries. The eLearning Programme has four priority areas: addressing the digital divide, promoting virtual universities, encouraging school twinning via the internet and promoting other transversal actions under, for example, the Commission's eLearning Action Plan.

  The Council adopted a Common Position after first reading on the Decision to provide grants to European organisations active in the field of education and training. A budget of €77 million for 2004–06 had already been agreed with the European Parliament. The programme will now go to Second Reading.
  90W
  Ministers adopted a Council Resolution on the importance of combating early school leaving and disaffection among young people. This encourages further work by member states on making learning more attractive and keeping young people engaged in learning.

  Ministers also adopted Council Conclusions on human capital, which urge member states and the Commission to focus work on more effective investment on education and training.

  The Commission presented its Languages Action Plan, which proposes action at member state and Community level for 2004–06.

  The Commission's draft Interim Report on the detailed work programme on the follow-up to the Lisbon Objectives on education and training systems in Europe was the main focus of discussion. A report on this will be submitted jointly by the Council and the Commission to the 2004 Spring Council.

  Ministers discussed the Presidency's paper on the future of EU Youth policy, and adopted a Council Resolution setting out member states' commitment to help young people participate in society, particularly in political processes. The Resolution also commits member states to report to the Commission on progress against the objectives by the end of 2005.

  Ministers adopted a Common Position after first reading on the Decision to provide grants to European organisations promoting youth activities. A budget €13 million for 2004–06 had already been agreed with the European Parliament. The programme will go to second reading.

  A copy of the Council Minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  GCSE Examinations
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of 15-year-olds in (a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) England and Wales achieved (i) five or more A* to C GCSE grades and (ii) five or more GCSE passes in each year since 1997; [140557]

  (2) what proportion of 15 and 16-year-olds in (a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) England and Wales were entered for GCSE examinations in each year since 1997. [140556]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The statistical information requested is detailed in the following table:

  Percentage

  Academic year

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  England

  Wales1

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils2 achieving five or more grades A*-C

  1997

  44.3

  45.1

  -

  1998

  47.0

  46.3

  46

  1999

  48.7

  47.9

  48

  2000

  49.9

  49.2

  49

  2001

  50.1

  50.0

  50

  2002

  49.7

  51.6

  50

  2003 (provisional)3

  50.9

  52.6

  51

  91W

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils2 achieving five or more grades A*-G

  1997

  90.8

  86.4

  -

  1998

  90.5

  87.5

  82

  1999

  91.9

  88.5

  83

  2000

  91.3

  88.9

  85

  2001

  91.5

  88.9

  85

  2002

  90.7

  88.9

  85

  2003 (provisional)3

  91.6

  88.6

  85

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils2 attempting at least one GCSE/GNVQ

  1997

  95.8

  94.0

  -

  1998

  95.8

  94.8

  96

  1999

  96.4

  95.0

  97

  2000

  95.8

  95.5

  97

  2001

  95.8

  95.7

  97

  2002

  95.6

  95.9

  97

  2003 (provisional)3

  96.5

  96.0

  97

  1Figures for Wales were obtained from the National Assembly for Wales's website

  2Pupils are aged 15 at the start of the academic year ie 31 August

  3These provisional figures exclude any adjustments for refugees, which may affect the LEA averages

  Higher Education Funding
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which higher education institutions have had funding for a specific area of research activity withdrawn in the past three years. [141143]

  Alan Johnson:
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates research funding selectively to universities according to the quality and volume of their research activity as measured in periodic Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs). Institutions receive this funding as block grant and are free to determine their own research focus. The volume of research achieving top quality ratings sharply increased in the 2001 RAE. HEFCE has modified its funding formula to refocus available resources on this highest quality work to ensure our research remains globally competitive.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pages of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141123]

  Mr. Charles Clarke:
  In 2002–03, the Department for Education and Skills put through Parliament:

  (a) no pages of primary legislation; and

  (b) 925 pages of secondary legislation.

  PG Materials (School Screening)
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has sought from church authorities on the screening of PG material in schools. [141047]

  Mr. Miliband:
  No guidance has been sought from church authorities on the screening of PG material, or any other teaching or leisure materials, in schools as the Department does not issue guidance on the use of these
  92W
  materials in schools. Decisions over the use of such materials in schools are left to the professional judgment of teachers.

  School Attendance
  Mr. Foulkes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils are in (a) private and independent and (b) state schools. [140560]

  Mr. Miliband:
  As at January 2003, there were almost 8.4 million pupils across all schools in England. Of these pupils, some 7.0 per cent. were in independent schools, 92.7 per cent. were in maintained schools' and 0.3 per cent. were in other schools2

  1Includes maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools as well as pupil referral units.

  2Includes non-maintained special schools, city technology colleges and academies.

  School Autonomy
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications he has received from schools for autonomy under the provisions of the Education Bill; how many of these he has approved; and in which areas autonomy was sought in each case. [140979]

  Mr. Miliband:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 6 October 2003, Official Report, column 1131W.

  School Finance
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what formula is used to determine the formula spending share for each school. [140980]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The funding for each school will depend on a number of factors covering both central and local government responsibility. Central Government uses the Education Formula Spending Share formula to allocate education funding for each local education authority. This formula comprises a basic entitlement for each pupil plus top-ups for deprivation and where it costs more to recruit and retain teachers, using data from the New Earnings Survey. The deprivation measures used are (i) children in families in receipt of Income Support; (ii) children in families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit; (iii) proportion of primary children with English as an additional language and (iv) proportion of secondary children in low-achieving ethnic groups. The primary sub-block and LEA central functions sub-block also include a sparsity factor.

  Local education authorities, in consultation with their schools and in accordance with regulations, then decide how much funding to put into the Schools Budget and what factors to use in the local fair funding formula, which allocates funding to individual schools.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to publish the results of the student income and expenditure survey for the 2002/03 academic year. [141548]
  93W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]The Department published the 2002/03 Student Income and Expenditure Survey on 18 November 2003. The full report can be found on the Department's website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/

  Mr. Alan Williams:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the 1979 level of student grant would be at today's prices. [140799]

  Alan Johnson:
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Rates of Standard Maintenance Grant payable under a mandatory award1 academic year 1979/802 uprated to 2003/04 prices3

  £

  Parental home

  2,969

  London rate

  4,476

  Elsewhere rate4

  3,753

  Board/lodgings

  1,552

  1The rate of maintenance grant, before income assessment, applicable to students normally domiciled in England and Wales and studying in the UK.

  2In 1979/80 a minimum maintenance grant of £335 (£1,010 in 2003/04 prices) was available to all students.

  3In 2003/04 prices based on the September RPI, excluding mortgage interest payments, at the beginning of the academic year.

  4The 'elsewhere' rate of grant is applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London.

  5Special grant arrangements applied to students provided with free board and lodging by their college.

  Teacher Vacancies (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many (a) middle and (b) upper school teacher vacancies there have been in Suffolk in each year since 1996–97; and if he will make a statement; [140609]

  (2) how many primary school teacher vacancies there were in Suffolk in each year since 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [140612]

  Mr. Miliband:
  Information on teacher vacancies is available for nursery, primary and secondary schools. The data for Suffolk Local Education Authority are given in the table.

  Vacancies1

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1997

  15

  15

  1998

  8

  14

  1999

  14

  17

  2000

  8

  11

  2001

  41

  47

  2002

  39

  42

  2003

  6

  17

  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration).

  Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis of less than one term.

  Source:

  DfES annual form 618G survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

  Top-up Fees
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the
  94W
  additional amount that would be raised for each higher education establishment by the introduction of top-up fees as set out in the Government's Higher Education White Paper. [141140]

  Alan Johnson:
  The White Paper proposes that universities—whose access agreements have been approved—will be able to decide on their own fees, up to a maximum of £3,000. We cannot pre-judge or preempt those decisions.

  Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the additional income for each higher education institution: that will, in part, depend on (i) the number of students at that institution and (ii) the fee levels charged at that institution.

  Our latest estimates on additional income for all English higher education institutions are being prepared for the Regulatory Impact Assessment and will be available following its publication.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the impact of the proposed allocation of funding for bursaries on the additional amount that would be raised for each higher education establishment by the introduction of top-up fees as set out in the Government's Higher Education White Paper. [141141]

  Alan Johnson:
  We are considering and discussing the contents of access agreements and the duties of the Office for Fair Access, and will make a statement in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  David Winnick:
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the renaming of the honours OBE, CBE and MBE; and if he will make a statement. [141958]

  The Prime Minister:
  I regularly receive representations on a wide range of issues including about honours. The names of the various Orders of Chivalry are kept under review, as are other honours matters.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by how much on average has council tax in the United Kingdom risen since 1997. [141725]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Between 1997–98 and 2003–04, the average council tax per dwelling in England has increased by £344 or 61 per cent., from £564 to £908. During the same period, the average B and D council tax in England increased by £414 or 60 per cent., from £688 to £1,102.

  Council tax figures for Wales and Scotland are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament respectively. Council tax does not exist in Northern Ireland.

  Education Finance
  Mrs. May:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions ministers or officials had with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead prior to the decision to limit their formula grant increase to their schools formula spending share increase under the proposed 2004–05 settlement; [140605]

  (2) what assessment his Department made of the impact of the decision to limit the formula grant increase for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to its schools formula spending share increase under the proposed 2004–05 settlement on (a) social services and (b) highways maintenance; [140606]

  (3) if he will set out the basis on which the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was chosen as one of the 13 local authorities whose formula grant increase will be equal to their schools formula spending share increase under the proposed 2004–05 settlement. [140607]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  No Minister or official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister met the authority to discuss our proposals for 2004–05. Representatives of shire unitary authorities and the Local Government Association were involved in discussions on this topic with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at Settlement Working Group meetings.

  Windsor and Maidenhead stand to benefit by around £1 million from the change to the grant system to give every authority at least as large an increase in Formula Grant as its Schools Formula Spending Share (FSS) increase. Excluding the adjustment for capital, the provisional settlement gives the authority an increase in Formula Grant of 5.0 per cent. compared to the 3.5 per cent. floor increase it would otherwise have received. Any impact on social services, highways maintenance and council tax would therefore be beneficial.

  The basis on which we have given every authority at least as large an increase in Formula Grant as its Schools FSS increase is to calculate the increase in Formula Grant for each authority under the previous floors and ceilings system and compare it to their increase in Schools FSS. We propose that authorities should receive the greater of the two amounts.

  Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the capital allocation to the London borough of Islington is in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 for the construction of houses for rent by (i) the local authority and (ii) Housing Associations through the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement. [141647]

  Keith Hill:
  The London borough of Islington received an all-purposes housing Basic Credit Approval of £14.970 million in 2002–03 and £13.607 million in 2003–04. Housing Corporation capital allocations to Islington for housing associations to build new housing for rent were £20.4 million in 2002–03 and £25.387 million in 2003–04.

  Jeremy Corbyn:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance his Department plans to provide to the London borough of Islington to meet the Decent Homes Standard by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [141648]
  96W
  Keith Hill:
  The assistance the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing to the London borough of Islington to meet the Decent Homes standard is as follows:
  a provisional allocation of £24.9 million for the next two years from the Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) programme subject to a satisfactory Audit Commission inspection of the ALMO once it is operational;
  credits of £75 million over the 30-year life of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract signed earlier this year;
  an all-purpose housing Basic Credit Approval off 13.607 million in 2003–04;
  a Major Repairs Allowance of £25.545 million in 2003–04.

  In addition, Islington will continue to receive Major Repairs Allowance allocations and all-purpose allocations from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The authority may also receive further funding to support its ALMO programme and for a second PEI scheme in future years.

  Islington Council
  Jeremy Corbyn:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the conduct of the Arm's Length Management organisation ballot by the London borough of Islington; and if he will make a statement. [141649]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a representation from the Federation of Islington Tenants Associations about the conduct of Islington's Arm's Length Management organisation (ALMO) ballot. A reply will be sent in due course.

  Jeremy Corbyn:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what monitoring is being undertaken by his Department into the sale of houses and commercial properties by the London borough of Islington. [141650]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister collects and publishes quarterly statistics on sales of council houses and other council dwelling stock in all local authorities, but does not monitor local authority sales of commercial properties.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hayes:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, (1) how many (a) mandatory and (b) discretionary disabilities facilities grants local authorities have made in each of the last 10 years; [141014]

  (2) how many mandatory disabilities facilities grants have been issued by local authorities since 18 July 2002; [141015]

  (3) how many times local authorities have supplemented a mandatory disabilities facilities grant since 18 July 2002. [141016]

  Keith Hill:
  The numbers of (a) mandatory and (b) discretionary Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) paid by local housing authorities in England to private owners and tenants over the past ten years are tabled below. The figures for 2003–04 and 2004–05 are provisional forecasts given to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by English local housing authorities. Discretionary DFG was abolished from July 2003 by the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 and therefore the figures in the

  97W
  "discretionary' column for these two years include largely grants and loans which will be provided under the Order for housing adaptations.

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  1993–94

  16,702

  341

  1994–95

  19,784

  384

  1995–96

  20,036

  236

  1996–97

  19,599

  388

  1997–98

  21,120

  871

  1998–99

  21,584

  1,061

  1999–2000

  21,999

  706

  2000–01

  24,299

  432

  2001–02

  24,894

  618

  2002–03

  29,403

  699

  2003–04

  33,485

  1,442

  2004–05

  33,424

  1,372

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Alan Keen:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what use is intended to be made of any surplus released consequent upon the solvent liquidation of the New Millennium Experience Company. [140490]

  Keith Hill:
  Use of any Lottery grant money not drawn upon by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) will be a matter for the Millennium Commission.

  Alan Keen:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the completion of the solvent liquidation process for the New Millennium Experience Company. [140492]

  Keith Hill:
  Almost all of the issues in the current solvent liquidation have been completed, and all creditors have been paid. Only residual matters are outstanding.

  These issues however are not within the direct control of the New Millennium Experience Company liquidators and as such, it is not possible to predict with any accuracy when they will be resolved.

  Planning
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the Government's policy is on (a) calling in planning applications and (b) reviewing local authority planning decisions where they affect (i) greenfield sites and (ii) semi-natural green belt sites; and if he will make a statement; [140965]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on reviewing local authority planning decisions where they affect greenfield sites and green belt sites where no Environmental Impact Assessment has been made; and if he will make a statement. [140966]

  Keith Hill:
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Standard policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. In general, this step is only taken if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need to he decided by my right hon. Friend rather than at a local level. Such cases may include those which: may conflict with national policies on important matters; could have
  98W
  significant effects beyond their immediate locality; give rise to substantial regional or national controversy; raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or may involve the interests of national security of foreign Governments. Each case is, however, considered on its own merits

  The Government's general policy and practice is not to review decisions taken by local authorities on individual planning applications. When a planning application comes before my right hon. Friend, on appeal for example, he will determine it in accordance with the development plan for the area and relevant national planning policies, including Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG). PPG2 (Green Belts), PPG3 (Housing) and PPG7 (The Countryside) would be particularly relevant in relation to greenfield sites. Where relevant, regard will also be had to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regualtions.

  Postal Ballots
  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to revise his proposed all-postal ballots to include additional voting systems for the benefit of disabled people. [140864]

  Phil Hope:
  One the of the reasons for using remote voting such as all-postal voting is to assist those people who find it inconvenient or difficult to go to polling stations to vote. In its evaluation of the 2003 pilots, the Electoral Commission recommended that staffed delivery points should be provided at both mobile and fixed locations as part of all-postal elections. These offer voter the opportunity to vote in conditions similar to polling stations for those who find it easier or more convenient to do so.

  The Government intend that staffed delivery points will be features of future pilots. Following the successful piloting of innovative processes in the local elections in 2000, 2002 and 2003, the Government plan to ran pilots in the 2004 European parliamentary elections and in any local elections combined with them.

  The Government accept the broad thrust of Electoral Commission's recommendation to roll out of all-postal voting to all local elections and will be consulting on the detailed arrangements shortly. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will also be consulting on the arrangements for the local and regional referendums which we intend to be by all-postal ballot.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations have been made to his Department regarding coercion and secrecy issues in relation to his proposed postal voting systems. [140865]

  Phil Hope:
  A number of letters received from members of the public have mentioned concerns about the security and secrecy of all-postal voting. The same concerns were raised by some respondents to the recent consultation on our proposals for holding all-postal pilots at the European parliamentary and any combined local elections in June 2006.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local government (a) systems and (b) administrations would be removed if a region votes in favour of setting up a regional assembly. [141720]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Where an elected regional assembly is established, existing two tier local government will be restructured as unitary authorities. Recommendations on options for the unitary structure in a region are a matter for the independent Boundary Committee for England. The Committee might recommend structures based on existing districts, counties or something different. They published their draft recommendations for two tier areas in the three northern regions on 1 December. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Voters living in each two tier area will have a choice between at least two options for a unitary local government structure, in a local referendum held at the same time as the referendum on whether to establish an elected assembly.

  The new unitary authorities will exercise all the functions currently carried out by the county and district councils in the region.

  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria he is using to decide whether or not to grant referendums to regions about proposals for a regional assembly. [141723]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  The background to and explanation of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's decision to move towards referendums in the three northern regions is laid out in the Government's "Your Region, Your Say" summary of its soundings exercise. This was published on 16 June 2003 and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not propose to hold a further exercise during this Parliament.

  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requirements need to be met by a region before that region is deemed suitable to have its own regional assembly. [141724]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Our White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice-made clear that a simple majority yes vote will be needed in a referendum before an elected assembly is established in any region. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 allows my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to call a referendum once: he has considered the level of interest in the region in holding such a referendum; and the Boundary Committee for England have made recommendations about the structure of local government in that region.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the timetable for the formal consultation on implementing the proposals set out in paragraph 4.31 of the Energy White Paper; whether the outcome of this
  100W
  consultation will be incorporated within the final version of Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy; and what form this consultation will take. [141379]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in discussion with other Government Departments, is considering how best to take forward the commitment in paragraph 4.31 of the Energy White Paper to bring consideration of the use of renewables and energy efficiency more within the scope of the planning system. Should the Government decide that PPS22 is the most appropriate means of implementing this commitment, then a public consultation paper will be produced outlining the Government's proposals. If proposals were positively received, then changes would be made to the final version of PPS22.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent assessment she has made of the implications of the Working Time Directive for women's employment. [140586]

  Ms Hewitt:
  In general, as the working time regulations benefit both men and women, studies of the impact of the regulation covers all those who are affected. However, my Department has looked at women's employment since the introduction of the regulations in October 1998. Full-time employment for women grew by 5.7 per cent. from July—September 1998 to July—September 2003 while the average actual hours of full-time women in employment fell by 0.4 hours per week over the same period (from 34.4 hours per week in July—September 1998 to 34.0 hours per week in July-September 2003).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Atomic Energy Authority Visits
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether visits by the International Atomic Energy Authority include (a) military sites, (b) the inspection of military plutonium from Aldermaston stored under safeguards at Sellafield and (c) the inspection of plutonium waste stored at AWE Aldermaston; and if she will make a statement. [140924]

  Mr. Timms:
  The UK's voluntary offer safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom applies to all nuclear material in UK facilities, subject to exclusions for national security reasons only. This means that the IAEA can designate any UK civil nuclear facility, or any part thereof, for safeguards inspection visits but has no right of access to nuclear material required for national security and sites such as Aldermaston. The IAEA therefore has the right to inspect the plutonium stored at Sellafield that was transferred from Aldermaston and brought into safeguards following the conclusion of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. The IAEA currently chooses to limit its inspections to the plutonium in the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) plutonium product store and the Magnox Special Nuclear Material Store 9. All civil nuclear material in

  101W
  the UK, including the plutonium transferred from Aldermaston to Sellafield, is subject to Euratom safeguards as provided for in Chapter VII of the Euratom Treaty.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK's balance of trade figures for trade in goods and services were in each quarter of the last five years. [140947]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  Information on UK trade goods and services is published monthly by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The latest figures, up to September 2003 were released on 11 November 2003. These Statistics are available from the ONS website, which may be accessed from the Library of the House. I have sent a copy to the hon. Member.

  British Energy
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of (a) British Energy's ability to meet its forecast for total UK nuclear output in 2003 and (b) the maintenance of suitable reserves for unplanned outages; and if she will make a statement. [141539]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]British Energy's forecast output and its reserve for unplanned outages are a matter for the company. British Energy publishes regular monthly output statements.

  Broadband
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Broadband Fund has been allocated to (a) each regional development agency and (b) each devolved administration. [141604]

  Mr. Timms:
  The UK Broadband Fund was allocated from a formula based on the number of residents who did not yet have affordable access to broadband services. It was allocated as follows:

  £ million

  East of England

  3.22

  East Midlands

  2.09

  London

  0.113

  North East

  1.46

  North West

  2.68

  South East

  2.90

  South West

  3.78

  West Midlands

  2.10

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  3.10

  Northern Ireland

  1.46

  Scot land

  4.40

  Wales

  2.67

  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times the joint DTI and Defra Rural Broadband Team has met since its inception; and what meetings they have held with outside bodies. [141605]

  Mr. Timms:
  The joint DTI and Defra Rural Broadband Team has been working together in the same office premises since May 2003. The team has met a
  102W
  wide range of outside bodies including Regional Development Agencies, Devolved Administrations, Government Offices, Countryside Agency, Country Land and Business Association, British Chambers of Commerce, Ruralnet, local government and councils, community broadband groups, social enterprises and broadband and ICT companies.

  Clergy (Employment Rights)
  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans her Department has to implement section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in relation to employment rights for clergy; [140547]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the Employment Bill announced in the Queen's Speech with reference to the application of section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to employment rights for clergy. [140801]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  There are no measures in the Employment Relations Bill to extend employment rights to the clergy. In relation to s23 of the Employment Relations Act, we hope to publish a Government response to the Employment Status Review around the turn of the year.

  Debt (Late Payment)
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to private companies under the terms of the Late Payment of Commercial Debt (Interest) Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141593]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  There is no requirement for companies to register claims for statutory interest payments under the Late Payment Legislation.

  Electronics and Innovation Growth Team
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of representation is afforded to small businesses on the electronics and innovation growth team advising her Department. [141592]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  While membership of the Electronic Innovation and Growth Team (EIGT) Steering Board and Working Groups is by personal invitation, I am assured SMEs are well represented. Both the Steering Board and Working Groups have participants who are employed in or who are key participates in SME networks. The EIGT is acutely aware of the significance that SMEs play in the sector.

  SMEs wishing to contribute views to the work of the team may email EIGT at eigth@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. McLoughlin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cases there were in (a) West Derbyshire, (b) East Midlands and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1997. [141430]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The following table shows the number of tribunal applications registered by the Employment Tribunals Service in the United Kingdom (excluding

  103W
  Northern Ireland) since 1997. We are unable to supply separate statistical information for the geographical areas of West Derbyshire and East Midlands.

  Registered tribunal applications

  2002–03

  98,617

  2001–02

  112,227

  2000–01

  130,408

  1999–2000

  103,935

  1998–99

  91,913

  1997–98

  80,435

  1996–97

  88,910

  Mr. McLoughlin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average amount of an employment tribunal cost award was in (a) West Derbyshire, (b) East Midlands and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1997.[141431]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The following table shows the average amount of an Employment Tribunal cost award in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) since 1997. We are unable to supply the average amount of an Employment Tribunal cost award for West Derbyshire and East Midlands.

  Average cost award (£)

  2002–03

  1,524

  2001–02

  983

  2000–01

  295

  1999–2000

  1,155

  1998–99

  743

  1997–98

  546

  Mr. McLoughlin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average award for compensation in employment tribunal cases was in (a) West Derbyshire, (b) East Midlands and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1997. [141432]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Employment Tribunals Service only collects compensation statistics for tribunal cases covering the jurisdictions of Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination. Therefore, the figures quoted in the following table illustrate the average award for compensation in Employment Tribunal cases for the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) since 1997 in relation to the aforementioned complaints. We are unable to supply separate information for West Derbyshire and East Midlands.

  Average compensation award (£)

  2002–03

  7,598

  2001–02

  7,306

  2000–01

  5,764

  1999–2000

  5,734

  1998–99

  4,449

  1997–98

  4,894

  Mr. McLoughlin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cost awards have been made against (a) respondents
  104W
  and (b) applicants in (i) West Derbyshire, (ii) East Midlands and (iii) the United Kingdom in each year since 1997. [141433]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The following table illustrates how many Employment Tribunal cost awards have been made against respondents and applicants in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) in the last two financial years. The Employment Tribunals Service did not breakdown the statistics for applicants and respondents prior to 2001–02. We are unable to supply information for West Derbyshire and East Midlands.

  2002–03

  2001–02

  Cost awards against respondent

  307

  169

  Costs awards against applicant

  691

  467

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Nicholas Brown:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact the energy provision of the draft European Union Constitution would have on the oil and gas industries operating on the United Kingdom's continental shelf; and what changes would have to be made to the present regime for these industries. [140611]

  Mr. Timms:
  It is not yet clear what the precise effect of the energy chapter would be for the UK oil and gas industries. Although the draft Constitutional Treaty creates a legal base for energy, it does not, for example, bring forward a new regulatory regime. Article 111–157 of the draft Constitutional Treaty sets out EU competence in energy matters, including natural resources, with voting by qualified majority. The UK has proposed amendments which would make it clear that Member States retain control of their natural resources.

  Euratom Programme
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the use of the Euratom local facility by the Government since 1997. [141488]

  Mr. Timms:
  Neither the UK Government, nor any UK entity, has taken out a Euratom loan since 1997.

  Home Accidents
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish a summary of the representations she has received on the termination of the home accidents surveillance system. [141574]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 18 November 2003, Official Report, column 742W. I will not publish a summary of the representations that I have received on the termination of the home accidents surveillance system. I have received representations on a confidential basis and I do not have permission from any of the individuals or organisations who sent them to make them public.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Waterson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about Post Office closures in Eastbourne. [141587]

  Mr. Timms:
  None. Only the representation from the hon. Member for Eastbourne has been received.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the change in UK manufacturing output in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [140952]

  Ms Hewitt:
  The Budget forecast for manufacturing output shows growth of between ¼ and ¾ per cent. In

  COPD

  Costs

  VWF1

  Costs

  Settled expedited offers

  £955 + VAT + disbursements

  General damages claims in Group 1 occupations

  £652 + VAT + disbursements

  Settled full and final offers

  £1,856 + VAT + disbursements

  General damages claims in Group 2 occupations

  £760 + VAT + disbursements

  Settled chronic bronchitis only

  £531 + VAT + disbursements

  1Costs for handling services claims are not yet agreed.

  Note:

  In addition solicitors received additional payments for handling Grant of Probates, disputes procedures and posthumous claims.

  Mr. Barron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had interim payments to date through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claim for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coal miners. [141531]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  As of 23 November 2003 the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Number of claimants with interims paid

  COPD

  Barber & Co.

  3

  Beresfords

  243

  Browell Smith & Co.

  5,892

  Graysons

  2,414

  Hugh James

  11,327

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  2,644

  Raleys

  7,503

  Thompsons

  15,519

  UDM

  4,275

  Watson Burton

  1,744

  VWF

  Beresfords

  1,852

  Browell Smith & Co.

  6,137

  Graysons

  6,664

  Hugh James

  4,302

  Kidd Spoor & Harper

  1,695

  Raleys

  6,491

  Thompsons

  13,990

  Towells

  2,961

  UDM

  11,451

  Watson Burton

  4,328

  Mr. Barron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to claimants through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [141532]
  106W
  2003, and growth of between 2 per cent. and 24 per cent. in 2004. A new forecast will be presented in the pre-Budget Report on 10 December.

  Mining-related Compensation Claims
  Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost charged to her Department by solicitors for mining-related diseases claims handling was in each year since claims were first handled, broken down by solicitors' firm; and if she will make a statement. [140678]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  The solicitors' costs are paid on a tariff basis, under the terms of the Claims Handling Agreements (CHA). Under the CHA the basic costs are:

  Nigel Griffiths:
  As of 23 November 2003 the figures are:

  £ million

  Top 10 solicitors

  Total damages paid

  COPD

  Barber & Co.

  0.022

  Beresfords

  5.6

  Browell Smith & Co.

  66.4

  Graysons

  24.9

  Hugh James

  183.1

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  30.3

  Raleys

  104.8

  Thompson

  183.5

  UDM

  46.6

  Watson Burton

  21.6

  VWF

  Beresfords

  15.7

  Browell Smith & Co.

  84.0

  Graysons

  44.9

  Hugh James

  54.3

  Kidd Spoor & Harper

  25.3

  Raleys

  64.7

  Thompsons

  115.0

  Towells

  29.5

  UDM

  126.3

  Watson Burton

  39.0

  Mr. Barron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to date to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [141533]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  As of 23 November 2003 the figures are:

  £ million

  Top 10 solicitors

  Total solicitors costs

  COPD

  Barber & Co.

  0.006

  Beresfords

  4.0

  Browell Smith & Co.

  13.0

  Graysons

  8.4

  107W

  £ million

  Hugh James

  34.6

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  9.5

  Raleys

  22.4

  Thompson

  33.1

  UDM

  15.5

  Watson Burton

  7.3

  VWF

  Beresfords

  1.3

  Browell Smith & Co.

  8.2

  Graysons

  3.5

  Hugh James

  5.5

  Kidd Spoor & Harper

  1.9

  Raleys

  6.1

  Thompsons

  8.6

  Towells

  2.5

  UDM

  10.1

  Watson Burton

  3.0

  Mr. Barron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have had final settlements through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers.[141534]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  As of 23 November 2003 the figures are:

  Top 10 solicitors

  Total settlements

  COPD

  Barber & Co.

  47

  Berefords

  2,434

  Browell Smith & Co.

  5,797

  Gray sons

  4,305

  Hugh James

  15,607

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  4,458

  Raleys

  9,926

  Thompsons

  14,526

  UDM

  8,742

  Watson Burton

  3,547

  VWF

  Beresfords

  1,051

  Browell Smith & Co.

  9,725

  Graysons

  1,643

  Kidd & Spoor Harper

  1,959

  Hugh James

  5,799

  Raleys

  6,073

  Thompsons

  5,915

  Towells

  2,588

  UDM

  12,757

  Watson Burton

  2,390

  Nuclear Energy
  Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment of the impact on Britain's spare generating capacity she has made of the continuing repair work to (a) Heysham 1 and (b) Sizewell B power stations; and if she will make a statement. [141541]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]Sizewell B returned to operation on 15 November 2003.
  108W
  British Energy have stated that they expect Heysham 1 to return to service around the middle of December 2003. The capacity of Heysham 1 is 1165 MW.

  In the October 2003 Update of their Seven Year Statement, National Grid Company (NGC) projected total capacity available this winter for England and Wales of 66,697 MW and peak demand of 55,900 MW. Should Heysham 1 be unavailable at the time of peak demand, these figures suggest there could still he up to 9,632 MW more generating capacity than demand, providing cover against other plant breakdowns and exceptional demand levels.

  Since NGC issued the October 2003 Update, a further 560 MW of previously mothballed capacity at Killingholme has been returned to service by PowerGen.

  Pension Payments
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to increase the take-up of Post Office card accounts by pensioners. [141520]

  Mr. Timms:
  None. What matters for the Post Office is attracting more customers, not whether they have a Post Office card account. Customers can now access a wide range of bank accounts at the post office and I hope that they choose to do so. The Department for Work and Pensions provides its customers with all the information that they need to choose the account into which they would like to have their benefits paid in future, including those accounts which provide post office access. The final choice of account is a matter of personal choice for each individual concerned. I understand that that as of 7 November 2003 more than 1 million Post Office card accounts had been opened.

  Phoenix Fund
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down the funding allocated under the Phoenix Fund by (a) region and (b) local authority area. [141612]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  The Phoenix Fund does not operate on the basis of allocations to regions or local authority areas. Rather, funds have been awarded to the best applications submitted in response to a number of bidding rounds.

  That process has resulted in the following distribution between regions:

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Eastern

  2,516,391

  East Midlands

  2,769,891

  London

  11,679,715

  North East

  2,258,728

  North West

  9,326,749

  South East

  2,074,468

  South West

  4,892,132

  West Midlands

  6.284,574

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  6,653,985

  It is not possible to provide a corresponding breakdown between local authority areas as many of the Fund's projects operate in more than one local authority area.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role her Department has in the administrative arrangements for setting up a Post Office Card Account; and if she will meet the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to discuss their concerns about other Government departments' approach to claimants using a post office to access their benefits. [141361]

  Mr. Timms:
  The Government does not have a role in the administrative arrangements for setting up a Post Office Card Account. This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.

  DTI Ministers and officials are in regular discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about a wide range of post office network issues, including the Post Office Card Account.

  Recycled Liquid Fuel
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much recycled liquid fuel has been imported into the UK in each year since 1997. [141038]

  Mr. Timms:
  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the collection of importation data. Customs do not record whether a liquid import has been recycled or whether it is later used as a fuel.

  Regulatory Accountability
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the cross-departmental action plan for delivering improvements in government performance regarding the regulatory environment for small businesses. [141611]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  The plan for delivering improvements in the regulatory environment for small businesses will form a part of a broader cross-government action plan for small business to be published early in 2004. In addition, the government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan, to be published shortly by my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, will contain a number of measures that will help small business.

  Small Business Service
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service has had with Ministers in each Government Department in the last year. [141606]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  The Chief Executive of the Small Business Service meets Ministers in this and other Departments. As with other contacts between officials and Ministers, however, the frequency and nature of such advice however remains private, under Exemption 2—Internal advice and discussion of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service has made (a) direct representations to the Prime Minister and (b) held meetings with the Prime Minister in each year since the organisation came into operation. [141608]
  110W
  Nigel Griffiths:
  The Chief Executive of the Small Business Service meets Ministers in this and other Departments. As with other contacts between officials, the Prime Minister and Ministers, however, the frequency and nature of such advice however remains private, under Exemption 2—Internal advice and discussion of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Social Enterprises
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve access to finance for social enterprises. [140886]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  We are working with banks and Community Development Finance Institutions on the recommendations made in the Bank of England's report on access to finance for social enterprises, which was published in May 2003.

  A fuller update of successes to date can be found in "A Progress Report on Social Enterprise: a strategy for success", on the DTI Social Enterprise website.

  Spam E-mails
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what penalties will be available against persistent disseminators of spam junk e-mail when new regulations come into force; [141000]

  (2) what directions have been issued to trading standards offices about new regulations coming into force to deal with nuisance spam e-mails; [141001]

  (3) what steps she is taking to tackle spam e-mails. [141002]

  Mr. Timms:
  New regulatory controls on unsolicited direct marketing e-mails will come into force on 11 December this year. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 introduce prior consent requirements for unsolicited direct marketing e-mails sent to individuals and a requirement for all direct marketing e-mails not to disguise or conceal the identity of the person on whose behalf they are sent, and not to be sent without a valid address for opt-out purposes. The new rules will be enforced by the Information Commissioner's Office, who will have powers to issue enforcement notices in cases of breaches of the rules. Breach of an enforcement notice is a criminal offence subject to a fine of up to £5,000 in a magistrate's court or an unlimited fine if the trial is before a jury. In addition, individuals or organisations who have suffered a loss or damage as a result of a failure to comply with the regulations will be entitled to seek compensation from the person responsible for the breach.

  Junk e-mail is a global phenomenon, however, and the great majority of spam received by UK internet users comes from outside the European Union. The UK is active in international discussions on how to tackle the problem of cross-border spam both multilaterally (for example, in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), and bilaterally with the USA and other national governments.

  Taxis
  Dr. Iddon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Government's guidelines on consultation have been followed in the case of the regulation of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle services in the UK; and if she will make a statement. 140613]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Office of Fair Trading published a report on the regulation of licensed taxis and private Hire vehicles on 11 November, making recommendations to the Government, which the Government is now considering. In coming to conclusions Government is listening to the views of stakeholders on the proposals put forward by OFT. However Government are not undertaking a consultation or endeavouring to repeat the work undertaken by the OFT in preparing its report. I am aware that Ministers responsible for transport policy have ensured that key stakeholders have been made aware that the OFT have published their report and indicated that they would prefer early feedback to inform their consideration of the report.

  Should the Government decide in principle to move forward with regulatory change, there will be a full
  112W
  consultation on any proposals, which will of course abide by our consultation guidelines and allow at least 12 weeks for responses.

  Tyres (Energy Recovery)
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Department has to import tyres for energy recovery. [141066]

  Mr. Timms:
  The Government have no plans to import waste tyres to be used in energy recovery.

  Unofficial Strikes
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to limit the number of unofficial strikes where striking workers refuse to submit to arbitration. [140529]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Government actively encourages parties to seek the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) where appropriate, while recognising that compelling either employers or workers to enter into arbitration can be counter-productive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Weapons)
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  As set out in section 39A of the Police Act 1996, inserted by section 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, I have laid before Parliament a code of practice on the police use of firearms and less lethal weapons.

  The code sets out the principles for the selection, testing, acquisition and use of firearms and less lethal weapons by the police. It also sets standards for the way in which these principles should be implemented.

  By providing a statement on the standards of competence and accreditation, the code aims to ensure that all officers involved in operations involving firearms and less lethal weapons are trained to a high standard.

  The code also encourages the sharing of best practice between police forces on operations involving firearms and less lethal weapons.

  Detailed guidance on the use of firearms and less lethal weapons by the police is set out in the manual of guidance on police use of firearms drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO) and of Scotland (ACPOS).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education (Loans and Grants)
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson)
  The level of support available to students in the academic year 2004–05 will be 2.4 per cent. higher than for 2003–04, in line with forecast price increases. I am placing two memoranda in the Library giving details of the new loan, grant and fee rates for 2004–05. Those rates set out in memorandum 1 will be incorporated in the Education (Student Support) Amendment Regulations, which cover support for eligible students under the current arrangements. Those set out in memorandum 2 will be incorporated in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Amendment Regulations and the Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations, which cover the small number of students who in 2004–05 will still be receiving awards and loans under the pre-1998 arrangements. These regulations will all be laid before Parliament in due course.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I have published today a draft Disability Discrimination Bill. The draft Bill would increase opportunities for disabled people in all areas of life, help to encourage diversity in society, and ensure that disabled people have a greater say in the way that services are run.

  The draft Bill builds on the significant legislative steps we have already taken, such as:
  setting up a Disability Rights Commission;
  protecting disabled students and pupils against discrimination;
  bringing into force, in October 2004, the duties in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) concerning service providers making reasonable adjustments to physical features of their premises; and
  bringing into force, also in October 2004. major changes to the employment and training provisions of the DDA, including ending the current exemption of small firms.

  The draft Bill introduces further measures proposed in "Towards Inclusion", our 2001 response to the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force. Those measures would further extend and strengthen disabled people's rights and place significant new duties on public bodies, transport operators and many others. They include changes to the DDA which would:
  clarify that the current exemption for transport services extends only to the vehicles themselves, and create a power to enable that exemption to be lifted for different vehicles at different times;
  extend the Act to cover the exercise of functions of public bodies, so that it would apply to most of their activities, not just those which consist of the provision of services;
  introduce a new duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, so they would be required to consider the needs of disabled people as early as possible at every stage in their policy and decision making;
  extend the definition of disability to cover more people with HIV or cancer, so that more disabled people would benefit from the Act's protection;
  require those who manage or let premises to make reasonable adjustments to their policies and practices for disabled tenants or prospective tenants;
  make clear that insurance provided on group terms to an employer's staff is covered as a service under the Act.

  We have also looked at other changes which would help to improve disabled people's rights. Therefore, measures in the Bill would also:
  bring within scope of the DDA private clubs with 25 or more members, so that such clubs would be unable to discriminate against disabled members or prospective members or others who have rights to use such clubs;
  allow disabled people to issue a questionnaire in relation to discrimination complaints, not just in employment cases as now, but also cases concerning service providers, private clubs, landlords or public bodies carrying out their functions;
  extend the definition of disability in the DDA to more people with multiple sclerosis; and
  make third party publishers (e.g. newspapers) liable for publishing discriminatory advertisements, so that they would be acting unlawfully if they published a discriminatory job advertisement.
  61WS
  It is also our intention to publish draft provisions which would protect local councillors from discrimination by local authorities and details of our intentions are published with the draft Bill. We said we would extend the DDA in this way in "Towards Inclusion".

  The draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Parliamentary Committee. The Committee is likely to be calling for written and oral evidence and details on how to respond to the Committee will be made available on http://www.disability.gov.uk/ in due course. This will also explain how comments can be made on the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment outlining the costs and benefits of the draft Bill's provisions.

  I can also announce that when the full Bill is introduced it will be our intention to include in it measures on setting an end date for rail vehicle accessibility and on the introduction of regulations to cover refurbishment of vehicles, subject to the outcome of a consultation which is being carried out by Ministers at the Department for Transport.

  Our priority remains to meet our manifesto commitment during this Parliament. Implementation of all the provisions of the legislation that I have outlined would result in major new duties affecting the way in which all public bodies deal with disabled people, provide comprehensive civil rights for disabled people and significantly improve the way in which disabled people can participate in all activities of society.

  In developing our plans for legislation, we have carefully considered the Disability Rights Commission's legislative review. Their First Review of the DDA— Disability Equality: Making It Happen—was published earlier this year. I am very grateful to the DRC for producing this review and highlighting so many issues. A detailed response to the DRC's review has been placed in the Library.

  We have already legislated, in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, to give effect to eight of the DRC's proposals that were included in their prior consultation document or their final recommendations. The Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc) Act 2002 covered a further recommendation. The recent Criminal Justice Act implements another recommendation by making hostility towards the victim because of his or her disability an aggravating factor when sentencing for criminal acts in England and Wales. Several recommendations are inappropriate to national disability discrimination legislation as, for example, they fall to the Scottish Parliament to take forward; or apply to genetic discrimination which is being considered in a wider Government review of genetics; or propose changes to European law. These will be considered separately where appropriate. We will be taking into account the DRC's recommendations on amending the statutory guidance relating to the DDA's definition of disability when we come to review that guidance. The recent announcement about a Commission on Equality and Human Rights also relates to a review recommendation.
  62WS
  The DRC review also emphasised the need to implement recommendations made by the Disability Rights Task Force and reiterated many of them. The Disability Discrimination Bill when passed, combined in particular with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Pensions) Regulations 2003 and the Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted Persons) Regulations 2003, will fulfil our manifesto commitment for this Parliament to extend basic rights and opportunities for disabled people as indicated in "Towards Inclusion". The Bill also implements three further new recommendations from the DRC's review, as outlined in the attached response, as well as covering private clubs which was a Task Force proposal that we had previously rejected in "Towards Inclusion".

  Although we have gone a long way to give effect to the DRC's proposals and recommendations, in general we prefer to keep the remainder in mind for possible consideration in the future, taking account of the need to bed in the fundamental and wide-ranging changes already under way. The DRC itself has said that it expected some proposals to be taken forward via a different route to the Disability Bill and over a slightly longer timeframe.

  In any further development of the Disability Discrimination Bill, we will consider very carefully any recommendations from the scrutiny committee. The committee is likely to take evidence from the DRC and many other organisations and individuals.

HEALTH

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Today I announce the publication of the Department of Health's 2003 Autumn Performance Report (Cm 6073). It shows the progress my Department has made towards achieving its public service agreement targets.

  The autumn performance report is an annex to the Chief Executive's Report to the NHS, which has been placed in the Library. Together the two reports demonstrate the progress that we are making in improving health and social care services.

  The report shows that more and more NHS operations are being carried out in outpatient clinics and GP surgeries—without the need for the patient to stay in hospital. The number of procedures carried out in outpatient clinics rose to 1,735,000 last year, an increase of 129,000, or 14.9 per cent.

  There are more and more NHS staff, but they are working harder and harder to treat more patients, cut waiting times and provide more operations. The number of doctors has increased by 9,500, or 10 per cent. since the NHS Plan was published, while the number of nurses has gone up by almost 38,000, or 11.5 per cent. since the NHS Plan.
  63WS
  The number of NHS patients waiting longer than one year for their operation fell from 16,689 in September 2002 to just 114 in September 2003, a fall of 99.3 per cent. The number of people waiting longer than 21 weeks for a first outpatient appointment fell from 30,789 in September 2002 to just 198 in September 2003, a fall of 99 per cent.
  64WS
  These are just some of the achievements of the NHS in the last year. They has been made possible by the increased funding the government is investing in health and social care, as well as the hard work and dedication of people throughout the NHS and its partner organisations.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester
Timothy John, Lord Bishop of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth and the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Long-term Care of the Elderly
2.41 p.m.
Lord Harrisonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will respond to the recent report of the Royal Commission on long-term care, published in September 2003, which updated its 1999 report, With Respect to Old Age: Long-Term Care—Rights and Responsibilities.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government have no plans to respond to the statement made in 1999 by former members of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly. The Government accepted each of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, except the recommendation to provide free personal care. We stand by that decision. We do not believe that making personal care free for everyone is the best use of limited resources.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Nevertheless, will she confirm that, provided the resources were available, in principle the Government would be in favour of nursing and personal care being free at the point of use in both a residential and a domestic setting? Secondly, will she turn her attention to the particular problem of those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease? As they are treated principally by special care assistants rather than by nurses within the NHS, they fall outside the criteria which would enable them to qualify for free care.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the compassion that goes into that question. However, my noble friend will know that, when resources are limited, Ministers have to make difficult decisions. We made the decision not to fund free personal care for everyone on principled grounds. We believe it is better and fairer to use the billion pounds that have been saved on a wider and better range of services for elderly people who are less well off. With that investment, for example, we have been able to support a significant increase in the number of elderly people who receive intensive care in their own homes, where the vast majority of them say they want to be; we have been able to put £70 million extra into training social care workers, particularly in
302
relation to dementia; and we have been able to increase the help that goes to carers. I believe that, in those very direct ways, we are providing more help for people with dreadful diseases, such as Alzheimer's and dementia.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, will the Minister take account of two different facts in making her response? In raising this question, I lay before the House my own position as chairman of the Royal Commission in question and chairman of English Care in a non-executive role.
The issue raised by those who signed the document to which this Question refers is not whether the Government have done anything—they have done a great deal and we are very grateful for that—but whether the policy that they have adopted is working. I give two forms of evidence. The first, which comes from the private sector, is that for the last year for which independently verified figures are available, 13,000 beds closed. The second is that the health ombudsman has raised a question about the effectiveness of the Government's policy. The conclusion is that it has caused injustice and hardship to some people. Will the Minister respond to those two points?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are very grateful for the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in illuminating so many aspects of this important area of work.
I take issue with what he said in two respects. The first is in relation to the alleged injustices in terms of home-care provision. After years of unregulated growth and inevitable decline, we are seeing far more stability and growth in the home-care market. Some of that growth has been verified by reviews this year which show that national bed capacity in care homes from all sectors outstrips demand by 10,000. We are also seeing a slow-down in the rate of care-home closures, and that is very good news. Other independent evidence suggests that there are signs of growth in the market. Therefore, I believe that, despite local issues and difficulties, we are looking at a better picture.
In relation to the ombudsman's report, we have taken action to respond to the apparent confusion about NHS long-term continuing care, which goes back a long way in our history of provision. We are now expecting strategic health authorities to agree new continuing-care criteria. We are looking to them to recompense financial injustice and to put right what has been wrong. We have commissioned an independent review to consider progress on continuing care and, indeed, our Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act, which went through this House earlier this year, insists that all elderly people are now assessed for continuing care before being discharged. Therefore, I believe that we are putting right many things.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about the relationship between national health and social services funding. Can she confirm that many social services departments in England and Wales are very short of cash and that some of them are running

303
deficits? Will the Government consider setting up a review of social services funding similar to the Wanless review on National Health Service funding?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are well aware of the pressures on social services and of the pressures due to the increasing numbers of elderly people and children in need of greater protection. That is why we increased the social services spend over the five years between 1996–97 to 2002–03 by a fifth and why for the next three years we are looking at historic increases of 6 per cent a year. The reference by the noble Baroness to the Wanless commission is interesting. I am sure that the department will consider that.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords—
Lord Lipsey: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, perhaps we can hear from the Benches opposite and then from these Benches.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, does the Minister have any plan to review the definition of nursing care which seems to cause some confusion?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the difference between the two forms of assistance provided is that nursing care is provided by qualified nurses. That is the basis on which we have made the distinction between nursing care and the care that is provided on a personal basis for people who do not need medical intervention. It is a definition that, for example, staff in care homes understand and implement very well. We have no plans to revise it.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, recently when I was in hospital for a by-pass operation, the great bulk of those on the ward with me were people in their 70s and 80s who were having the extremely expensive, life-transforming operation that will give them many years of extra life. Does that point up the flaw in the majority report of the Royal Commission that was the theme of the minority report signed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and myself, that in the real world of scarce resources there is a stark choice between free care for all, which is very nice, and better care for those who really need it when it is genuinely a matter of life and death?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are delighted to see the noble Lord back in his place after receiving such excellent treatment from the NHS. I am particularly delighted that he is in his place today, as one of the "genius factors" in the House, so that we can have a debate on the two sides of the Royal Commission. That illustrates just how difficult it is to make decisions, how important it is to be clear, and how important it is to keep policies under review.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, has the Government framed a view on the proposals from the
304
Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a national care insurance scheme that would pay for care free at the point of delivery?
Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords. As far as I am aware the Government have not formed a view on that. If I am wrong about that I shall send the noble Baroness a correction in writing.

Deep Vein Thrombosis
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Wilcoxasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that the research programmes currently being undertaken are adequate to enable them to offer the general public clear guidance on the possible risks of deep vein thrombosis when flying.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in 2001 the Department of Health issued information and advice to the airlines and the public about minimising the risk of DVT during long journeys. That information and advice is available through health services, the Internet, the airlines and NHS Direct and is kept under review in the light of new research information. Much of the research is being generated by WHO. I am pleased to say that the UK was instrumental in setting up that research and in providing financial support for the work.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I declare an interest. I chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee on aircraft travel and health, which pointed up the worries that people have about deep vein thrombosis. Is the Minister as disappointed as I am that the Department for Transport did not fund an effective research programme conducted by British scientists over which we could have had some control? Now that we have decided to hand over the job to the World Health Organisation—I understand that we have already given £400,000 and by the time the research is finished in early 2005 we shall have given over £1 million—can the Minister reassure me that we shall have a list of how that money has been spent and that it will be put in the public domain?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. Following an excellent report, the noble Baroness is relentless in her pursuit of the Government. I am not disappointed in what we have decided to do nor in the way in which it is being carried out. Given the international nature of the problem—she will understand this better than many— and the high cost associated with epidemiological research, it was considered better to meet our research needs in an international context. Negotiations with the WHO took a long time. The matters are complex and we had to ensure that optimum research, with a proper spread and with the best research team, was carried out. That research, which began at the beginning of 2003 and which is making very good progress, will report next year. Our own research on the public perception of DVT

305
has just been finished and it will be published early next year. It has some very interesting conclusions. We shall certainly ensure that there is a full account of how the research funding was spent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to declare an interest as president of BALPA. the British Air Line Pilots Association. Is it not completely inadequate that in the main airlines announce that there is a threat of deep vein thrombosis at the beginning of long-haul flights? Is it not essential, particularly on longer long-haul flights, that that warning should be repeated not once, not twice but three times at the very least?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. One outcome of the Select Committee's report was to set up the Aviation Health Working Group. This regularly brings together all the people involved in these matters including the airlines. Certainly advice and information has improved. I shall ensure that my noble friend's comments and observations are drawn to the attention of airlines.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government also inform the public about the successful medical research which has led to precautions and remedies, including warfarin previously used only for rat poison? I declare an interest as it has been prescribed for me to take daily for the past 10 years for a thrombosis in one of my legs. I should add that this was not caused by flying, but by an enemy bullet passing through my middle.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is rather difficult to follow that. There has been a great deal of research by the WHO on the potential link, which is definitely not proven, between DVT and air flight. We hope that in the second stage of research we shall look more closely at some of these different interventions. The advice we give to passengers via the Department of Health is essentially about exercise; leg exercises and short walks—I suppose they could hardly be long walks— while in aircraft. The noble Lord's point is the subject for further research.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, one of the excellent things that came out of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was that there are a range of matters within the gift of every individual traveller. Preparation can be undertaken, provided the advice is known. One matter that emerged was the crucial part that doctors' surgeries can play in ensuring that simple exercises and simple remedies are made available. What is being done to alert people to the wide network of advice that can be given to potential travellers through doctors' surgeries?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is very important that information gets to the general public. One thing that happened this very week is that the Aviation
306
Health Unit started work. The AHU's task will be to liaise between the professionals and give information on how people can protect themselves while travelling. That is one very important innovation. There is, as I have said, a range of advice on the web and available to doctors to provide basic information for people about to travel or, indeed, on returning from travel. Clearly, arising from our own research about public perception we now know that although people are aware of DVT they are a little confused about the best thing to do. Therefore, much more effort must go into communicating best advice for travellers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, has there been time since the provision of this information to travellers to ascertain whether it has had any perceptible effect on the rate of deep vein thrombosis or death from embolism? Secondly, there has been much discussion about air cabin layout, seat size and so on possibly affecting the incidence of this condition. Can the Minister tell us whether the joint health project, which the Government are in my view very sensibly carrying out with the World Health Organisation, will give us any answers on that question?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we do not collect figures. While we have figures for deaths from DVT, we do not know how many people die from DVT perhaps as a result of having taken a long-haul flight. So I cannot give much satisfaction there. In terms of seats, we know that the Joint Aviation Authority has commissioned research on the minimum distance between aircraft seat rows. It was found that passengers in business class, economy class and first class are equally at risk. The problem is not of seat size or of seat space, but of immobility. Although the UK is the only country with a minimum statutory requirement for seat spacing, that will not make any difference to people at risk.

"Big Conversation" Initiative
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Goschenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any government involvement in the "Big Conversation" initiative.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Labour Party is consulting its members and the wider community on the Government's progress and challenges ahead. This is a Labour Party initiative and not a government initiative.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in that case, why are Government Ministers praying in aid this initiative from the Dispatch Box? That happened on Monday in connection with the smoking issue. It gave it an aura of government respectability; whereas we know that this is in fact merely a cynical exercise designed to produce helpful answers. Does the noble Baroness agree with the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, of this exercise as a "confidence trick"?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not think that it is a confidence trick, having done one of these exercises

307
myself on Monday. It was extraordinarily helpful because there was a great deal of support for what the Government are doing. It was very good to hear it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, with the welcome presence in the Gallery of the right reverend the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, perhaps a little bit of Scottish logic chopping is in order. Do the Government agree that conversations can be formal and informal? They can take place in many ways, but must be two-way. Do the Government also agree that in real terms this conversation has been taking place since the Labour Party assumed government in 1997? Do they further agree that perhaps what is required now is a little more listening and a little more precision?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that actually there has been an ongoing conversation. That is precisely why the Labour Party won such major victories in 1997 and 2001.I also agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is important that the Government listen. One objective of the exercise is that the Labour Party, in consulting on the Government's programme, is keen to ensure that individuals and the community as a whole understand the basis for decision-making. But we also want to hear the public's views on what we are doing.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although I accept the Minister's assurance that that impressive document is all the Labour Party's own work, will she concede that it closely parallels an exercise recently published by the Cabinet Office, produced by civil servants? As for the exercise itself, I again pray in aid that reluctant Peer of creation, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, who said that the dialogue is a monologue in disguise. Considering that we have a Prime Minister who has no reverse gear, is not the noble Lord absolutely right?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, given that my noble friend's article has been cited at me twice, it is important that everyone reads the article to the end, because in fact he supported the exercise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the initiative mean that Members of Parliament are now redundant, except as Lobby fodder?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that we would never say that Members of Parliament were redundant. Members of Parliament have an important role to play, but it is also important for the Labour Party to hear what people in the community and our party members feel about Labour Party policy.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this morning we heard that first reports indicate that people are actually anxious to discuss policies that affect their daily lives and that are fair? Does she agree that if
308
noble Lords opposite carried out a similar exercise, they would learn about the unfairness of their policies for health and education?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Not only would the party opposite learn a great deal, it would have to start taking lessons from us about how to win elections.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, will the Minister share her feelings with us and tell us what it feels like to be a member of a Government who have been in power since 1997 and are now to go out to the country to determine what they believe and what they should do? What does it feel like to be in charge of a vacuum?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be part of a Government who have not only a clear set of policies to deal with the challenges facing this country but the confidence to go out to talk to the people, through their party, about the challenges facing the country for the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords, so let us be patient. Let us hear first from the Labour Benches—I always like to hear from these Benches.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that if the governing party of the day in 1989 and 1990 had conducted a big conversation with the people, we should not have had the poll tax or the privatisation of British Rail, both of which have been complete disasters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with my noble friend.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, will the Government institute the really big conversation that the country desperately needs, which is a conversation about the European Union in general and the constitution in particular? Will the Government send to every household in this country an impartial, plain English explanation of the issues behind the constitution, so that the conversation can be meaningful?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We need to do more to help people to understand the issues involved in our relationship with the European Union. My colleagues are working on that. As for the issues of constitutional change, if the noble Lord reads the document, he will see that it contains questions relating to constitutional change.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, be kind enough draw to the attention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of

309
Portsmouth to the Companion to the Standing Orders, in which he will read that it is inappropriate to refer to people in the galleries?
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I apologise.

London Underground: Threatened Industrial Action
3.4 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of threatened industrial action on the London Underground.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government regret this action by RMT, which will cause disruption for Londoners in the run-up to Christmas. London Underground was transferred from central government to Transport for London on 15th July. Responsibility for dealing with the threatened industrial action rests with Transport for London and the Mayor. London Underground believes that the union's concerns can be addressed without industrial action. It is essential that the unions work with London Underground to resolve the issue.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, in the run-up to Christmas, the proposed industrial action is monstrous. In view of the fact that—largely at the behest of the unions—we now have a Health and Safety Commission in charge of railway safety, there can be no excuse for it. Will he give an undertaking that either he or the Mayor—it is convenient for the Government to shuffle this over to the Mayor—will go to the High Court to seek an injunction to stop what is purely a political strike?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not a question of convenience for the Government that it is a matter for the Mayor; that is objectively the fact, as a result of the transfer of the responsibility. However, I of course agree with the noble Lord that the action comes at an unfortunate time. We do not believe it is justified; we believe that London Underground is making every attempt to reassure the unions about how safe the Underground is. The noble Lord is right to say that the Health and Safety Commission also has a clear responsibility in this area and is also ensuring that all requirements are met.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister condemn unofficial strike action? Will he answer the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and tell us whether the Government will encourage the Mayor of London to use the powers under various industrial relations Acts that relate to unofficial strikes?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is not a strike; it is action; it involves moving the trains more slowly than
310
normal. It is not unofficial, because it has been out to ballot and has been duly voted for by a majority of those who participated in the ballot under trade union and employment law. So there is no question to answer in those terms.

Railway Safety
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Bridgemanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for removing responsibility for railway safety from the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the structure of the safety regime for the railways. However, as with other aspects of rail safety, we welcome wider debate on the best way to ensure that our railways remain safe.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of recent comments by Mr Alan Osbourne, the outgoing director of rail safety at the HSE, who said:
"The HSE is dysfunctional across its policy and operational activities"?
Does the Minister not agree that the whole structure of rail regulation, involving the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator, has created an overlapping and confused institutional structure that is in urgent need of rationalisation?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, for the obvious reason that in the most recent serious inquiry into a rail crash, Lord Cullen made it quite clear that he thought that responsibility for inspection of the railways for safety should remain with the Health and Safety Executive. That is why Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Rail Safety is incorporated in that body.
The noble Viscount has identified anxieties about certain internal relationships within HSE, which it needs to address. But the principle of the body being responsible for rail safety has been endorsed by Lord Cullen, is in place and—let me reassure the House—despite the tragedies that occur when we have rail crashes and accidents, rail remains by far the safest form of mass transportation.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, since the Minister has raised the issue, does he not agree that the Cullen report also made it very clear that a major factor in the accident that it reported on was the direct result of the changed culture and diversification of control of the industry? This Government claim to feel strongly about their manifesto commitments. Is it not about time they

311
honoured the one about returning the railway to public ownership? After all, the taxpayer is still paying for it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will be all too well aware of recent changes in the railway system to increase capacity for control in that respect. I emphasise that the rail system has not shown a linear deterioration of safety—far from it. Safety records of the rail system continue to improve through timed sequences. Changes in rail ownership and control have resulted in no marked increase in the number of rail incidents, signals passed at danger or serious problems on the rail.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister turn his attention to road transport and compare it with the railway? For railways, there is a large health and safety inspectorate and many other bodies, whereas on the roads we have nobody. Although 40,000 people have been killed or seriously injured on the roads, there were only 217 prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in great danger of straying from a Question on railways to deal with roads, and that would not be in the interests of the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has just said, does he not agree that it takes logic beyond reason when enhancing railway safety obliges more people to travel by road, where they are at greater risk?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, having been prompted twice, it is difficult to evade a question on roads as I have just done. Rail systems are infinitely safer than roads; therefore, any transfer from rail to road would increase accident rates. That is why we are concerned to improve railways, increase the number of rail passengers, and, so far as possible, transfer from road to rail. Noble Lords will recognise that there is a range of policies in that area, in which certain aspects of road policy may play their part.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will my noble friend extend his last remark to the transfer of the carriage of Royal Mail freight on to the roads?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my noble friend will appreciate, that has been an issue of lively controversy over the past few months. He has taken joy in the fact that Royal Mail is looking at the issue again. It is for it to make the final judgment, but I am sure that it will bear in mind remarks from such an impeccable source.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remark that rail is the safest way of travelling, with which we all agree—at least, all the statistics show it to be so—what is the public's perception of the safety
312
and reliability of railways? This morning's seven o'clock news reported faults in Virgin trains meaning that the whole schedule would be disrupted. Then, at 11.30 a.m., in Westminster Tube station, it was announced that there were delays on five Underground lines because of problems. That is the perception, I am afraid. What are we doing about it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, rail safety makes big news, and road safety does not. I am sure that all noble Lords have been on a motorway when an accident has happened, resulting in delays for hours. There is scarcely a line in the newspapers about such incidents, yet the same kind of difficulty on railways would occasion quite a splash. The noble Baroness is right that we must improve rail safety and the reliability of trains. Every such incident is to the disadvantage of rail. However, it will be recognised that many millions of our fellow citizens rely on the railway system, particularly commuters, who rely on it every day. They can distinguish between isolated incidents and the general safety and security in which they travel.
Lord Peston: My Lords, further to the noble Baroness's comment, will the noble Lord consider the possibility of reminding the public that nothing is perfectly safe and being alive is pretty dangerous in whatever form one cares to pursue life? Is it not the case that, if you stay at home, you will probably scald yourself with a kettle or something? The public need to know precisely that life is dangerous.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend of one fact: life is a good deal safer on the Back Benches than it is on the Front Bench.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, are not InterCity trains, which reach speeds of 125 mph and sometimes faster, a potentially dangerous environment for passengers, who, quite rightly, may move about on them freely? Should not InterCity operators be required to provide adequate and clearly indicated first aid facilities on such trains and to have staff with first aid training?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, basic first aid is provided on such trains, and there are occasions when it is necessary. The noble Lord will recognise that, of all our transport systems, rail is many times safer than road, and InterCity trains are much safer than other trains because of their design for operating at higher speed. However, the noble Lord has a point. I shall check the extent to which first aid facilities are available on such trains.

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to company auditors and accounts and company investigations, to

313
make provision for community interest companies, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Constitution Committee Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Liaison Committee Privileges Science and Technology
3.18 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Constitution Committee
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Acton,

L. Elton,

L. Fellowes,

B. Gould of Potternewton,

L. Holme of Cheltenham,

B. Howells of St Davids,

L. Jauncey of Tullichettle,

L. Lang of Monkton ,

L. MacGregor of Pulham Market,

E. Mar and Kellie,

L. Morgan,

L. Norton of Louth (Chairman);

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Constitution Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
314
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders and subordinate provisions orders laid under that Act, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

B. Carnegy of Lour,

L. Dahrendorf(Chairman),

L. Desai,

L. Harrison,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Temple-Morris,

L. Tombs,

L. Wigoder;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
Liaison Committee
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

B. Amos (Lord President),

V. Colville of Culross,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Geddes,

B. Hayman,

L. Kimball,

B. Pitkeathley,

B. Scott of Needham Market,

L. Strathclyde,

B. Williams of Crosby;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.

315
Privileges
Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

B. Amos (Lord President),

L. Browne-Wilkinson,

L. Carlisle of Bucklow,

L. Cope of Berkeley,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Grocott,

L. Mackay of Clashfern,

L. Marsh,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Roper,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Trefgarne,

B.Williams of Crosby;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any sub-committee.
Science and Technology
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

B. Finlay of Llandaff,

L. Lewis of Newnham,

L. Mitchell,

L. Oxburgh (Chairman),

L. Paul,

B. Perry of Southwark,

B. Platt of Writtle,

B. Sharp of Guildford,

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Sutherland of Houndwood,

L. Turnberg,

B. Walmsley,

L. Winston,

L. Young of Graffham;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
316
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee or any sub-committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Statement: The Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, during the course of my winding-up speech yesterday, I said that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, had voted in favour of a fully appointed House and an 80 per cent appointed House. He has written to me today to correct me in that respect; in fact, he voted for a fully elected House and an 80 per cent elected House. I unreservedly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I unreservedly apologise to the House for that error.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the debate begins, perhaps I may offer a suggestion about timing. Yesterday I said that if everyone kept to around eight minutes, we would finish by around 10 o'clock. To my amazement, everyone kept to about eight minutes and we finished by 10 o'clock. I suggest today that, if Back-Bench contributions—excluding those of the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Norton, who have a special contribution to make—lasted on average seven minutes, we would finish by 10 o'clock. If, at the other extreme, contributions lasted 10 minutes, we would finish north of midnight. That gives noble Lords an idea of where we are.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.20 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Ashley of Stoke, as amended yesterday—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament, but regret the decision of Your Majesty's Government to abandon the search for cross-party consensus on constitutional reform and to launch unilateral proposals for changes to this House that could gravely weaken the House; and call on Your Majesty's Government to respect the formal undertakings given to this House, to withdraw their current proposals and to undertake meaningful consultation with Parliament and the senior judiciary before proceeding with legislation."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, in opening this important debate, I would like to thank all the noble Lords who are to speak. It is a most distinguished if reasonably long cast list: it would be invidious and certainly stupid to pick out stars, but I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who retired as Chief of the Defence Staff earlier this year. I had the privilege of working with the noble and gallant Lord for some time, and was able to see at close hand his superb leadership of the Armed Forces during both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. He had an extremely busy time as Chief of the Defence Staff and he is a man of strong, well thought-out views, and I believe that the House is in for a treat—although whether the Government are in for a treat, we will soon see. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
I congratulate the European Union Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution on their reports, which are to be debated alongside the Queen's Speech debate. We look forward to hearing from the chairmen of those two committees. My noble friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean will answer points arising from those reports at the end.
Since the last Queen's Speech it has been an extraordinary year, with the United Kingdom's foreign and defence policy in the spotlight at the top of the news in a way not seen in years. Strong passions have been stirred: public opinion has been expressed robustly, as it should be in a free and democratic country. I would argue that the British Government have stuck firmly to their policy in spite of siren voices tempting us not to see it through.
A starting point with which we can all agree is that we live in an increasingly dangerous world The events of the past couple of years have demonstrated all too clearly the changing nature of the global security environment and the difficult choices that confront us. The constant threats to our peace and security today are more diverse than ever, and they are real and immediate. The scale of terrorist violence is unprecedented and, since 11th September 2001, there have been terrorist attacks on targets in places as disparate as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Morocco. The recent appalling attacks in Istanbul illustrate yet again the immoral and indiscriminate methods that terrorists are happy to use.
Alongside international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among states;, and their means of delivery, is potentially the most catastrophic threat to our peace and stability. The risk of terrorists acquiring WMD is a daunting and frightening prospect. We must also address the causes and consequences of weak and failing states. All too often they contain areas of ungoverned territory, which can provide havens for terrorist groups and criminal networks involved in drugs production or the plundering of natural resources.
Cutting across those issues, and relevant to many of them, are some key strategic policy challenges: establishing peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan;
318
making progress towards a settlement on Israel/ Palestine; handling Iran, tackling the worst cases of poverty and regional tensions faced by much of sub-Saharan Africa, and addressing the conditions in which violence and extremism thrive. I will start with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has been removed and the threat from Iraq's illegal WMD programmes neutralised. That is clear at least. Even those who say that we were wrong to go to war have to admit that, without the war, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and his regime would still be oppressing the Iraqi people. Sometimes one feels that that point is overlooked by those who oppose what we did. Today, the international community is helping the Iraqi people to restore effective representative government for their people, to regain economic stability and to reintegrate into the international community. Real progress is being made in developing vital infrastructure and creating a sound base for a stable and prosperous Iraq.
As the second largest contributor of armed forces, the UK deployed around 46,000 service personnel to the Gulf. We should be proud of the part that our Armed Forces played in the operations and in their professionalism and bravery. However, the effort in Iraq is by no means confined to the military, and we should not forget the key role of British civil servants currently in that country. Many UK Government departments have deployed personnel to Iraq; primarily DfID, the MoD and the FCO, but also the Home Office, the DTI, Customs and Excise, the Cabinet Office, Defra, the Department of Health and DCMS. That has required a truly inter-departmental approach, which began in the months leading up to the campaign phase and has continued throughout all phases of the operation. The bravery and sense of service of all these people—and 1 include, of course, all those representing the UK abroad in the diplomatic and consular services, some of whom have paid with their lives—should be a matter of enormous pride to our country.
Amid all of the negative reporting of the situation, it is easy to lose sight of what is being achieved. In October, 72 countries and international organisations met in Madrid to help plan Iraq's reconstruction. They pledged around 33 billion dollars to help to get Iraq back on its feet. Iraq is not a naturally poor country, but the legacy of Saddam's corrupt misuse of the national wealth must be overcome.
Noble Lords will have seen the recent Governing Council announcement about the transfer of authority to Iraqis. That is a welcome sign of progress. Although there is a huge amount to be done, the Governing Council has set out the road map to a properly constituted and fully elected Iraqi Government as it was required to by the UN Security Council. I would not wish to underplay the security concerns that Iraq still fares. Tens of thousands of Iraqi police and other security forces are operating on the ground securing the future of their country. However, Iraqis have stressed that they want the multinational force to stay until Iraq has its own capacity to ensure stability and defend itself. By July next year, there will be a transitional government. We expect the multinational force to remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. The United Kingdom remains

319
committed to the future of Iraq and I am hopeful and confident—as I know the House is—that there will be progress.
On Iran, we welcome the Iranian support for the Iraqi Governing Council and hope that Iran will promote the nascent democracy in Iraq. The Government's overall approach to Iran is one of constructive—though critical and conditional—engagement. The UK and our EU partners have stated that our willingness to develop relations with Iran is dependent on Iranian action in addressing areas of political concern, including Iran's nuclear programme and the approach Iran takes to terrorism, human rights and the Middle East peace process. Recent commitments that Iran has made regarding co-operation with the IAEA, suspending enrichment and reprocessing activities and signing an additional protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement are welcome. Frankly, however, Iran will ultimately be judged on its actions.
On the Middle East peace process, President Bush outlined the US commitment to the road map during his recent visit to the UK. He also reaffirmed US commitment to a viable, independent state for Palestine alongside security and recognition for the state of Israel. The UK is also committed to this vision of peace and believes that the road map remains the way ahead. We will continue to support international efforts to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. My noble friend, who has government responsibility for the matter, will talk more about that during her winding-up speech.
Turning to Africa, the Government wholeheartedly support African attempts and efforts to increase good governance and reduce poverty. We support the G8 Africa action plan and are actively seeking reform on policy issues such as trade to assist in Africa's development. In addition, we are assisting developing countries to improve their capacity to participate more fully in WTO negotiations. The breakdown of the recent trade talks at Cancun was a disappointment to the UK and we will work with others to get back on track as soon as possible.
Without peace, the prospects for sustained development are remote. The UK and its EU partners are committed to addressing conflict in Africa as shown by the recent EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sierra Leone demonstrates what can be achieved. To help to prevent and resolve violent conflicts, a plan for training and operational support has been agreed between G8 and African countries. DfID is providing resources to low-income countries that have poverty reduction strategies and the political will and capacity to deliver the millennium development goals. Importantly, the Ministry of Defence is supporting security sector reform in Africa.
Tackling today's problems requires a multilateral approach. We share common interests with other nations and the challenges that we face are too difficult and too broad to be tackled by one nation. We need to work closely with both the United States and our EU partners to develop effective responses. Our aim should be to develop a global agenda, led by the US and the EU
320
working in partnership. NATO has been the most effective forum for transatlantic dialogue on security issues and the primary source of its members' defence. And it still is. It is also the most appropriate place for Europeans and the US to work together on the security issues of today. We need to develop the crisis management and expeditionary capability of NATO, while expanding its membership and building relationships with former adversaries.
Complementary to developing NATO is the development of a strong European defence and crisis management capability. The EU operation in Bunia, the ongoing police mission in Bosnia and the military operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—to finish on 15th December and to be followed by a second EU police mission—demonstrate real progress. We have shown that the Berlin Plus arrangements work and have demonstrated the EU-NATO strategic partnership in practice. But the EU, and individual member states, must take steps to ensure that key capability shortfalls are addressed, while not duplicating existing capability. To that end, we support the creation of the new European Defence Agency, which will begin its work during 2004.
At the most recent European Council, the Prime Minister emphasised that,
"we need a strong European Defence, but nothing whatever must put at risk our essential defence guarantees within NATO".
The Government set out their policy for the inter-governmental conference in a White Paper in September. We made clear the principles that we would pursue in the negotiation, and the elements of the treaty text prepared by the convention that were unacceptable to us, covering structured co-operation and mutual defence. During recent weeks, the Government have been working with partners, notably the French and the Germans, on a way forward in those areas. I am pleased therefore to say that, in our view, the latest texts tabled by the presidency represent a significant and very welcome advance.
They would ensure, first, that it is clear that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security and that the NATO Article V guarantee remains the basis for the mutual defence of its members and the instrument for implementing that guarantee. Secondly, the ESDP would continue to develop in accordance with the open, flexible and militarily robust model that was agreed at St Malo and detailed at the Nice European Council. The new package will focus future development of the ESDP on qualitative and quantitative improvement of defence capabilities for crisis management operations outside the Union and will meet the defence objectives that we set out in the September White Paper.
The United Nations remains at the heart of UK foreign policy and plays a role in enhancing security in its broadest sense. We are a permanent member of the Security Council. Thus, we have a particular responsibility to "deliver the UN goods", and to support the UN's work on international peace and security. There are a number of areas for action on peacekeeping in which the MoD is engaged with other

321
government departments. One such area is pushing further for the implementation of the United Nations' own review of peace support operations; that is, the Brahimi report.
As I have argued, working multilaterally also means close consultation and co-operation across government departments. Increasingly, we must use a combination of diplomatic, political, economic and military levers to achieve strategic effects. We are doing that already as part of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool. The FCO, DfID and MoD—working closer together now than ever before—are also exploring mechanisms through which we can develop better, more joined-up approaches to effects-based planning and conflict and crisis management. Iraq has proved a good illustration of how that works in practice.
Yesterday, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published a strategy that considers the changes we expect during the next 10 years and what they mean for us. It sets out eight strategic international priorities for the Government and describes the FCO's role in working with others to achieve those priorities. It will be the framework for ensuring that the FCO and its network of diplomatic posts are focused on the Government's current and future international priorities.
The ability of the United Kingdom to project armed force is, and will remain, a key instrument of our foreign and security policy. On 11th December, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will present the defence White Paper to Parliament. It will provide a comprehensive statement of defence policy and will outline the security and policy baseline against which future decisions will be made. The paper will set out the need for flexible and agile Armed Forces that are able to deploy rapidly at small and medium scale and can quickly interlink with our allies to meet a wide range of expeditionary tasks. At the same time, we will retain the capacity to undertake less frequent large-scale operations.
In particular, counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation operations will require rapidly deployable forces to respond swiftly to intelligence and to achieve precise effects across the world. Key to this process will be the ability to derive full benefit from advancing technology. Network enabled capability will enable us to deliver rapid military effect by linking intelligence, communications and strike assets. We will also need to focus investment in strategic enablers and force multipliers, while restructuring those force elements that contribute less well to future operations.
Ultimately, operational success will depend on our people. Delivering an effective expeditionary capability will require sufficient, trained and motivated service personnel. In terms of recruitment, the sustained effort during the past few years is starting to deliver results. Last year was the best recruiting year for a decade with some 26,220 people joining the Armed Forces.
We owe it to our servicemen and women to support their wider needs too. One vital component of the life-long support that we offer service personnel and their
322
families is pension and compensation arrangements. To that end, new pensions and compensation packages and a modernised compensation appeals process were announced on 15th September and a Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. The measures offer high level assurance for service personnel appropriate to the demands of military service.
As part of our overall defence policy we are committed to a strong, healthy and globally competitive defence industry.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who will know that as important as recruitment is the issue of retention of service personnel. Perhaps he could say something about that matter. It is good to recruit new junior ranks, but the retention of key, experienced personnel is vital.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his vast experience, is absolutely right. The recruitment figures are excellent. We are delighted with them. As I understand it—of course, I shall write to him with the figures—the retention figures for the past year have also been encouraging. Before I commit myself in that respect, I promise to write to the noble Lord.
We are committed to a competitive defence industry in the United Kingdom. Since we launched our defence industrial policy last year, we have worked closely with the Defence Industries Council to deliver our shared goals. We are working to develop a better understanding of the capabilities of UK industry and to co-ordinate our research and technology programmes. Our industry continues to show its strength in export markets, about which we should be pleased.
UK companies have demonstrated their competitiveness by winning work on the Joint Strike Fighter programme on merit, and of course the Hawk aircraft has long had many customers and admirers around the world. Indeed, a significant order from the Indian Government followed hard on the heels of our own decision to select the aircraft for our military flying training system.
I have sought to cover much ground, perhaps too much, over the past 20 minutes, but this is a time of major change in foreign and security policy. We will need flexible Armed Forces, strategic partnerships and strong international institutions to achieve successful outcomes. What I have attempted to outline today is the structured and strategic approach that this Government will take to adapt, to respond and to be ready to act when and where it is necessary.
I mentioned earlier how the departments of state— the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—are working together as one in order to put into effect our policies. If I were to use shorthand, I would characterise our policies as striving to be a force for good. After all, that is surely what a country like ours, with its great history, its comparative wealth and its outstanding reputation should be striving for.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is good that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has opened this debate by emphasising defence and security issues. Our security is of course the ultimate of the nation's interests, although, as we learn day by day, those are becoming ever harder to define precisely and to defend in this age of global interdependence and global terror. Like the noble Lord, I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—he is a former Chief of the Defence Staff, but he will not be the only former Chief of the Defence Staff to speak today—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. We shall listen closely to what they have to say.
Within all this complexity there is one simple and central aspect: it is that on however wide and distant a front, we have to defend our nation's security in this age of global terrorism and, however sophisticated the weaponry needed to do so, it is the personnel—the quality, courage and skills of the men and women in our Armed Forces—on which all else ultimately depends. I should add that today, with great sadness, we also find that our diplomats are being increasingly exposed to violence, danger and death. I join all those who have expressed deep sorrow at the death of Roger Short and members of his staff in Istanbul. We should say a prayer for and add our condolences to those for the Japanese personnel and diplomats, the Spanish personnel and the Korean personnel who have been murdered while doing their duty over the past few weeks. We should also spare a thought for senior British officials—not from the Ministry of Defence, but those from other departments—who have been grievously wounded in Iraq, as has been the son of one of the most respected Members of this House.
As the Minister outlined in his remarks, today we are placing almost unparalleled demands in an unparalleled spread of areas and diversity of operational commitments on our brave troops. I cite the Gulf, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland and other locations—and who knows where else tomorrow? That is why Members on these Benches and the British public are reasonably justified in our anxiety to know just what the Government now propose to do in order to relieve the enormous strain being put on our stretched armed services. We are all agreed that they are doing a brilliant job, but how is the strain to be eased?
I am advised that for many service personnel the interval between operational tours is now down to as little as eight or even six months, when the guideline is meant to be 24 months. Fighting troops have a mere six months to rest, recharge their batteries, join their families and, of course, address the crucial business of training and retraining on which the legendary efficiency of our Armed Forces ultimately depends. So my first question this afternoon is this: when and how is the respite period for our troops to be extended back to the required 24 months? Can one really count, as has been suggested in the newspapers, on a so-called "peace dividend" from units being freed from Northern Ireland, not least when the outlook there appears so shaky? If
324
extra troops are to be released, will they be able to affect that miserably short period of turnover and respite and extend it to something more reasonable?
We all recognise the need for ever greater flexibility in our Armed Forces; that is the "new strategic environment" referred to in the gracious Speech. But what are we to make of reports that the Government are planning to respond to that need in the forthcoming White Paper—my noble friend Lord Vivian will have plenty to say on that in due course—by axeing or merging some of our proudest regiments—I hope that that is not true—and by squeezing still further the already woefully under-equipped Reserves and Territorials?
I shall leave it to other noble and noble and gallant Lords with vastly greater experience than mine to talk on the aspects of resources for the military, as well as the new and bizarre accounting method that the Treasury seems to have dumped on the Ministry of Defence, but I for one should like to see these reports flatly denied. I say that not just for sentimental reasons, but because the regimental system is not yesterday's pattern, it is the framework on which the peculiar excellence of our Army and our frontline forces depends. In tomorrow's world, I believe that that will be even more the case. As for the Reserves and the Territorials, not only are they providing, I am told, up to 25 per cent of our troops in Iraq, but we will depend on them more than ever for homeland defence. Any sensible policy ought to be building them up, not slicing them down. Can we be told what are the Government's intentions?
If all this uncertainty was not enough, we have a wider question to ask about the place of our Armed Forces and our military capacities within NATO, about which the Minister has spoken. All Ministers, not only the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, but the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others, have all vociferously asserted that the latest defence agreements with France and with the European Union in no way undermine Atlantic co-operation through NATO. Yet that is bound to be difficult for some of us because the French leadership is totally opposed to the very Atlanticist beliefs to which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary keep loudly committing themselves. We are being asked to believe that, amazingly, the circle can be squared.
Of course none of us wants to be America's poodle, as the Prime Minister is often quite unfairly unaccused of being, but Members on this side of the House believe— along with, I think, the Prime Minister—that the trans-Atlantic linkage remains central to our security and to the safety of these islands. So we need to be clear, much clearer than Ministers have been, about just what is now being proposed.
There are two kinds of military planning structure: the first is "force planning" which deals with what forces and equipment are to be provided; while the second is "operational planning", which covers decisions on how those forces and equipment are to be deployed and used. I see no great harm in existing EU military staff doing force planning, but there are huge and divisive dangers in

325
having a separate EU operational planning staff outside NATO. Over recent days we have been given the "housemaid's baby" argument—that it is only a very small item. But of course it will grow. If the so-called "structured co-operation" now being proposed in the EU leads to a large, separate entity, or to some semipermanent core of EU states quite separate from NATO, then in our view Britain should oppose it root and branch so as to protect our own national interest and before we give a dangerous and misinterpreted signal to the Americans that their time in Europe is up and they should go home.
In Iraq, as the Minister confirmed and we all agree, our troops have continued to distinguish themselves and to demonstrate the value of meticulous training and preparation and generations of experience in dealing with low-intensity and guerrilla warfare. We on this side fully supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of the sadistic tyrant, Saddam. We saluted the Prime Minister's courage in going ahead, even though we repeatedly warned at the time, and not afterwards, that he was proving dismally injudicious in his handling of certain intelligence material on so-called weapons of mass destruction, and on the nature and imminence of the threat to us.
The Hutton inquiry will deal with aspects of that issue. However, I strongly agree with the argument of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, and many others, that the advice of the Attorney-General on these matters should be published in some form. There arc ample precedents for that; it has been done before and could be done again. While it is presumably the first war dossier that interests the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, like many others I remain astounded by the saga of the second "dodgy" dossier and the unparalleled sloppiness and incompetence that it demonstrated.
On the ground in Iraq, we are probably still not getting the full picture, since the violent incidents tend to be reported by the media, and the successes hardly at all. We forget that large areas of that large country are at peace, schools and hospitals are open and fully functioning, and business is picking up. As the Minister says, however, the security situation is the key, especially in the Sunni triangle above Baghdad.
What was needed from the start, as we could have explained to our American friends—and I wonder whether we did—is a coherent counter-insurgency strategy based on deep intelligence, which destroys the terrorists, the jihadists and all the others, while breaking their remaining links with the civil population. Over the weekend, our US friends, who may now be learning, had an excellent victory in their attacks on the guerrillas. Typically, it was portrayed by the BBC as a defeat, but never mind that. I am told that they came within one hour of catching Saddam, so the net may be closing in on him.
Above all, the coalition authorities now have to show that they are not an occupying power but merely a transitional force. They have to promise to stay until stability is assured, but they have to promise to go as soon as possible. That is a desperately difficult balancing
326
act, and the Americans really need strong friends and allies as well as robust UN involvement—not whining critics—to help them to complete it.
There is no time for me to consider the broader Middle East picture. However, as the Minister says, the Iranians are now sounding more positive and co-operative. The blackspot obviously remains the miserable Palestine/ Israel conflict, where one can only pray that a new road map of some kind, like the Geneva plan, can be established, and sanity on both sides begins to prevail.
I mentioned the defence ambiguities in our relations with our EU neighbours. What are we to make of all the other cracks and fissures being created in the structure of European unity and stability? The smaller member states, both the existing ones and the newcomers, are increasingly and understandably sour about the way in which things are going, and especially about the tactless dominance of the bigger members. Meanwhile, the euro has lost its legal framework, and the stability and growth pact is in tatters. Indeed, Commissioner Monti says that it has been killed. That is a clear demonstration of one rule for the smaller brethren and another for the big boys. Is it not ironic that we are being asked to approve, in the gracious Speech, a draft Bill for a referendum on joining the euro at the very moment when the whole system is tottering?
Above all, there is the dismal EU constitution project, which the Foreign Secretary now tells us is desirable but not necessary. If that is so, we have to ask why it is being pursued at such divisive cost. Of course, we shall have a chance to debate that in more detail this time next week in your Lordships' House.
A constitution for a nation or for nations is not just any old piece of paper, but a document in which every word has legal significance. I know that the Foreign Secretary is calling it no more than a "label" and that Mr Peter Hain says that it is just a tidying-up operation. Those statements are being rightly and almost universally ridiculed. Presumably, they are made only to defend the Government's crumbling case against a referendum on the issue. That is a referendum that we want, unlike the one on the euro. We in the Conservative Party and more than 80 per cent of the country want it. I understand that those in the Liberal Democrat Party want it as well—or that is what they say at the moment.
Everyone in Europe recognises that the new constitution is much more than a treaty; that however many "red lines" there are—and some of those are looking very crumbly—it shifts power to the European institutions and significantly away from member states. It creates for the first time in our history a new and superior legal framework for our national affairs, which will affect every single one of us. So says the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Verhofstadt, who states:
"The Convention's draft is quite rightly accorded the title of a Constitution: it is more than a treaty—it is the capstone of a federal state".

327
So, too, says our friend Romano Prodi, in stating:
"The Constitution is a big change from the basic concept of nation states. It's a change of centuries".
So, too, says our own Chancellor, Gordon Brown, when he points to the constitution's fundamental importance and the threat it poses to our autonomy in tax and fiscal matters. That is confirmed by the excellent House of Lords report, which is tabled for debate today, from our committee dealing with the constitution. It raises 15 issues of principle in the draft constitution that affect our own constitution. That seems further confirmation of the point that I am making.
As great constitutions go, this EU effort is a very poor one. It is wordy, complex and lengthy, and fails to secure individual rights. We shall return to it again and again. However, for the moment I simply summarise by saying that it is a constitution by bureaucrats, of bureaucrats, for bureaucrats. It is intolerable that the party-controlled majority in the other place should seek to force it through without proper reference to the British people.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. If there were to be a referendum, will he say that there should be 25 member states, but with no changes to any of the rules and regulations?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I will be saying what the Foreign Secretary was saying the other day. If a referendum took place and produced a negative result—although it might not—we would be back at the default position of the Nice treaty, parts of which we thought were very good and parts of which we thought were over-loaded. The basic mechanics are in the Nice treaty, and could perfectly well cope with the situation described by the noble Lord.
Finally, I shall just glance at the new international priorities document, which the Minister mentioned and which came from the Foreign Office yesterday. These great essays from Foreign Office thinkers are always a little puzzling, because individually our diplomats are the most marvellous people. They are skilled, efficient, charming, helpful, courageous and— sadly—must be very brave indeed, as they risk and lose their lives. However, whenever the Foreign and Commonwealth Office emits a collectivist view of the world, it always seems to me to have a touch of the Forrest Gumps about it.
At least we have got away from the jejune idea that one must only drag out the label "ethical" to achieve a foreign policy. What does that paper do instead, however? It offers up a number of hugely obvious insights about the modern world—namely, that foreign affairs are not really foreign. That is quite right, but it was in a book that I wrote five years ago, so it is not exactly new. It says that we face a new non-state and unpredictable pattern of enemies via terrorism. We have
328
all known that for years, since long before 9/11. It says, too, that energy supplies are under threat. They have always been under threat, and were under threat when I had responsibilities in those matters 25 years ago.
However, the White Paper seems to miss the really big emerging features of the future—perhaps they are so big it cannot see them—first, that the UK is not somehow in constant danger of being marginalised in Europe and therefore obliged to submerge itself, or its destiny—I hate that word—into some supposedly emerging EU superpower. Even Robert Cooper, the Prime Minister's Foreign Office guru on foreign affairs, calls that,
"a dream left over from a previous age".
A new kind of Europe is developing of which the White Paper does not seem to be aware. We should be the champions of that new kind of Europe.
Secondly, US hegemony is not all that it is cracked up to be. Big is vulnerable, not necessarily beautiful. Thirteen carrier fleets cannot solve global terrorism or dominate world trade. Thirdly, because these FCO authors keep coming back to a view of the world comprising the two blocks of the EU and the US, they seem to spend a lot of time agonising about how to avoid being trapped in a choice between them. Not only is that choice utterly irrelevant, it does not even exist in the modern network world. We are all now absorbed in the same network anyway. Finally, the paper misses the gigantic point that our best and most supportive friends and links may lie increasingly outside the European arena altogether, for example, with Japan and the Commonwealth.
I believe that more emphasis on the Commonwealth network would enable us to handle the Zimbabwe tragedy much more effectively. In response to the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, I reminded her of the detailed proposals that we have put forward again and again for helping that process forward. She very kindly wrote to me and responded in detail on some of those points.
Nations, especially old ones like ours, are unimaginably complex things. Neither their internal constitutions nor their external allegiances can be shoved about and altered without the most intimate, lengthy and consensual discussion and debate. I believe that our history and our culture grasp us by a thousand invisible fingers. Those ties cannot be wrenched apart or just shaken off by great modernising leaps forward or by the steamroller of majority tyranny, or even by the charade of a so-called "big conversation" with the people, which I hope will be shortly laughed out of court.
This is now a fluid and frightening world in which we should be building on, not tearing down recklessly, our institutions at home and in which our diplomats, like our Armed Forces, have to keep up a constant and vigilant redefining of our fundamental interests and how we best contribute globally to their defence and promotion. Some issues we handle best with our European neighbours, some with great America, and some with our friends in Asia, the Commonwealth and Latin America—which does not even get a mention in the Foreign Office paper. Only when that clearer perception,

329
based on our capacities as an agile and confident nation, is firmly at the epicentre of Government foreign policy thinking can we really be comforted that the British people's most crucial interests really are being as best protected as they can possibly be in modem conditions. Only then can we rest, if only momentarily, on our swords.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, with 44 speakers tonight and a great cornucopia of issues to cover, I shall limit myself to speaking on a few areas. I shall deal essentially with defence. My noble friend Lady Northover will deal with international development and my noble friend Lord Wallace will deal with foreign affairs. However, I start by welcoming the two maiden speakers, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I must share a comment that I overheard in the corridor which could be said only in this House. One Peer turned to another and said, "You know you are getting old when the Bishops start looking younger". I also welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, whose comments we shall be able to hear rather than see a report of them in the media.
The three areas that I wish to consider are: Iraq; the spending levels in the Ministry of Defence; and manning levels. However, I should say a few words on terrorism. I, too, offer my condolences to all those in this House and outside who have been affected by the recent atrocities, including the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. We hope that her son recovers speedily.
We on these Benches have great admiration for the work carried out by the Metropolitan Police, by all members of the anti-terrorism squad and by all those involved in security during the President's visit. It was a sign of their skill and ingenuity that that visit, which could have caused such problems, passed off without incident.
The issue of Iraq is one to which we have returned on many occasions. I believe that many noble Lords will speak on it tonight. Recently a poll in the newspapers showed that support for the war in Iraq had grown. I believe that resulted from a misunderstanding of terminology. We on these Benches support staying in Iraq until the situation has calmed and we are able to leave a democratically elected government and a stable situation there. However, that does not change the fact that we were against the war in the first place. Although the Minister in his opening speech said that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a benefit, that could not have been an objective of the war. The war was not fought to remove Saddam Hussein, however beneficial that may have been; the war was fought because of the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. That issue affects the aftermath of the conflict.
In the run-up to the war government departments were not looking at an exit strategy or how to deal with the situation in Iraq after the war. The MoD was looking, quite rightly, at how to fight the war to the best of its ability; the Department for International Development was looking at how to deal with the likelihood of the advent of large numbers of refugees;
330
and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was particularly interested in gaining support for the war. Ministers spent a great deal of time abroad trying to gain that support.
That is a real issue because the concept of how the aftermath of the war was to be dealt with was based on some false assumptions, especially on the part of the Americans. The first assumption was that the war would be quick and easy. Thankfully, that was the case. However, the assumption that the "liberating forces", as they were termed, would be met with garlands and flowers did not turn out to be the case. Peace did not return quickly. We witnessed looting and anarchy on our television screens. It is notable that, so much further down the line, security is still the major topic of conversation. Further, it was assumed that oil revenues would pay for the war but, of course, that source of revenue is still not flowing.
If the aim had been to remove Saddam Hussein, which would have been illegal under United Nations resolutions, the priority would have been reconstruction. That would have given us a clear exit strategy. Although we support the retention of our troops in Iraq and the work that they are doing there, we have not changed our opinion that the war was fought for some of the wrong reasons. It is interesting that yesterday in Istanbul the Foreign Secretary mentioned that lessons had to be learnt regarding some of the problems that we face. Perhaps that could be the subject of an inquiry. I apologise if I have made a mistake. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, gives the impression that I have made a mistake. At the moment we are playing a game of catch-up, which is very dangerous as we have only a finite period in which to return Iraq to a stable system of government. Like many who watch events unfolding on television, I notice that every time we talk about attacks there is no mention of Iraqi civilian deaths. I was particularly upset to hear that no figures for Iraqi deaths are kept. That cannot be a system in which stable normality is returning because, as night follows day, the rise in the body count of Iraqi civilians will lead to anger, and that anger will be directed at those in Iraq.
I shall return to the weapons of mass destruction, which of course were the stated reason for the war. In Questions earlier today in another place, the Prime Minister stated that he still believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I have a question—I hope that the Minister can give some indication if not a definite date—about when the Iraq Survey Group will publish its results. Will those results be open to public scrutiny? I hope that none of its information will be deemed secret, because we have to know the reason why we went to war.
The weapons of mass destruction are not a side issue. The Americans are spending 1 billion dollars with the aim of finding the weapons. Some of their best intelligence resources are directed at that aim, not at the fight against insurgence. Much has been made of the fact that there might not have been weapons of mass destruction, but that the intentions were there. That is irrelevant. Anyone who had studied Saddam Hussein must have known that he had every intention

331
of rebuilding his arms at the first opportunity. The very fact that weapons cannot be found has to be due to the UN and its incredibly successful operation.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the noble Lord has said repeatedly that we went to war for the wrong reason, that being weapons of mass destruction. If the reason had been human rights abuses in Iraq, would that still be his position? If so, does that mean that he would still be relying on the policy of sanctions, which was not working?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, "if came into that. We did not go to war over human rights, but over weapons of mass destruction. I agree that there have been benefits—I said that it had been beneficial to get rid of Saddam Hussein. However, I believe that we went to war directly over weapons of mass destruction.
I shall be extremely brief over the other issues that I wish to raise, the first of which is spending on the MoD. That issue is coming to a head. The Ministry of Defence has a number of projects lining up. Billions are being pledged on systems and weaponry. A bubble seems to be growing of a period in which those systems have to be paid for, and that will fall between 2008 and 2012. One issue that worries us in that period is that of overspend. Almost every project that we have looked at so far has been vastly overspent, which will be a real issue for those who have to meet the bill in those years.
An area that will come up under consideration of that is carriers. At the moment, we are looking at two carriers, but there are obviously indications that we could go to three and share the cost with the French. However, that might also lead to only two carriers being shared with the French if we cut down the carriers' size and increase their capability. I do not think that that is a bad thing. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who raised our relationship with the European Union over defence capability. We should share our expenses with the European Union. NATO is the cornerstone of UK territorial defence, but that was not stated in the White Paper yesterday; rather the US was described as the guarantor of UK security. That is an important distinction that will not be lost on our European allies.
The last issue that I wish to discuss is manning and overstretch, on which Iraq returns to the fore. We are extremely reliant on more than the good will of our forces, which will have decreasing periods between combat operations. We are also relying very much on our reserves, which are a finite resource. Have any studies been undertaken into how long we can keep going back to our Reserve Forces? A lot of them might disappear. They might go once and consider going twice, but going back a third time might not be practical for them, because that would then be a new career.
In a "File on Four" programme, a reservist said that he was quite happy to go to the Gulf, but his employer was not so happy. He found real difficulty with his employer in coming back, and that will be an issue. I ask the Government to look again at their policy of
332
how they help those reservists who are called up and sent to Iraq to deal with their employers when they come back. Many employers might not share a benign attitude to their being away for an extended period.
We must also look at our territorial reserves. Retention, an issue raised earlier, relates to overstretch. As a territorial officer a few years ago, I know that retaining people with the skills and experience is increasingly difficult under the strict guidelines of how much can be spent on reservist man-training. It was difficult to get those individuals trained—it took a number of years. Losing those skilled people who would be so valuable in operations is a major concern, because the numbers game in the Territorial Army hides the reality that there are very few properly trained troops.
We support all our soldiers on secondment and undertaking operations. The Bill in the Queen's Speech about pensions will be a test of how we support them in future. There are real issues about the idea that that Bill can be cost-neutral.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, like others, I want to pay tribute to the very considerable achievements of our servicemen and women over the past few months, particularly those who have been in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. As always, they have risen to the challenges and not been found wanting under the most difficult and often dangerous conditions.
I have two major concerns. First, we are hearing that the Ministry of Defence budget, which of late has been under severe pressure, is now faced with greater problems than ever before. Is that so and, if so, why? Is it because of miscalculation or increased and unexpected commitments, or because the new resource budgeting system imposed on Whitehall is less suited to a defence department than to other departments of state, industry and business?
The MoD, which of necessity holds large amounts of expensive equipment, is bound to be seen unfavourably under the new system when comparisons are made. A figure of savings of around £1 billion per year for four years is spoken of. That would be catastrophic for the services, which are already suffering from cuts and shortages. We now hear that, on top of many painful measures taken, even recruiting is being curtailed. I hope that we will be told by the Minister the size of the budgetary problem and why it has arisen.
The second concern is the White Paper. I hope that it will not be bland, but a document which will lead defence in the right direction. The Strategic Defence Review was widely and rightly welcomed. Of course, it is necessary consistently to review, revise and structure our defence forces for the times that they live in. But there are great dangers in concentrating our efforts to too great an extent on one emerging threat—a knee-jerk reaction— forgetting that there are other threats which have not gone away and for which we should still be prepared.
Are the Government seriously considering grasping a peace dividend from Northern Ireland? Even if there is peace and agreement—and let us pray that there is—

333
surely the resources should be used elsewhere and could solve many of the services' problems—in particular, those of the Army. Alarm bells are ringing in the services and I am bound to say that the Secretary of State's speech at the Royal United Services Institute earlier this year did not reassure them. Phrases such as,
"measuring the capability of our Armed Forces by the number of units or platforms in their possession will no longer be significant",
and,
"the need for new approaches to our Forces' structure",
do not reassure.
Our servicemen and women are highly intelligent but they have become sceptical and should not be flannelled. If, because of budgeting necessities, the Government's plans really mean that they will be less capable, under-resourced, even more over-committed and still taken for granted, they will see through those plans very quickly and our defence and security will be seriously damaged. Talking about lighter, more flexible, more mobile and network-centric forces and effects-led capability does not mean that they will necessarily be able to fight better when called upon to do so and to carry out the manpower-heavy tasks such as those being carried out in Iraq today and tomorrow, most often by the infantry.
I find the situation in relation to European defence difficult to understand at present. Like many, I feel that it is difficult to grasp what the Government have achieved and what they want to achieve, despite what the Minister said. Are we witnessing a diplomatic and political fudge with little military value? The Government's red lines seem to move. I believe passionately in European defence if it is about European capability. That is thoroughly sensible. But Europe's capability has not improved at all since St Malo.
I do not believe that we should be part of a force which is a rival to, as opposed to a partner of, the United States of America. The Prime Minister and, today, the Minister have assured us that the Europeans will not be rivals. But other Europeans, particularly the French, do not take the same view. It seems that we are being moved off our solid ground, which we should still be holding.
We are now talking of a planning staff for European defence of some 30 to 40 in Belgium. Do we need such an organisation when hundreds of staff officers already in Belgium are quite capable of carrying out European planning? One thing of which we can be sure is that the 30 or 40 in the European planning cell will grow in number. It will have to do so if the European planning cell by itself is to plan properly. We shall also have to supply high-quality staff officers, who, in my opinion, would be better and more usefully employed elsewhere, probably with their regiments.
The defence budget is tight. Are we not about to fund unnecessary duplication, which will complicate military life and make us no safer? The type of operations which the Europeans have carried out successfully and are able to undertake can be launched now. The Balkans and Africa are witnesses to that. They did not need a planning cell to do it.
334
Lastly, I know that the services welcome the new shadow defence Minister. He is well known to servicemen and service women. He understands defence and has been a staunch supporter over the years. He has a strong team around him. But I know that the fact that he is not in the shadow Cabinet has been disappointing for those serving and that it sends the wrong message. Will they be spoken up for properly at such a critical and, for many of them, dangerous time?
4.25 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I, too, very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and also to that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
Thus far, the debate has been largely on the subject of defence, but now I invite your Lordships to change the focus a little. We have before us a substantial report entitled The Future of Europe—the Convention's Draft Constitutional Treaty—a matter that has much exercised the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. With the leave of the House, I shall avail myself of the dispensation offered by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and possibly stray beyond the six minutes that most speakers will have available. However, I assure your Lordships that I shall make every effort not to trespass upon eternity in my remarks.
First, the report before your Lordships' House reflects the collective effort of the European Select Committee, which I had the honour to chair, and its six sub-committees and their respective Clerks, our Legal Adviser and his Assistant and our excellent European research staff. It benefited from a number of our earlier reports, which analysed in detail the succession of articles as they emanated from the convention. In all, some 80 Members of your Lordships' House and staff participated in that effort. I thank all of them warmly and pay special tribute to the Clerk of the Select Committee, Simon Burton, whose work was extraordinary in pulling together the extensive body of work into an excellent draft text, and to the members of the small working group of the Select Committee, which reviewed the draft before it was sent to the Select Committee for approval.
I also thank the Government very warmly for their comprehensive and thoughtful response to our report. Except in a few cases, the response shows a broad measure of agreement with our conclusions and recommendations. There are 108 conclusions and recommendations, but I assure the House that that does not signify that we found 108 reasons to disagree with the text of the treaty—far from it. Of course, we make recommendations for changes in the treaty text in a number of areas, but a greater proportion of the 108 recommendations and conclusions was addressed to our own Government, asking for further explanation or elucidation.
The report is, I believe, readable, and I commend it to your Lordships as a fair guide to what is of particular interest and importance in the draft treaty.

335
It was published not quite three weeks after the intergovernmental conference opened in Rome on 4th October, and, of course, much water has passed under the bridges of the Tiber since then. I thus feel that I can usefully use my speaking time in this debate to review briefly the overarching findings of our report and then, equally briefly, to refer to some of the most important issues as yet unresolved in the IGC and relate them to the conclusions that we reached in our own report.
We started from the position that, with 10 new countries set to join the EU next May, it was necessary to agree a new treaty now as it was generally considered that the present institutional structure was not satisfactory for a Union of 25 states. Accordingly, the draft treaty which emerged from the Convention on the Future of Europe reforms the EU's institutions, changes the way that the EU works, including granting the Union some new competences, and, most importantly, enhances the role of national parliaments.
The treaty is, however, largely composed of the text of the current treaties—that is, those stretching from the founding Rome Treaty through the Single European Act and on through the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. Thus, much of what the new draft treaty provides for is not new. A considerable range of matters in those earlier treaties have already become subject to EU law, and we concluded, although dividing by six to two in a vote in the committee, that the extension of European Union law in the treaty seems relatively limited in comparison with earlier treaties.
Our report sought to establish whether the draft treaty was good for the European Union and at the same time good for the United Kingdom. We, therefore, put it to four tests. The first was whether it confirmed the European Union as a union of member states rather than a state in its own right. The committee's answer to that question was yes, but it was not unanimous. The committee members present divided eight to one in favour.
The second and third tests were linked. Would the treaty deliver significant improvements in democracy, accountability and transparency, would it make any difference to the citizens and would it bring the European Union institutions closer to them? We concluded that overall it would make some contribution to democracy and accountability in the Union; for example, the treaty sets out very clearly for the first time what the European Union is. At the same time we recognise that as a union of member states, rather than a state in its own right, it cannot provide some of the direct mechanisms of democracy such as the power to remove a government that would exist in a state. Therefore, a key theme of our report is that national parliaments should do more, both individually and collectively, to hold their governments, who take so many of the decisions, to full account.
That is all the more important because, as we concluded in May in one of our earlier reports on the convention's ongoing work, the balance of power in
336
the Union would shift from the Commission to the member states if certain of the tabled proposals for institutional reform were adopted.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the report is fascinating, but the phrase that the noble Lord has just used, which has been quoted very extensively by government Ministers, includes the thought that the balance of power will shift from the Commission to the member states. Does he mean to the European Council or literally to the member states themselves, to their executives and to their parliaments? Which does he mean?
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the noble Lord has hit the nail on the head. The balance of power is shifting to the Council, the sovereign representatives of the member states of the European Union. We were referring in particular to the strengthening of the role of the Council, through a reform of the six-monthly presidencies and the election of a Council president for a once-renewable two-and-a-half year term. Clearly, the Government agree, as the noble Lord has rightly said, as their White Paper cites an earlier conclusion of ours and states that these reforms to the Council will:
"bring coherence and consistency to the EU's actions, and thereby give the Member States through the Council much greater capacity to give direction and momentum to the EU's agenda, for example on the Lisbon Process".
You will see in the report before your Lordships that between May and October, when our report was published, we saw no reason to modify our earlier conclusion that power would be shifting from the Commission to the member states. But that was not quite the unanimous view of the committee with two members dissenting in a division on this point.
We concluded, on the other hand, that the draft treaty is far less successful in securing transparency or bringing the EU closer to the citizens. General public interest in EU affairs remains limited in this country. One has only to consider the number of people who take the trouble to vote in elections to the European Parliament. Nevertheless, the new treaty provisions investing the national parliaments with the task of policing the Commission's respect for the subsidiarity principle have the potential to contribute to a greater public engagement. Any objection by a national parliament would be widely seen as that parliament standing up for national interests.
That, of course, implies that the Government should do more to explain the draft treaty to the general public, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The White Paper is a good start, and Parliament at least is being well served by the time spent by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for European affairs when they appear before the Joint Committee of both Houses on the IGC. Our report urged the Government to widen the remit of the European Strategy Committee which was set up to co-ordinate a Whitehall-wide focus on the benefits of membership of the euro, including informing the public about the EU in general. We are very satisfied that the Government have done so.

337
The fourth test was whether the provisions of the draft treaty would make the European Union more efficient. We saw much in the draft that could have that effect to the extent that there were sensible proposals for the reform of institutions and for the simplification of the Union's working practices. In several important cases the question remains whether they will be agreed in suitable form at the Heads of State meeting in Brussels in 10 days' time. It really is important to get it right and that is why we concluded that the IGC should not rush to agree the treaty. Of course, it needs to be agreed in time for the accession of the 10 new member states next May and for the subsequent elections to the European Parliament in June. But it is no tragedy if it is not agreed by the end of the Italian presidency at the end of this month. It can be completed, if necessary, in the early weeks of the succeeding Irish presidency. That is a small price for getting it right, and Italy will still have its just reward with a signing of an eventually agreed treaty in its capital, Rome.
I turn now to a few of the high profile issues that remain to be resolved in the IGC and on which we had expressed our views in this report. On voting weights in the Council, a compromise could still be reached which could end the isolation of Poland and Spain on this point. Our Committee favoured the convention formula of a dual majority system consisting of the majority of member states, representing at least three-fifths of the Union's population, combined in the case of the common foreign and security policy with a two-thirds majority of member states. That simplified system clearly enhances the Union's democratic accountability, apart from being much more understandable. However, we shall have to live with the complex triple majority system agreed at Nice until 2009—that is one of the terms of the treaty—and Poland and Spain have been fighting to keep the Nice formula, which is more favourable to them, in place beyond that date.
Our Government appear to be gaining some support for their suggestion that the decision on the post-2009 formula not be taken now, but some time in the interim period. That may indeed become necessary, but it would be a bit of a cop-out. The weekend after next in Brussels is not too late for the IGC to be looking at sensible alternatives to the draft treaty's 50 per cent/60 per cent formula. Both a 50/50 formula or a 60/60 formula would increase the ability of the small and medium-sized member states to form a blocking minority.
On the size of the Commission, we do not see the draft treaty's proposal as an ideal way of seeking to enhance either the efficiency or the accountability of the Union. On balance, however, it is just acceptable, but we have urged the Government to explore alternatives. The upshot appears to be that we are moving inexorably towards a one-commissioner-per-member-state solution, at least for the time-being. An unwieldy Commission of 25 will do nothing to improve the efficiency of the European Union. And the question still remains whether some of the biggest members will accept that only if they get back their two commissioners, thus risking a Commission of 31.
338
Last Monday when I put that to the Foreign Secretary in the Joint Standing Committee on the IGC, I was relieved to hear from him that Britain was not pushing for a reversion to its two commissioners, although I have to wonder whether that admirable intention can survive if other large members, who insist on their two commissioners, get their way as a condition of agreeing to one commissioner for each of the medium and smaller-sized states.
With respect to the creation of the post of Union "Foreign Minister"—a name that we and the Government dislike—we remain adamant, as do the Government, that that is essentially an inter-governmental post, and that if it has to be double-hatted with a vice-presidency in the Commission, it must be made clear beyond all peradventure that the office-holder is first and foremost accountable to the Council.
We share the Government's dismay that the Italian presidency has reverted to the earlier unacceptable proposition enshrined in Article III-201 that the Council of Ministers shall act by qualified majority voting when adopting a European decision on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. As we insisted in our report, any implementing decision based on a proposal coming from the EU Minister must be preceded by a unanimous European Council request for such a proposal.
Our report also spoke out strongly against the proposed passerelle clause or the escalator clause as some prefer to call it which, despite its safeguards, could lead to the Council abolishing unanimity in certain areas without any substantive involvement of national parliaments. If the treaty were explicitly to list certain clearly defined areas where the passerelle could acceptably be applied, our objections might be removed. But it does not, and so it should be entirely eliminated. We hope that the Government will continue to seek that.
On one issue our report revises an opinion we had expressed in an earlier report on subsidiarity. We had originally favoured a "red card" to supplement, where necessary, the "yellow card" as a warning mechanism to the Commission where national parliaments feel it is abusing the subsidiarity principle. We now agree with the "yellow card only" proposal in the draft protocol. We feel that the existence of a red card might result in the yellow card being devalued and treated insufficiently seriously.
As it is topical, I have to deplore strongly the opportunity lost to reform the stability and growth pact in the course of the Inter-Governmental Conference. In anticipation of that failure—because we did anticipate it—our report suggested that the treaty might at least make express provision in specified articles for it to be amended by member states acting unanimously rather than by way of the formal treaty revision process. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, produced an excellent report on revising the stability and growth pact. If we can avoid going through the very long process of normal treaty revision, I hope that the kinds of excellent proposals and reforms he has advocated can be put in place without too much delay.

339
Finally, perhaps I may ask a question of the Minister who is to reply. Are the Government now satisfied with the wording in Article I-40(7), the mutual defence clause?
I have taken much of your Lordships' time—and I apologise—but this is a very substantial report. I wish our Government well at the Brussels summit. There are still some very difficult problems to be solved and decisions to be made and it will not be easy. An enlarged European Union needs a good treaty; the British people will benefit from a good treaty. Let us hope that that can be achieved in Brussels. But, as I have urged, if more time is needed, it must be taken.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am conscious that there are 36 further Back-Bench speeches to follow mine. Perhaps I may therefore make myself popular with at least 36 Members of your Lordships' House by saying that I intend to keep my remarks fairly short.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I rise to address that part of the gracious Speech which refers to the negotiations taking place on the draft European treaty. That treaty has been the subject of extensive inquiry by the European Union Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has spoken to its most recent report on the subject.
The draft report has also been the subject of a specific inquiry by the Constitution Committee, which I have the honour to chair. We decided that it would be appropriate to consider the implications of the draft treaty for the British constitution.
One of the most important changes to our constitution was brought about by membership of the European Community in 1973. That had profound implications for the central tenets of the British constitution. The problem is that we have rarely stood back to look at the consequences of EC membership for our constitutional arrangements.
The motivations for joining the European Community were essentially economic and political. At the time of joining there was little appreciation of the full constitutional implications. It was only later, with some notable court cases in the 1990s, that the implications began to be more fully appreciated. The outputs of Parliament could be set aside—something that ran counter to the Diceyan doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament had provided for this but the implications were never clearly discussed or embraced.
The constitutional implications of later treaties also were usually appreciated only after the event, notably so in the case of the Single European Act. In terms of grasping the constitutional implications of European treaties, it is a case of running in order to catch up. My view is that we still have a long way to go. The report of the Constitution Committee is designed to draw out the constitutional implications of the draft treaty and to ensure that they are recognised now rather than after the event.
340
The committee invited a number of academics to contribute papers identifying the constitutional implications. We received some excellent responses and these are published as the written evidence. The committee has not sought to offer comments of its own. Rather, the report seeks to inform debate by identifying those parts of the draft treaty that have implications for the British constitution. As we make clear in our introduction, our report should be read in conjunction with the reports produced by other committees, especially those of the European Union Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place.
Our report is short but covers a substantial amount of ground. The fact that it is able to do so owes much to the work of our excellent legal adviser, Professor Anthony Bradley. The report draws attention to the most prominent provisions of the draft treaty before identifying concerns raised in the papers submitted to us.
As noble Lords will see from the report—my noble friend Lord Howell referred to this—we list 15 issues. We are not necessarily saying that the provisions of the draft treaty to which we draw attention will have an adverse— or a beneficial—consequence for our constitutional arrangements. We are drawing attention to the fact that they have implications for our constitutional arrangements and that we need to be clear as to what the implications are.
For those familiar with the draft treaty, some of the issues listed in the report will not come as a surprise— the new provision for the division of powers; EU framework laws; qualified majority voting; the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the new competencies of the Union; the provision for EU law to have direct effect in justice and home affairs; and the impact of powers embodied in the treaty on devolved areas and local government in the United Kingdom.
Paragraph 24 of the report is important for what it embodies and for its succinctness, but it cannot be read in isolation from the written evidence on which it draws. One has only to read the papers by Professor Anthony Arnull of Birmingham University and Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of University College, London to realise that—as ever—the devil is in the detail. The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to the committee, adopts a rather broad brush approach. The academic witnesses adopt a fine comb in going through the hefty document.
Time precludes a detailed analysis of each of the submissions, but perhaps I may group the concerns under three heads: those of confusion, limitation and omission.
In his paper, Professor McEldowney of Warwick University writes:
"There is plenty of room for interpretation, particularly as there is such unnecessary vagueness … The powers granted under the draft Constitution are vague and ambiguous".
Professor Arnull's paper is especially persuasive in identifying those parts of the draft treaty that give rise to confusion and uncertainty. Examples relate to primacy, competition policy, the capacity for provisions of framework laws to be used to bring proceedings against

341
private parties, and the relationship between the President of the European Council and the proposed Minister—or representative—for Foreign Affairs. Both he and Ms Douglas-Scott record the problem—it is a serious potential problem—in delineating clearly between rights and principles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ms Douglas-Scott also notes that though the Union is required to "respect" the national identities of its member states and their essential state functions, it is, in her words,
"not entirely clear what 'respect' means in this context".
In terms of limitation, I refer to the failure to provide more extensive provision for involvement by national parliaments, a matter also addressed in the EU Committee's report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has already referred. As he mentioned, there is provision only for what has been termed the "yellow card" mechanism, under which the Commission may be required to reconsider a matter, rather than the "red card" mechanism, under which national parliaments could refer a matter to the ECJ if their concerns over subsidiarity were not met. Under the proposed protocol on the application of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, action may be brought by a national government on behalf of the parliament but, as Professor Arnull notes, that is possible under the existing treaties. He sees no point in including in the treaty a provision that has no effect. He thinks that it should be replaced or amended to give effect to the "red card" procedure. In that respect he differs from the EU Committee.
In terms of omissions, there are various examples that could be taken. For reasons of time I shall mention only one. As Ms Douglas-Scott notes, the treaty is silent about who decides the boundaries of competencies.
There are thus important constitutional issues raised by the draft treaty. I have not even addressed the significant implications for criminal law dealt with by Ms Douglas-Scott in her paper, nor for devolution addressed by Alan Trench in his.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has already referred to the Government's response. In that response they have touched in passing on the concerns raised in our report. Where the report has most relevance for the Government is in relation to the analysis of the final text that the Government have promised to produce. In that, we need to have a clear statement of what the impact of the treaty will be on the constitution of the United Kingdom. If we know the implications before and not after the event, then that will constitute a major step forward.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I first thank the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Redesdale, for their very kind and generous words of introduction. It is certainly a privilege and an honour to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House and especially to do so in the debate following the gracious Speech.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank your Lordships for the general warm welcome I have received as I have surfaced here after 42 years in the
342
Royal Navy. I very much look forward to contributing to your Lordships' deliberations at this interesting period of our history in domestic and foreign affairs, even if today such contribution needs to have some maidenly muting—I need to dampen expectations that may have been raised by previous speakers.
Perhaps I may start with foreign affairs. I begin my contribution to today's debate by commenting, from my perspective in my last appointment, on the relationship between defence and the Foreign Office and the product of that liaison, which is defence diplomacy. Excellent working relationships are in place here in London at the very highest level between diplomats and defence officials, both uniformed and civilian, and the strong trust and understanding that exists between those two departments, which enhances policy making and its implementation on both sides of Whitehall, cascades down to the coalface to bear fruit in such areas as the team effort in foreign missions, where we have nearly 500 people from defence deployed; or, as another example, to our teams from the three services in a number of countries conducting training and advisory tasks to contribute to the work being done by our embassies to raise the UK's profile and reputation.
The Minister also mentioned our joint efforts in Africa. All of this is largely unsung, but it is very important. I very much hope that every effort will continue to be put into seeing that this synergistic and symbiotic relationship is nurtured and developed.
While I am on this blurred edge between defence and foreign matters, your Lordships would not be surprised if I were to mention European defence—or perhaps they would, since I am required in this speech to be non-controversial. It is, of course, never my intention to be anything else.
However, I hope I do not venture into forbidden territory if I say that I have anxieties about where we are heading with respect to the relationship between NATO and the European Union; and I am particularly conscious of the words in the gracious Speech that the Government will work for a strong partnership between Europe and the United States, underpinned by NATO, a sentiment with which I totally agree. I strongly support any improvement in the defence capability of European Union nations, even if, in some cases, it seems a lamentably long time in coming, because it would undoubtedly be of ultimate benefit to NATO. But I would add that we must ensure that money raised under the banner of EU defence improvements is directed to where it will have sensible value; that is, towards fighting effectiveness.
On that note I turn to the United Kingdom's defence capability. Just over 12 years ago, in his maiden speech. the late Lord Fieldhouse—incidentally, I am not sure whether it is kind or careless of your Lordships to have allowed two submariners into this House—underlined the importance of our forces having mobility, flexibility and sustainability if they were to be able to respond effectively at short notice to whatever threat turned up. How right he was. Although some see these as fundamental components of maritime power—which

343
they are—the way all three services have demonstrated these attributes in the past two to three extraordinarily busy years has been remarkable. It has allowed them to execute a series of highly successful operations—Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq, to mention the main ones.
So I look forward to the defence White Paper, which was trailed in the gracious Speech and earlier today, building on these capabilities without absconding from the responsibility of recognising the absolutely essential component of fighting prowess, and thus enabling us to continue to be able to deal with the expected; and what we expect, of course, the unexpected.
I imagine we will also see mentioned in the White Paper something of the new jargon which is appearing, such as "effects-based warfare", "digitised battlespace", "network-enabled capability" and so on. Your Lordships will get plenty of that in the future, so they will be pleased to hear that I shall not spoil their anticipation now. Suffice to say, these are actually all very important, and are vital to development.
However, they will have to be paid for; and, indeed, the increase of focus on capability and effects as opposed to platforms may see some advocating that there can be some reduction in the importance of front-line strength in numerical terms, thus potentially freeing up money. But even if one accepts that, it is important to realise that the evolving philosophy primarily applies to the single situation, warfighting scenario, since the capabilities being spoken of are those which are optimised at the high-intensity end of the business.
So we need to remember—and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, has already alluded to this—the low-intensity end, where we are for the vast majority of the time with our forces spread thinly around the world as they are today; that however clever the technology, it does not deliver the capability to be in two places at the same time, such as patrolling simultaneously in the Gulf and the south Atlantic. We have not yet cracked the fourth dimension. So, if there is to be a cut in frontline numbers, then no doubt we can also expect to see a cut in commitments. Anything else would be inexplicable to our already fully stretched servicemen and servicewomen.
Having mentioned our service people, I shall now conclude by saying something about them and their expectations. No one could possibly argue that they have performed other than exceptionally during the past few years. I have mentioned some of the operations where I would highlight, in particular, their extraordinary ability to switch almost instantaneously from intense warfighting to peacekeeping that was so well demonstrated in Iraq. It is as admirable as it is unique.
But we should not forget the many "normal business" activities that everyone tends to forget, such as duties in Northern Ireland or the Balkans, on strategic deterrent patrol in the Atlantic somewhere, on air defence standby in the Falkland Islands—and very many others—let alone the odd engagement with foot and mouth disease or firefighting tasks.
344
So what do our soldiers, sailors and airmen expect? In short, they just want recognition for their efforts and sacrifice. By that I do not mean personal reward, although of course that is important, but recognition of what defence through their efforts does for the UK. By and large that happened recently in the last spending review, which was well received. But, given what our servicemen and women have done since then, I very much hope that the current budgeting round and the outcome of the next spending review will not leave them with any perception that they are not valued. I fear that we seem to be heading that way at the moment. Our servicemen and women are not just "among the best", which I have heard some people say; they are "the best". Let us keep them that way.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, on an excellent maiden speech. The Minister was right: we received a real treat. The noble and gallant Lord spoke with great authority, as one would expect following his distinguished naval career and his time as CDS. The House will welcome the further strengthening of defence expertise, especially of the Royal Navy, here. As the overall commander of our forces during the highly successful Iraq war, the noble and gallant Lord deserves congratulations from the whole House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I look forward to many more contributions from him, not least when we debate the White Paper, when perhaps he may be less controversial.
Noble Lords: More!
Lord Astor of Hever: Or more controversial, my Lords.
I join other noble Lords in paying tribute for the Iraq operation to our Armed Forces and to their families—in particular to the families of those killed on operations— and to the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence civilian staff, those at Permanent Joint Headquarters and at other defence establishments involved in planning and execution.
I shall speak briefly on the Territorial Army. In 1914, my grandfather, Sir Douglas Haig, set up the Territorial Force to reinforce the regular Army.
The Options for Change review saw TA strength reduced to 63,500. Under this Government, the TA has been slashed to less than 40,000, including recruits and university OTCs, who cannot be operationally deployed. Can the Minister confirm the claim by the Sunday Times that TA manpower will be further reduced to fewer than 30,000? It is surely madness to cut numbers when the world has never been a more dangerous place.
TA soldiers provide tremendous value for money. They have provided up to 14 per cent of the Army's strength in former Yugoslavia, been deployed to Sierra

345
Leone and are still in Afghanistan. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, reserves account for 25 percent of the Iraq deployment and four TA soldiers died there. In October, The Times reported the very short notice given to some reservists mobilised compulsorily for Iraq. Five days is not long enough to tell families and hand over a civilian job. I understand that that is being addressed and I hope that the noble Baroness can give us an update.
Full-time reserve service members make good the shortfall in the regular Army and are limited to about 1,100. They have proved indispensable during recent operations. Why has an instruction been issued banning any further employment and extension of service to full-time reservists at this time, when the regular Army is still 5,000 under strength? Now comes the announcement of the next call-up of reservists: 1,100 men and women to deploy in February. At the current operational tempo, we are in danger of running out of reservists. Already, the reserve of the reserves is too low.
The TA is also being asked to form the 14 civil contingency reaction forces. Two companies of the TA's London regiment, which plays a major role in civil contingency cover for London, are being sent to Iraq. How do the Government plan to protect London in their absence?
Without the TA, the regular Army would not be able to meet its current operational commitments. In those circumstances, one would expect significant emphasis to be given to the training of TA officers and soldiers. Yet increasingly, that is not the case. A TA infantry officer is no longer trained in the use of support weapons, such as the MILAN anti-tank weapon. Without additional training, a TA major cannot be used in a regular infantry battalion, other than as a watch-keeper or liaison officer. The TA infantry use different vehicles and weapons. A similar situation applies in the more technical arms, where individuals are not trained on the computer equipment and technical systems they will use once mobilised.
Following the savage cuts under the Strategic Defence Review, a TA company comprises only two rifle platoons plus a support platoon. But one of those in practice becomes a recruit training platoon, leaving an infantry company that is only platoon strength. TA soldiers, therefore, are highly unlikely to experience training at company, let alone battalion level.
The financial pressure on our regular forces grows every year, even as their commitments grow. There is an increasing incentive to use territorials to fill the gaps, often without any thought for the impact that that may have on their military or civilian careers.
The TA is now in a downward spiral of inadequate training and equipment, leading to a decline in its overall usefulness to the regular Army in anything other than the most specialist areas. Combined with poor administration, disrupted training and inadequate career management, the future of the TA looks worse than it has since the end of the Second World War.
5.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, unlike other right reverend Prelates, whose predecessors leave your Lordships' House on retirement, I have the distinct privilege of sitting under the watchful eye of my distinguished antecedent, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard. It feels like coming in to bat for the first time opposite the captain, who has already scored a century—and most of that with sixes.
I feel that in this debate, which features Europe, I should confess to your Lordships that I am half Scottish and half Welsh. That means that by the law of resultant forces I was bound to end up in Liverpool. I was on "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4 once when Scotland were playing Wales at Cardiff Arms Park. I thought that it would be good to end the piece by saying in both Gaelic and in Welsh, "May the best man win". When I enquired on the telephone of a lecturer at the University of Cardiff if he could tell me what was the Welsh for, "May the best man win", he said,
"There is no such phrase in the Welsh language".
During the past 20 years, I have served as a minister in the Church of England in the south-west, the south-east, the north-east and now the north-west of England. In the north especially, I have observed the unique role that faith communities have in our society. Last month, the regional development agency in the north-west published an important new report called Faith in England's North West. It has regional, national and European significance. It demonstrates with statistics what many of us know anecdotally: that the faith communities make a remarkable contribution to the social capital of this country.
Of more than 4,000 questionnaires, 54 per cent were returned, revealing that more than 45,000 volunteers were actively involved in their communities and that the faith communities are strongest where the social need is greatest. Quantifying the number of volunteers, professional ministers and community buildings helps us to understand how important a trellis the faith communities are creating on which to grow the vine of flourishing communities. Indeed, the working together of faith communities at local level and the fostering of good relationships between the faith communities regionally significantly contributes to the good relations between the faiths internationally, and therefore to global security.
In the north-west region, old rivalries are dying. Liverpool was an enthusiastic supporter of Manchester's great achievements in holding the Commonwealth Games and Manchester a champion of Liverpool's successful bid to become European City of Culture in 2008. However, I must say that one of the biggest challenges to my faith as Bishop of Liverpool was when, on my way in to Anfield to watch Liverpool play Manchester United, I was asked to pray for David Beckham's foot. I was tempted to ask which one and what for. I leave it to your Lordships to speculate on what I did, for I do not wish to be controversial. I will happily tell your Lordships the result privately. Suffice it to say that that was certainly a day when the best men won.

347
Like other regions in Europe, the north-west of England is a contrast of urban and rural landscapes. It is a region engaging seriously and strenuously with both urban and rural regeneration. And, where necessary, environmental issues are being taken ever more seriously.
We live at a unique moment in the history of the human family. Previously, human actions were trivial by comparison with the processes of nature. That is no longer the case. Now the very forces of nature literally tremble at the power exerted by human actions. The future of the earth is not just a regional issue but a national and European one.
In my engagement with young people, I have been struck by their anxiety over global insecurity and by the concern for the way we treat the environment. During Lent in the millennium year, I toured the diocese of Liverpool, which covers 1.5 million people. I went into many schools and met thousands of young people. I wanted to hear their dreams and dreads of the future. I wanted to tell them why I thought that the moral and spiritual values of the Christian faith were still relevant 2,000 years on.
In a discussion about the future of the planet, I asked them on a scale of nought to 10 how worried they were about the earth's future. I asked them to put their hands up if they placed themselves between five to 10. It is no exaggeration to tell your Lordships that in every single school 100 per cent of hands went up.
I then asked them to what extent they thought we ought to do something about the future of the environment. Again, I asked them to place themselves on a scale of nought to 10. In every case, 98 or 99 per cent of young people put their hands up to indicate that there was a moral case for taking action about the future of the earth.
There is an African proverb which says, "We have borrowed the present from our children". It makes me aware of the responsibilities that we have in your Lordships' House as we in Britain play our part with other nations in Europe and in the rest of the world, creating a global community which is founded upon justice and mercy so as to secure the future stability of the earth.
I look forward to serving here in your Lordships' House.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is my privilege to comment on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I have been known to be critical of Bishops, which perhaps is a good thing, but, happily, individual Bishops can entirely reverse my opinion. The speech we have just heard was full of humour, enriched by the work he has done in his field and the knowledge he has gathered. I am sure that he will be a great asset to the House and I hope that we will hear him often.
As a former member of the Royal Air Force, I want to speak today because of certain threats I have read in various Scottish newspapers about the future of
348
some of our famous regiments. In particular, as I live in Angus, I am concerned about the future of the Black Watch. I was pleased to hear denials of any intention to amalgamate or destroy the great regiments of this country.
That was all right, until I came across a copy of an interview in The Times with the Defence Secretary, Mr Hoon. The Defence Secretary said that he was planning radical changes because warfare was increasingly reliant on high-tech weaponry and sophisticated intelligence-gathering systems, not on tanks and soldiers with bayonets. That struck me as a sinister remark. Mr Hoon did deny that he was thinking of abolishing well-known regiments.
Highlighting the new era of high-tech wars, it was revealed in the article that the battle for Basra by British troops in March was first fought by computer, using the most detailed war game model ever produced. I understand that many hours were spent on producing plans which were submitted to General Reith, who was to command the operation.
I am certain that it is absolutely necessary to use computers for gaining information which will be of great value in future, but I do not know whether the production to the commander in chief of five or six separate plans will be useful. However, one thing is certain, as was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, in his maiden speech: they all depend on what is happening on the battlefield. And what happens on the battlefield depends on the quality of the troops in the front line. They are essential and no war has ever proved that more than the Iraq war.
A brilliant battle was fought with all the workings of modern technology. The brilliant advance to Baghdad, executed in appallingly hot weather, was marvellously done. However, there were not the troops on the ground to consolidate the victory. I also understand that the American chiefs of staff wanted at least twice the number they had.
The behaviour of our troops in Basra has made us all very proud. Without denigrating any other regiment, the Black Watch in particular distinguished itself. The colonel who ventured into a hostile mob, taking off his helmet and putting on his bonnet with the red hackle, was a stroke of genius and bravery which would never have been indicated by a computer.
We and the regiments need proper reassurance. We need to know that the Army, the chiefs of staff and the Defence Secretary appreciate that more infantry are needed on the ground in any war to which we are liable to be party. I hope and trust that when it comes to the point, instead of trying to amalgamate the Black Watch or any other regiment, the Government will consider forming a second battalion of that famous regiment.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, when I listened to the gracious Speech last Wednesday and heard the commitment to promoting peace in the Middle East, I was more pessimistic about Israeli/ Palestinian relations than I am today, one week later.

349
Last week, I was privileged to be one of the British participants and to chair part of the first Rabin Peace Seminar organised by the Labour Friends of Israel and the Yigal Allon Educational Trust. The Palestinian and Israeli participants were senior, experienced politicians and officials, some of whom knew one another well from years of meetings and negotiations. All were in positions of current responsibility in their community and administration, although none, of course, made any official commitment.
Our hope was that a quiet and discreet country venue in Britain would provide both sides with a useful opportunity to further their relationships and their dialogue, especially at this particular moment, when there seems to be a real window of opportunity for movement. In recent weeks, we have had the extraordinary statement by the Israeli army's chief of staff that repressing Palestinians was reducing Israel's security, not helping it. We have also had the even more extraordinary position of four former heads of the Israeli security service, Shin Bet, joining together to say that Israel must find peace and that the present policy was not doing that. All that has given new life to a badly weakened Israeli peace movement. We also had the Geneva accord, signed publicly on Monday. So, it is a moment of hope.
What I found encouraging about the Rabin seminar was the depth, detail and strength of the dialogue, which all the British contingent found impressive to observe. We were assured that the name of Rabin was, in the context of peace, acceptable to both sides. We have offered to hold a further such event.
One thing that was clear was that there was no point in rehearsing painful history. Both sides have grievances and tragic experiences aplenty. Although history can never be forgotten—far less ignored—one must deal with the present and the future. What is true for Israelis and Palestinians should also be true for outside commentators, many of whom do no service to anyone with a one-sided interpretation of history. I am afraid that this House is not immune from that: too often we hear interventions that seem to treat the Israeli/Palestinian situation as if history started in 1967. If we are talking about the observation of UN resolutions, let us start not with 242 but with 181, from 1947, which established the state of Israel, as well as Palestine. If we talk about appalling conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps, let us not start in 1967, when Israel took control, but speak also about the situation when countries such as Jordan and Egypt were in control.
I speak with some feeling on the matter. I first visited Gaza in August 1967. It was dreadful, but the Israelis had been there only a matter of weeks. The awful conditions in Gaza were there when it was Egypt's responsibility. Egypt did not give the Palestinians free access to Egypt proper, so they had to stay in those conditions from 1948.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to deal with Iraq, which will have to await another opportunity. No one can pretend that there are not enormous problems. Solutions will not be quick, easy, painless or
350
cheap, but I believe that resolution is possible. Outside the Sunni triangle, conditions are improving; even inside it, that would be more clearly the case, if sabotage could be crushed. It seems to me that NATO could play a useful role in Iraq. NATO already provides logistical support to Poland for its co-ordination of the multinational division in its area of control in Iraq.
In the past year, NATO has passed through turbulent times. Some say that, last February, NATO looked into the abyss. It is certainly true that many realised, at that time, the importance of NATO and its need to exist. NATO has shown itself, once again, to be resilient and capable of changing to meet new challenges. The reason why NATO is now in Afghanistan and, perhaps, could soon be further involved in Iraq is that, in the current world, if you do not go out of theatre, that which is out of theatre will inevitably come to you.
We parliamentarians and politicians have a responsibility to ensure that our citizens understand the new NATO—not the NATO of its founding fathers or even our own fathers, but the widening defensive alliance that is NATO today, facing new, different and some, as yet, unknown challenges with its broadening and active membership. Last week, NATO and EU staffs held a joint exercise to test the mechanisms by which NATO assets can be used in EU operations in which NATO is not involved. This week, NATO and EU foreign ministers are meeting for consultations. I am confident that an increased European defence capability—something talked about as desirable for many years by the Americans as well as the Europeans—can be accommodated alongside the NATO of today and the future.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce on his excellent maiden speech and saying how nice it is to see the Royal Navy represented at the appropriate level in the House.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the threat. I say that because I think that there is a head-in-the-sand approach to the seriousness of that threat. I quote from Robert Cooper's excellent book, The Breaking of Nations. As noble Lords will know, he is a highly respected serving British diplomat. He says:
"The worst times in European history were in the 14lh century after the 100 Years War, in the 17th century at the time of the 30 Years War and in the first half of the 20th century. The 21st century may be worse than any of these. The wars of the 20th century in Europe were the first great wars of industrial society …In this multiple catastrophe, the single most important thing that went wrong was that technology overran political maturity. The new century risks being overrun by both anarchy and technology. Two great destroyers of history may reinforce each other. Both the spread of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction point to a world in which Western governments are losing control. The spread of the technology of mass destruction represents a massive redistribution of power away from the industrial and democratic states towards smaller states that may be less stable and have less of a stake in an orderly world; or more dramatically still may represent a redistribution of power away from the state itself and towards individuals, that is to say terrorists or criminals".

351
I recognise that meeting the challenge will require concerted action that goes well beyond military capability. However, our Armed Forces will have a key and vital role to play. To an extent, that has been acknowledged by the Government, but—it is a big "but"—that recognition is not matched by anything like adequate defence funding. Despite the uplift last year, a large gap remains. My noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank has pointed out the immediate problems that the new resource accounting has brought about. We are trying to find something close to £ 1 billion now and in the following three years. Such things as recruiting have been stopped. We cannot suddenly turn them on again.
The Strategic Defence Review was an important step in recognising that our Armed Forces needed to be capable of deploying, fighting and winning in high-intensity conflicts well outside the NATO area and the area beyond. However, the SDR was significantly underfunded and did not anticipate the high level of operational activity facing our Armed Forces.
Several of your Lordships referred to the Secretary of State's speech at the Royal United Services Institute in June this year. I agree with much of what he said about improving the fighting capability of our Armed Forces and equipping them with some of the high-tech capabilities that he talked about. However, like several noble Lords, I believe that that is just one end of the spectrum of conflict and that we will find that the need for infantry—for boots on the ground—is as high as ever. It is foolhardy to talk of a peace dividend from Northern Ireland, when we have so many other operational commitments. That was also referred to by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank.
I should like, if I may, to give noble Lords a flavour of the pressure on the Regular and Reserve Army at the moment. A number of your Lordships have talked about the tremendous commitment that the reservists have shown. I am told that more than 7,000 are currently deployed on operations, which is a very high figure. I would argue that we need a radical review of what we expect from our Reserve Forces, first in homeland defence, and secondly as reinforcements for the Regular Army. That is urgent work. My sense is that the Reserve Forces will need a significantly larger budget.
For the Regular Army the average interval between tours is about 10 months, whereas it should be about 24 months. I know that we have never achieved that, but we are talking about a serious level of over-commitment. Six operational tours have been extended this year. In addition, many individuals have had their tours extended and 10 unit moves have been frozen. All that is bound to have an impact on retention, family life and training standards. Those are not small issues. They paint a stark picture of the challenges currently facing our Armed Forces.
Part of the problem is that our Armed Forces always come up trumps. There is a very real danger that people do not take the risk of operational failure
352
seriously enough. The fact is that our Armed Forces are too small for the tasks that are laid upon them. The Army needs a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 men and women to increase certain unit establishments to make them more robust.
I cannot stress too strongly that our fantastic Armed Forces are seriously underfunded. We are increasing the risk of operational failure. A one-off lift in the defence budget will simply not solve this deep-seated problem.
I turn to the White Paper. I hope that it will contain real substance and not be a superficial bland document about defence policy and the new strategic environment. I hope that it will make clear statements about the future equipment programme and matters such as improving operational logistics support, training, recruiting and retention and, ail-importantly, the effects on our families.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about NATO and Europe. Before doing so, however, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who I believe has been an outstandingly successful Secretary-General who will be much missed when he leaves NATO at the end of this year.
It seems likely that in major conflicts in the future our Armed Forces will operate in coalitions of the willing and, I hope, with the Americans. However, getting the balance right between NATO and Europe warrants a debate in itself. I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, just said about the importance of NATO. I know that some think that NATO is outdated. I fundamentally disagree with that view, not only because America is the key nation in the NATO alliance, but also because NATO has radically changed since the end of the Cold War and is enormously important to the future.
I think that there is a real danger of Europe setting up some sort of wishy-washy duplicate command and control organisation. That would be an unnecessary waste of money and use manpower from already heavily overstretched regiments and units. It would also worry the Americans. If Europe is serious about defence, then it should improve its military fighting capability. I am not sure that people realise just how inadequate Europe's military capability is.
It was Lloyd George who said that war is too important to be left to the generals. Surprisingly, there are some aspects of that sentiment with which I agree. However, it means that a huge responsibility is placed on political leaders to ensure that our wonderful Armed Forces are large enough, have the best equipment and are trained and well led and ready to face threats to the United Kingdom's interests. If Ministers do not face up to this responsibility they risk military failure. Put starkly, it means that they are ready to ask our wonderful servicemen and servicewomen to face danger knowing that they have been inadequately funded.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, raised the issue of what our servicemen and servicewomen want and expect. I think that the Armed Forces will be looking to the Prime Minister for help to ensure that they are adequately funded.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I should like to congratulate both noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches. We certainly look forward to more speeches from them.
There are several references in the gracious Speech to international affairs. Perhaps that is not surprising given that, since the previous gracious Speech, we have become involved in a war in Iraq. International sympathy for the United States post-September 11th extended to action in Afghanistan, where Al'Qaeda training camps were known to be based. Yet when President Bush talked of the axis of evil, singling out Iraq, our Prime Minister made it clear that he did not connect Iraq to Al'Qaeda. Yet, inexorably, the UK was drawn into war, ostensibly not to achieve regime change—a matter of doubtful international legality, however evil Saddam Hussein might be—but because of the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.
There were many warnings before that war about the wide repercussions which would result if action against Iraq was seen to be led not by the international community but rather by a country often regarded as militarily and culturally imperialistic. In the Middle East, one very strongly encounters the feeling that the US and the UK have taken unilateral action in Iraq; that the problems of Israel/Palestine are not being properly addressed; and that the US—and, unfortunately, by association, the UK—does not understand the Islamic Arab world and its culture, and certainly does not realise the extent to which western culture drew from it. There is a huge gulf in understanding.
Al'Qaeda is now operating in Iraq, and Iraq is being used as an excuse for further terrorist atrocities elsewhere in the world. There is little doubt that the UK is now four-square in the sights of those who exploit misunderstandings around the world.
What control do we have over events in Iraq? We are supposedly joint partners in the Coalition Provisional Authority, administered by Paul Bremer. He returns to the United States to report. He changes direction at their request. We asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House how many times he has come to London to report. The answer came back that he has not made one such visit.
Reconstruction requires security, yet each month sees an escalation of insecurity. What is needed to establish security, as one UK official involved has said, is to win hearts and minds. That would be a difficult task at the best of times, as we have seen in Northern Ireland. We are engaged in an enterprise that did not have UN international backing; as the junior partner to a nation not known for its international understanding and not viewed with sympathy in the area it seeks to control; at odds with many of our European allies; with a widened gulf of misunderstanding with Arab countries; and endangering the stability of our own multicultural communities.
354
In this situation, indeed we must throw ourselves into the reconstruction of Iraq, trying to involve those in the region in this task and passing on the control of the country to the Iraqis as soon as possible. However, we have the obligation not to leave them in chaos. I welcome the Government's commitment to that.
Now, predictably and predicted, we find ourselves also having to redirect aid "sooner than planned" from poor people round the world to the reconstruction of Iraq. Could the Minister yet tell me precisely which projects are to be finished before their originally planned time?
The Government have in the past been rightly commended for their commitment to international development, to helping the poor around the world. Iraq threatens that legacy. It is not only funds draining to Iraq, but also attention. In Afghanistan, for instance, a small proportion of the country is secure. Opium production is soaring, despite the Chancellor's pledge that within 10 years we would no longer find Afghan opium on Britain's streets. Now there must also be an increased danger that, as aid to Latin America is cut, the cocaine that emanates from there will increasingly make its way to the UK.
With so much effort focused on Iraq, it is not surprising if perhaps the greatest challenge of our time, the rise and rise of HIV/AIDS, is not getting the international attention that it should. I am glad to see reference to that in the gracious Speech and welcome the Government's call for action on HIV/AIDS published on Monday. However, the scale of the crisis is such that massive efforts will have to be made on the international scene. I am not sure why we must wait until next year for the Government's strategy on the issue. Meanwhile, the catastrophe gains momentum. A report this week showed that in some areas of Botswana there is a 60 per cent incidence of AIDS among workers. A doctor from Durban told me last week that he now spends most of his weekends attending funerals of hospital staff.
AIDS afflicts those who should be most economically active. We shall see economies implode as a result of the disease. But, above all, there is the social cost. How can we have stability and development if the only people left in a country are old people and children? What are the longer-term consequences of such a disaster? That is why the WHO aim of three by five—3 million people into treatment by 2005—is so unambitious. Yet even that will be difficult to achieve on current estimates.
Although children are mentioned in the introduction of the Government's action plan, there seems to be nothing further in the plan about the care of those children. Already, some 14 million children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. By 2010, there will be 40 million AIDS orphans in Africa alone. Save the Children describes the absence of a priority focus on AIDS orphans as alarming and says that they must be given the highest priority. Will the noble Baroness say how the Government plan to help those children?
If the situation were not so appalling, it would be farcical now to contemplate delivering the millennium development goals by 2015. How can we increase the

355
number of children in education if their parents are dying? How can we promote the equality of the sexes if girls must look after their sick relatives? How can we strengthen economies while they are imploding with deaths in every sector? All those slow advances in development in Africa, and the rapid advances in countries such as India and China, will count for nothing if the catastrophic situation is not addressed.
Iraq becomes a distraction from that. As other noble Lords have said, we find ourselves in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world. However much the Government may now wish to concentrate on public services and the situation at home, they cannot do so. They have their own responsibilities for what we have already undertaken internationally. A clear focus on those responsibilities must be their top priority in the months ahead.
5.44 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on other matters. I support fully the comments made by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and other noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords on the importance of ensuring that, in any efforts to strengthen European co-operation, we do not undermine the vital importance and crucial role of NATO.
I welcome yet another Chief of Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, a distinguished submariner, who, we are all delighted, has surfaced in the Chamber at last. There is probably no other occupation in which one appreciates more the value of every single member of the service. The strong speeches made by other noble and gallant Lords, particularly the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Guthrie and Lord Inge, highlighted the importance of people in the future of our defences and Armed Forces.
I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. During his witty, profound speech he said that there was no phrase in the Welsh language for "May the best man win". That is almost my text also— I do not think that the phrase is available in any dialect in Afghanistan; nor is it common in the languages in Iraq. "May the best man win" is not the language being used at present.
Against that background, I echo the words of the Foreign Secretary in opening the response in the other place to the gracious Speech. He said that he thought the world situation to be more dangerous now than it has been for decades. Not only is there a threat of terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is an intelligence warning that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a greater threat of terrorism in this country—I do not think that anybody would challenge that seriously. That is now putting great strain on the resources of the free and democratic world.
I read a quotation from a distinguished American general, on which noble Lords may wish to comment, given that there is a slight feeling that American resources are unlimited. He said that seven of their 10 available divisions were now committed in Afghanistan and Iraq;
356
that they could not do that for much longer than another year; but, at the same time, they understood that the forecast was that they might be there for another 10 years.
The challenge that we face was not without warning. In our debate in this House before the invasion of Iraq, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, said that we would win the war but asked whether we could win the peace. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that it was easy to get in but difficult to get out. Those warnings were clearly given. We face a serious and very dangerous situation.
In the opening Question to the Prime Minister in another place today, yet another Member of this Parliament who is a reservist, Andrew Murrison MP, talked about the deteriorating security situation. We hear encouraging statements from Ministers but I attach some importance to a warning about the situation from someone who has returned so recently. I am not sure whether he was in Basra, which one regarded previously as one of the better areas.
In 1880, the Secretary of State for India said:
"All that has been accomplished in Afghanistan has been the disintegration of a state, and a condition of anarchy throughout the country".
In 2003, that threat exists in Afghanistan and Iraq. It must not be allowed to happen.
The seriousness of our involvement and the implications of failure are too grave to contemplate. We are at a very dangerous time. My noble friend Lord Howell referred to the possibility of having nearly seized Saddam. If that were achieved, it would be the single most important factor in tilting the balance of Iraqi sentiment. Otherwise, against the suggestions of an increasingly organised resistance and increasingly sophisticated attacks on the United States and United Kingdom forces, diplomats and others, including the United Nations, who are sadly on the front line and have suffered grievous casualties, the importance of getting on top of the situation soon could not be greater.
Those currently co-operating with the coalition and trying to play their part in bringing Iraq out of its nightmare into a happier future know the fate that would await them if the process were to fail and the allies and the coalition withdrew. So the importance of not being allowed to fail could not be more clearly stated. That is the challenge against which we debate the gracious Speech. This is an extremely dangerous time for our country, both abroad and at home.
In this situation, we will depend on the people. We will depend on our armed services, our intelligence services and our security forces in their various forms. In that connection, and it may sound odd to introduce this, I am grateful for what the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Guthrie, said about the new appointment on the Conservative Front Bench in the shape of Nicholas Soames, who knows that people matter. I am delighted to see somebody getting involved in the political discussions on these issues who has worn uniform. I know that his appointment will be widely welcomed, as the noble and gallant Lord said.

357
I raise one point with the Minister about his opening speech: I am acutely worried that we are putting a huge strain on the Armed Forces. I strove and failed as Secretary of State for Defence, as a number of noble and gallant Lords know, to achieve a 24-month tour interval. Intervals of six or 10 months have been quoted in this Chamber today, which is absolutely impossible. It is no good Ministers standing up and saying how wonderful our Armed Forces are and how they can always be relied on to perform superbly. They do it because they are superbly trained and because they are ready, trained and equipped for the task. With the tour intervals that they are facing at the present, that is obviously impossible.
The Minister referred to 46,000 troops, which is equivalent to those involved in the first Gulf War. However, the first Gulf War involved 46,000 out of 310,000 troops. We are now into 46,000 out of a total of 210,000 resources. We have a TA.—and I was criticised for reducing it to 63,000—that is now down to 40,000 and falling, and a number of its members are involved in the front line in a quite unprecedented way, so the strain is there.
Government Ministers can be accused of sounding complacent. I do not challenge the Government about that because it is the duty of Ministers to defend the Government and they are not going to stand up and say that they have got it all wrong and failed. I hope that, although they have to defend the Government position from the Dispatch Box, they are seized with the seriousness of the situation. If what was suggested by one of the noble and gallant Lords is true and even basic recruitment has been stopped because of a shortage of funds, that is a very serious matter. However, I am also concerned about retention. If those tour intervals remain, the pressure on families of continual deployment of people overseas will become intolerable. It is one thing for regulars, but if it is applied to reservists as well we will rapidly find a seriously deteriorating situation.
We depend on and are proud of our armed services, to which I pay yet another tribute, because I once had the privilege of being involved with them in a position of responsibility. We must consider their interests. It is not just for their benefit: it is for our own selfish interests as well. At this dangerous and challenging time, we must ensure that we maintain the calibre and quality of our Armed Forces for whatever fresh challenges may arise.
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, on his perceptive and challenging speech. We look forward to more. I was tempted to take up the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord King, about whether, "May the best man win" can be said in Dari or Arabic. I am sure that it can, but that is by the way.
The Minister told us that the Iraqi Governing Council and the coalition have announced a timetable; for the framing of fundamental law, the introduction of a
358
transitional government, elections to a constitutional convention and, eventually, the emergence of an Iraqi government which has the consent of the Iraqi people. Those are all laudable aims, but I hope that some hard thinking is being done in Baghdad, Washington and Whitehall about how all of this is to be achieved. It is said, for example, that a transitional national assembly will be established through "transparent and democratic caucuses". Does that mean that local custom and religious tradition will be taken into account?
In Afghanistan, the Allies encouraged the convening of the Loya Jirgah, a traditional meeting of elders with political and judicial powers. The notion of a Jirgah was modified—the inclusion of women, for example—but its use legitimises the development of government by consent in a country which has been ravaged by one tyrant after another. Whether democracy takes root in Afghanistan still remains to be seen but, if it does, it may well be in a form recognisable by the Afghans themselves.
Samir Al-Khahil, in his book on Iraq, Republic of Fear, points out how democracy was imposed on the Iraqi people under the British mandate but that it never really took root because it was unrelated to local political consciousness. That must not be allowed to happen again. It has often been pointed out that traditional Islamic polity emphasises "participation" rather than "representation". The idea of shura involves widespread consultation, instead of focusing too narrowly and too quickly on producing so-called elected representatives. One of the reasons for the Ba'athist success has been its understanding of participatory politics, however ruthlessly it may have been manipulated by its members. It is to be hoped that the transitional assembly and its government will be based on participatory bodies at the local level. The abuse of shura in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere should not discourage us from its proper use in Iraq.
If shura is a religious idea, baica is a cultural one in the context of Iraq. In traditional Arab societies it signals the approval by a group, tribe, clan or religious community, of those claiming to lead. However informally that is done, such expressions of confidence in the process, as well as in the people produced by the process, will be necessary if the assembly and government are to receive legitimisation.
The Ottoman insistence on the millet system, which defined almost autonomous communities usually on the basis of religion and ethnicity, still influences the mentalities of many in countries such as Iraq. Such sensibilities must be taken into account. That may mean a more federalist than unitary structure at the national level but, in any case, the principle of subsidiarity will have to be respected so that the national government do not seek to do what the communities can do for themselves. At the same time, the system should ensure participation—that word again—particularly of minority ethnic and religious groups at the national level. I am aware that in this respect the make-up of the present Governing Council has itself been criticised—for not having enough Christian representatives, for example. Naturally, it is being asked how the role of Islam should be acknowledged in any future constitution of Iraq. That

359
is also an important issue in Afghanistan. My own view is that the place of Islam in national life should certainly be acknowledged, but its role should be that of influencing and resourcing rather than coercing. For example, the Sharia or Islamic law can be seen to provide the guiding principles for law making. But such laws would also take account of modernity, with its opportunities and problems. That kind of cross-fertilisation would make for a creative marriage of the traditional and the contemporary.
The Governing Council's declaration that the new fundamental law will be based on respect for human rights, freedom of speech and religious tolerance is greatly to be welcomed. Needless to say, those must also be the basic principles governing law-making in Afghanistan. Iraq has a long history of significant religious and ethnic communities living side by side. That must not only be recognised, but also be positively encouraged. The fate of the Iraqi Jews should not be shared by the remaining Assyrian, Syrian and Chaldean Christians, the Mandaeans and the Yezidis.
The challenge is to create a modern state in Iraq that is governed by consent; a state in which political, legal and civil institutions have arisen out of its rich heritage, but also relate well to modern conditions and expectations. It is most important that they should not be seen merely as "imports" from the West or anywhere else. They should be able to deliver fiscal probity and accountability, while, at the same time, manage Iraq's considerable human and natural resources for the well being of all sections of its population. The international community will not have such an opportunity again. It should be used wisely and for the benefit of the Iraqi people—all of them.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it would be fair to say that successive governments have tried to support the needs of our Armed Forces in the changing strategic environment in which they are expected to operate. However, it was clear in the 1990s that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the threat that it posed, there were major reductions to all our Armed Forces. The strength of reductions was severe. I am sure that we on the Opposition Benches at the time were not slow to criticise the Government for their actions. A good deal of our equipment was either out of date or below the required standard in any case.
It was clear to all that changes were necessary if we were to play our role in a new strategic environment. Of course, changes were made. Our Armed Forces may have far fewer tanks, fast aircraft and naval escorts than a decade ago, but they are much better organised and equipped to handle expeditionary operations.
Decisive combat operations have finished in Iraq. We are now focused on stabilisation operations. We conducted a carefully targeted military campaign within the constraints of international law. We are
360
very proud of British servicemen and women, whose sacrifices will not be forgotten. After our recent experience in Iraq, I am sure that there will be a need for more radical change to ensure that we have planned our procurement policy to meet the needs of the next decade in order to keep the British Armed Forces among the best in the world. However, we were very pleased with the way in which our equipment performed in Iraq, particularly in the demanding circumstances and harsh conditions.
It is important for the country and the Armed Forces that the Government get it right and provide the very best equipment now and in the future. While I am on the issue of procurement, perhaps I may compliment the Government on their policy of trying to buy from our home base with the proviso that equipment is good enough to match the very best that there is internationally. I know that with partnerships and foreign shareholding ownership, it is not always easy to determine a UK company. However, it is important that British-based companies are given a fair crack of the whip to produce the best for the internal market and to be in a position to compete in the export field.
It is not always easy for the Government to keep pace with changes in technology, interoperability, flexibility and speed. As we have seen in the past, previous governments have not always got it right. But I am confident that this Government will get it right and will provide equipment that will meet the needs of a modem armed force. We owe it to our servicemen and women to equip them with the very best.
There are many British-based companies that can produce to a high level; they should be helped to sustain the quality of their workforce. I would like to mention Swan Hunter on Tyneside, which has a proud record in the defence industry. I am sure that it will be a valuable asset in the future of naval shipbuilding. It currently employs 1,500 workers at the Wallsend yard. I am pleased to say that Swans, having gone out of business and now returning, is bringing a welcome vibrancy to the town. The chairman, Jaap Kroese, has taken a big gamble and has invested a great deal of his own money in the company in an effort to maintain a shipbuilding presence in the area.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention the work carried out by Northern Defence Industries, which is a cluster of small and medium enterprises in the defence industry covering the north east and Yorkshire. NDI's main mission is to obtain more work for companies that are involved with it. It does that by working closely with prime contractors to build up regional supply chains. Its members share best practice to increase competitiveness. It has already been successful in helping to win business on two hand-held missile systems for the Army. When the two competing companies took their aircraft carrier road shows to the north east, NDI encouraged over 200 companies to register as potential suppliers. I should like to compliment One North East and Yorkshire Forward, both regional development agencies, for their innovative organisation and their funding of NDI, as well as the companies that give commercial sponsorship.

361
Northern Defence Industries is an object lesson in what the usually ignored part of the defence industrial base can achieve. I congratulate all those involved, especially the chief executive, David Bowles, on the remarkable achievements to date. With a large amount of future projects in the pipeline, I am sure that it will not be resting on its laurels. I do not envy the Minister's task of trying to satisfy everyone, while, at the same time, attempting to obtain the best equipment to help our Armed Forces retain their decisive edge throughout the next decade.
6.8 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it has already been mentioned that two years ago we went to war in Afghanistan. We inflicted heavy damage and untold loss of life among soldiers and civilians, as well as successfully driving out the Taliban. We did it because we were bringing freedom and democracy. We thought that refugees would return, girls would go back to school, women would show their faces and musicians would play in the streets. We imagined that the people were waiting for change and crying out for us to release them.
However, it was not as simple as that. Refugees have not returned in the numbers expected. Most women are staying at home. A minority of girls are in school. Many people still seem to fear the return of the hated Taliban; some remain suspicious of the motives of new foreign invaders. But we must not be too disappointed. The Afghan people have their own traditions, councils and ethnic differences. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester so ably said, these must be taken into account during reconstruction.
As we know from history, national unity is a hard-earned prize, which is mostly the product of military strength. Today's coalition rests on fragile alliances of commanders in the north, west and south. President Karzai controls only a proportion of the Pashtun in the south. Despite the efforts of the coalition, the militias are still armed and terrorism still has a hold on the south-east where the Taliban and Al'Qaeda continue to control mines and money-belts.
The noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned 1880, which was rather dire in view of the scale of United Kingdom losses, but it was a warning to which we must listen. This is not one nation, yet the whole UN operation is run from the centre. There are hundreds of aid workers in Kabul plying between heavily barricaded compounds of embassies and UN agencies. In Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, the aid agencies are well established, but to the south and east of the capital they work at their peril, remembering vicious attacks on agencies such as the Red Cross and, more recently, the UNHCR.
All UN operations in Ghazni have now been suspended, In Kandahar, Jalalabad and Gardez, the Afghanistan United Nations Assistance Mission now has only a skeleton staff. In a country where two years ago humanitarian work had seemed such an obvious necessity, the good Samaritans are themselves now in need of our protection. As the noble Baroness,
362
Lady Northover, mentioned, the irony here is that Afghanistan had been one of the poorest countries in the world. According to Save the Children, even today one in four children dies before the age of five, and 60 per cent of those deaths are preventable. Over two-thirds of the schools are still not functioning and tens of thousands of children are at work rather than at school. This is another country where the millennium development goals still seem almost unattainable.
Owing to the war, among other factors, 5.9 million people are still listed by the World Food Programme as "highly vulnerable" and in need of assistance. That figure includes 1.2 million returned refugees, 400,000 displaced people and hundreds of thousands of urban poor who can be seen on the streets of Kabul and elsewhere. These are images to be found in many countries, but because of its special circumstances, Afghanistan is among the very poorest and most deserving of international aid.
Yet because of our decision to enter Iraq, Afghanistan is not receiving enough international attention. The delivery of aid is well behind the Tokyo pledges. It is estimated, for example, that there is a peacekeeper in Iraq for every 92 Iraqi citizens, while there are over 5,000 Afghanis for each peacekeeper. The warning given this week to NATO members by my noble friend Lord Robertson in this context not to neglect Afghanistan—must be taken seriously; and for those noble Lords concerned about the European arrangements for defence, Afghanistan is currently the test case for NATO acting outside its own normal arena. Reconstruction is not possible without security.
The ISAF forces outside Kabul are seriously under strength, and all we are offering is a few hundred German and Norwegian soldiers, along with some more Greek and Belgian helicopters. However, that is not aimed at the British effort because I know that the Foreign Office is working hard with our NATO allies to try to encourage them to join in with this effort. The British are having some success with the provincial reconstruction teams, but those are small in number and many more soldiers are needed alongside the Afghan army and police in preparation for next year's elections which, not surprisingly, the Taliban intends to oppose and disrupt.
The elections will be a critical test of confidence. In a recent survey of Afghan opinion conducted by NGOs such as CARE, Oxfam and six Afghan NGOs in eight provinces, 87 per cent of the respondents said that they would vote in the elections next year. Ninety-five per cent of the men and 78 per cent of the women surveyed said that they would vote, and 73 per cent thought that the elections would bring about positive changes— although a lower proportion, only around 70 per cent, seemed to be aware of the issues involved.
There will be a huge task of civic education around these elections. By its own admission, our embassy still needs to develop a policy involving some of the Afghan NGOs already engaged in work in preparation for next week's Loya Jirgah.
Meanwhile, international attention long ago moved to Iraq. I was delighted that Her Majesty mentioned Afghanistan ahead of Iraq, which is not often heard

363
nowadays, perhaps for chronological or alphabetical reasons. However, the recent visit by President Bush once again polarised attitudes in this country. Many of us who regretted our original entry into Iraq still regret the Prime Minister's conversion to a presidential international style and the distance he continues to keep from the United Nations.
So, as we approach Hutton, some relevant questions arise. Are we really winning the war on terror or is there some misconception? Is the very strength of our military hardware, which is designed to scatter the enemy much as the Greeks did under Alexander, actually generating new units of terror? Is terrorism itself a form of desperation? Are we offering the best long-term solutions? Are aid workers, for example, increasingly seen as the purveyors of western ideas and culture, being perceived as the agents of anti-terrorism instead of anti-poverty? Are we doing enough in considering new approaches in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester was correct: surely we have to beware of imposing our own forms of democracy, religion and culture. When we attend to hearts and minds, we must not give Al'Qaeda the argument that the West has developed a new and subtle form of imperialism. Still more, we must renounce territorial claims or other forms of aggression dressed up as self-defence because they will serve to refuel the very terrorism we are fighting against.
Along with many noble Lords, I should like to see a return to international law based on the resolutions of the UN Security Council, many of which we have totally ignored throughout the Middle East. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have a special responsibility. Far from disengaging, we must build on the respect which many people in the Middle East have for the positive values that they associate with Britain, Europe and the United States. These include religious tolerance, the rule of law, the dignity of individuals and even, to some extent, human rights and democratic government where they coincide with traditional values.
Through institutions such as the British Council, our universities, the BBC and DfID we have already developed links with scholars, lawyers, teachers and artists throughout the Middle East. We do not want to jeopardise those links through our military involvement and our alliances outside the UN, which to many look like neo-colonialism. The vast majority firmly reject extremism and fundamentalism and we have to work twice as hard to retain their support.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in following the noble Earl, I should like briefly to try to connect the subjects of the global war against terrorism with the continuing struggle for greater global justice and development. I was very struck that, when President Bush was in London, his immediate reaction to the terrible bombings in Istanbul was to refer first of all to "homeland security". Perhaps that is understandable,
364
given the domestic television audience in America, but when will we realise that there is only one homeland now, and that is the world in which we all live?
I say that not just in the sense that, to paraphrase Trotsky's famous statement about communism, you cannot have security in one country, and not even as the President was right to announce after 9/11 that the war against terrorism is global, but in the wider and deeper sense that the world is painfully coming of age. Our deep interdependence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred, is becoming more and more palpable. The poor, the sick and the starving of the world—1.5 billion people—are as much our poor as were the urban destitute to our Victorian forefathers in this country. They pose for us exactly the same question: one nation or two; one world or two? Disraeli referred to,
"Two nations; between whom there is… no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other's … feelings, as if they were … inhabitants of different planets".
We have only one planet and on it we all know that the environmental effects of a growing population, whether manifested as grinding poverty or over-hasty industrialisation, is our shared problem. We all know that pandemics such as SARS or HIV/AIDS, of which my noble friend Lady Northover spoke so eloquently, are no respecters of national boundaries. So globalisation is not just about free trade or the Internet; it is about the close interdependence of the whole world.
Military strategists have long recognised that national security lies not simply in military capacity, important as that is, but in the context of health, wealth, education, stability and shared values. How much more does that apply to international security? I, for one, very much regret in the aftermath of 9/11 that the US Administration, alongside the global coalition on terrorism, failed to launch a parallel global coalition for sustainable development and justice—in short, for real security. The subsequent alienation of most of the world from the United States has a great deal to do with that failure of imagination.
Terrorism is nothing new; as long as there are fanatics who put their fundamentalist creeds above the claims of common humanity, there will go on being terrorism at one level or another. No doubt, it will be made potentially more deadly by advanced technology and the spread of destructive modern weapons, and the terrorists must be driven back and contained. However, I should have thought that we British have learned one lesson, either in Northern Ireland or, years ago, in Malaya—in both of which I had a small involvement. The terrorist must not be able to rely on the support of the community. He must be denied acquiescence, refuge and help, because the community does not accept that he is on their side.
The tragedy of this century is that millions of peaceable people who would not themselves dream of killing or maiming vaguely feel that, in a perceived struggle against the imposed will and might of the United States, these fanatics are somehow on their side. Do not mistake that for the naive and patronising argument that poverty itself engenders terrorism. I do not believe that for one moment. However, I do believe

365
that a really effective response, and the creation of true security, which diminishes the likelihood of successful terrorism, depends on denying any succour to the fanatics.
We need a twin-track approach: tough on terrorism, but tender to a world that is seething with a sense of injustice at deep problems, and believes itself to be ignored by the wealthy and powerful. To be fair to the Prime Minister, in his notable speech in Brighton two years ago and in flickers ever since—notably in his genuine concern for the future of Africa—there have been indications that he and the Government well understand what is needed, as I believe do the British people. I was struck by the information that the right reverend Prelate gave us in his notable maiden speech.
Nothing much has happened, however. The G8 funds for NePAD have not left the bank manager's safe. There is no new global Marshall Plan. Even the new AIDS money from the United Stales is hobbled around by unilateralism and the prejudices of the so-called moral majority. The Israel/Palestine situation has been allowed to deteriorate further. Kyoto is in ruins. The world trade system still does not offer full market access to the developing world.
If I should point to a failure of the Anglo-American relationship at this time of international crisis, it lies in the failure on one hand of British leadership to capture the imagination of the leadership, and thence of the people, of the United States, in a realisation of their profound power for good in a troubled world and, on the other hand, a failure by that same leadership to negotiate more effectively with our ally to secure British and global objectives. Of course, we do not have an alliance of equals with the United States, but we should demand an alliance of reciprocity, which we are not getting.
Some will point to the President's speech in London as evidence of a more positive approach. He spoke warmly of democracy. I yield to no one in my own commitment to democracy. I wish the world was more democratic, that this country was more democratic, and that this House was even half democratic. However, I wonder whether democracy is enough, and whether it will not take some time to get established in the Middle East. After all, it took us a few centuries. I wonder, too, whether its establishment does not depend, crucially, on parallel conditions, such as a national identity that transcends other loyalties, such as relative civic calm and the rule of law, and such as the basics of life being in place. I fear that a rush to voting as the instant and universal panacea could prove to have dangerous unintended consequences, such as a boost to those whose goal is theocracy, not democracy at all.
There are some hard questions to be answered about the military adventure in Iraq. I do not refer to the professionalism and courage of our armed services, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, portrayed for us so eloquently. But has it contributed to a more secure world; has it strengthened the United Nations, the European Union and NATO, or has it weakened them? Has it stemmed the rise of
366
fundamentalist Islam, or swollen it? Has it brought a two-state solution nearer for the festering Israel/Palestine question, or has it pushed it further away? Has it boosted support for the war against terrorism or created more acquiescence in those foul deeds?
If our only positive message is democracy, particularly when that democracy seems to be delivered on the business end of precision-guided munitions, I fear that our strategy for a more secure world is pathetically inadequate. A more secure world depends crucially on a more just world, and I believe and hope that Her Majesty's Government will be seen to lead the quest for global justice and development.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I should like to play a variation on one line of the gracious Speech, which reads:
"My Government will work for a strong partnership between Europe and the United States, underpinned by Nato".
It is common ground in this House that there should be a strong partnership between Europe and the United States. Whether that partnership should be underpinned by NATO and whether Europe's security would be seriously compromised without the NATO alliance is the question.
That security comes at a cost, and we should be clear about that. True enough, NATO offers us security, but it is also a mechanism for subordinating the foreign and security policy of Europe to that of the United States. America offers most of Europe protection—in particular the all-important nuclear guarantee—in return for Europe renouncing any ambition to become an independent centre of power in the world. That was the situation inherited from the Cold War. The question is: does it any longer make sense?
As the two noble Lords in opening the debate pointed out, last weekend the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, meeting in Naples, agreed the first step to developing an independent military capacity. They agreed to set up a small operational planning unit outside NATO. That tiny step towards what might be called a unilateral declaration of independence was predictably denounced by United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, as a challenge to NATO. Equally predictably, our own Government insist that it is perfectly consistent with the NATO underpinning to which they are committed.
I do not intend to adjudicate between those two views. I want to address a rather different question. Why are we so willing to accept the rather ignominious position of being a permanent protectorate of the United States? Why do 450 million Europeans need 250 million Americans to defend them? Robert Kagan, the intellectual guru of the Bush administration, has one answer: the Europeans are soft. He writes that,
"Americans are from Mars and Europeans from Venus",
with mingled envy and contempt.
It is true that Europeans are more reluctant to use force than the Americans are—not surprisingly, given their history. But that does not explain, as Kagan thinks it does, the reluctance of what Rumsfeld calls

367
"old Europe" to support the United States in Iraq. Russia and China, which few people believe inhabit Venus, also opposed the US action; while Britain, as we know, took part in it. French opposition did not come from softness; they disagreed with American policy.
Then again, you can hardly say that the Europeans spend no money on defence. The combined defence budgets of the European Union countries total 185 billion dollars. That is about half of what the United States spends. Compare this with 50 billion a year spent by Russia and China. Those are large amounts of money, but what defence do we get for it? The trouble is that, apart from the small but efficient British and French armed forces (which include operational nuclear weapons), EU military expenditure is mostly wasted. It is this waste, not the amount spent, which makes the European Union a military pygmy.
Why this dysfunctional defence system? As I see it, the main reason is that we have never been able to crack the German problem. The old joke has it that NATO was formed to "keep America in, Germany down, and Russia out". After the Second World War, America had to be in, because it was the only power which had the nuclear weapons to deter the massive land forces of the Soviet Union, and no one wanted to entrust that job to a restored German army, least of all the Germans themselves after the battering their armed forces had taken on the eastern front.
Today, when it is no longer a question of keeping Russia out, we need to keep the Americans in because we still feel that we need to keep the Germans down. I say this, shocking as it may seem, because no one is willing to accept a serious military revival of Germany, which would almost certainly lead to the Germans acquiring nuclear weapons. The Russians do not want it, we do not want it, the east Europeans do not want it, and neither do the French. This, indeed, is the hole at the centre of the grand French design for an independent Europe. Europe cannot become an alternative pole of power without Germany, and no one wants an independent Germany to be at or near the centre of that pole of power, even if it is enfolded by the European Union.
We are debating British, not French, foreign policy. Much as I would like to see a more independent Europe, I cannot accept the proposition that we have to choose between the United States and Europe. There is no choice, actually, because there is no presently acceptable basis for a European alternative.
The Prime Minister can certainly be faulted for his judgment on the threat posed by Iraq. He can be criticised for an excessive public subservience to the Bush Administration. But on the central issue of who guarantees our safety, he is right. He understands with great clarity that no European alternative to America's defence guarantee is currently available, and it might not be desirable even if it were available.
For there is, of course, a potential alternative which has long been hinted at; that is, the political union of France and Germany. That would finesse the problem
368
of a German finger on the nuclear trigger. That is the real alternative to reliance on America. The European superstate which the Eurosceptics fear will come about, if at all, not through the Brussels directives or the feeble federalist initiatives that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, so much feared in his speech, but through the political consolidation of the core of the European Union. It is not the European Union which will grow into a political giant, but a political giant might grow up within the European Union, to which we as well as our American ally will one day have to define our attitudes. But that is the subject for a very different, and much less comfortable, discussion than the one we are having now.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, in vowing to wage war against terrorism, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Minister today seem to me to ignore the vital truth that when you are trying to diminish terrorism by sensible police and intelligence activity, the most stupid thing you can possibly do is gratuitously to increase the number of terrorists. But that, of course, is exactly what Britain and America did when they invaded Iraq.
The other day the Foreign Secretary absurdly said that the consulate bombing in Istanbul had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. How does he know, I wonder? What we do know, however, from the Hutton inquiry, is that the Prime Minister was warned last February that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorism. Indeed, it was so obvious that increased terrorism would be a major consequence of the war that some of us, without any access to intelligence sources, firmly predicted that it was bound to happen, and, of course, it did.
President Bush now says that the American aim is to create a new democratic order not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East. If so, I do not think that he is going the right way about it. As we have seen, the Americans are already having considerable difficulty in Iraq. As noble and gallant Lords have rightly pointed out today, the British Army, as we would expect, is a model occupier. But unfortunately the same cannot be said of the American army. Some of the activities that we see on television seem almost designed to increase the number of opponents to the occupation. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, for the American army not even to count the number of Iraqi civilians it kills is surely highly provocative and extraordinarily arrogant. More importantly, as I believe has been suggested by more than one speaker, there is considerable doubt whether you can create democracy at the point of a gun.
Then there is the difficulty that Iraq is a relatively recent and an artificial country. Even under ideal conditions it would be extremely difficult to create democracy in Iraq, and the current conditions are about as unideal as it would be possible to get. Iraq may well split into three, which would cause tremendous instability throughout the Middle East.

369
The sincerity of the sponsor of this whole process, the Bush administration, is deeply suspect in Iraq. It is widely believed that America's real objective—in addition, of course, to the overriding one of securing President Bush's re-election—is to set up an allegedly democratic government which will be an obedient subject of Washington. A genuinely democratic Iraqi government would almost certainly be strongly anti-American. The Americans are under the delusion that Arab hostility to the United States is caused by Arab dictatorships. That is not the case; it is caused by the Arabs' fully understandable dislike of American foreign policy.
In view of American behaviour not only in Iraq but also over Israel, the Bush administration's assumption that the Arabs regard it as a force for good and take it seriously as the harbinger of democracy in the Middle East indicates both denial and self-delusion. Admittedly, Bush goes on talking about the need for a Palestinian state, which is certainly welcome, but so far he has done absolutely nothing to bring that about. Indeed, he has gone along with everything that Ariel Sharon wants to do and seems to have made no objection to the fact that over the past three years Sharon has invariably wrecked any chance of peace, as he evidently aimed to do on Monday with his actions in Ramallah. Sharon has now even provoked the very hard-line Israeli commander-in-chief and four former heads of Shin Bet to protest against his provocations. Although he has been responsible for killing a very large number of Palestinian civilians, including over 400 children, the Bush administration has done nothing to stop his ceaseless rape of the West Bank by the continual creation of settlements.
As former President Carter's security adviser, Mr Brzezinski, has pointed out, Israel's,
"settlements arc colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools",
while down below the Arabs often have no proper drinking water and some 50 per cent of them are unemployed. By any standards Sharon's settlement policy is disgraceful, yet the Bush administration not only allows their creation, despite their flagrant illegality, but goes on paying for them by giving Israel vast quantities of aid.
The same applies to Sharon's horrible wall, which is even worse than the Berlin Wall as it involves wholesale theft of Arab land—some 17 per cent of the West Bank—and the strangling of Arab towns. Yet Sharon vows to continue building it and tells the Palestinians that his "patience is running out"—a sentence with a very unhappy history. Meanwhile, all President Bush does is to reduce America's loan guarantees by the derisory amount of 3 per cent.
British foreign policy in the past few years has been an utter failure. The Prime Minister has involved us in an unnecessary and unjust war on completely bogus pretexts. He has thus greatly increased the risks of terrorist attack, both in this country and on British interests abroad. He talks about the special relationship with America, but that phrase has long
370
been merely a grandiose description of Britain's dependence on and obedience to the United States. That has never been more true than it is today.
The Prime Minister goes on wagging his tail to President Bush, but he is rarely even given a very small biscuit as a reward. As even the New York Times has pointed out, it is difficult to see what the Prime Minister has reaped from his obsequiousness to the President. The sooner he makes a fundamental change in British foreign policy, the better for Britain and for himself.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, during the past four years I have had the privilege of serving the Council of Europe as its rapporteur on the conflict in Chechnya. The devastation of that country is almost indescribable. The wanton and systematic destruction of Grozny was one of the first sights I saw on the first of eight visits during my period of service. I finished that service deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation, and angry about the human rights situation. What preoccupied me most was the counter-productivity of Russian policy. If Russia had set out to provoke the role and significance of extremists, it could not do much better. If it wanted to drive young men into the arms of the extremist recruiters for terrorist activity, its policy was almost perfect.
If we are concerned about counter-productivity in Chechnya, we have to look to areas where we have much more direct responsibility. I am sure that noble Lords from all parts of the House will share with me deep anxieties about the role of Guantanamo Bay in the fight against global terrorism, not only in human rights terms, but in political terms because of its counter-productivity. The pictures and images projected to the world from Guantanamo Bay play directly into the hands of extremists and recruiters of new generations of terrorists.
The excuse and rationale for Guantanamo Bay is that it is there to make a stand for democracy, accountable government, human rights and decency in the world. It is therefore essential that everything that happens there should be justified in terms of those principles, instead of which we see doubts, misgivings and the absence of any legal principles on which the place is operated. We have more disturbing worries about where harsh treatment ends and torture begins. We have the reality that deals are being struck on avoiding the death penalty, with whatever implications that has for those who do not have deals struck on their behalf.
If I may say so, we in this country have an almost total preoccupation with the British people in Guantanamo Bay. Of course, as a Briton, I care desperately about the British people in Guantanamo Bay, and of course it is a primary responsibility of the British Government to look to what happens to them. However, if we look or appear to look at only the interests of the British, that will underline the very counter-productivity that I have described. The world will say that we are doing deals with the Americans—our partners—but what of the

371
principles that we say matter so far as they apply to everyone in Guantanamo Bay? What of the universality of those principles and the even-handedness with which we are committed to them?
My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale spoke very tellingly of her experiences of the seminar this week on the Israel/Palestine issue. She spoke of her hope. What happened in Geneva this week is certainly encouraging, as indeed are the initiatives being taken by former security chiefs such as Shalom, Peri, Gillon and Ayalon. Some of us would say that it is unfortunate that they are not prepared to go far enough in contemplating the return of refugees, but at least security chiefs, with a proven record, are saying that there is no military solution to the problem and that a political solution has to be found.
If a political solution is to be found, it will be necessary to talk to the representatives of the Palestinian people in whom the Palestinian people have confidence. Others cannot cherry-pick the people with whom they are prepared to talk. If there is to be a political solution, there has to be ownership in the Palestinian community. The chance of rejection has to be minimised.
I am glad that, in talking about Israel/Palestine during the debate, there has been reference to the underlying injustices. I was formerly a director of Oxfam, am very close to it and know that it is working in that situation. It is right up against the humanitarian consequences of what has been happening—the closures, the wall, and denying people access to water, health facilities, education, employment and their own land to farm. Those are the injustices that breed terrorists. It is no good fluffing that issue; they do. Furthermore, those injustices, if not tackled fundamentally, will deny any prospect of building peace. There has to be a commitment to justice.
I am not ashamed to say that I am one of those who has held all my life that we should never forget the Holocaust. It would be a grim day for human society if we forgot what happened then. However, our concern in the Holocaust was not that the people were Jewish, but that they were human beings. If we do not therefore make a stand for the Palestinians every bit as strong as the stand that we made for the Jewish people, where will we be the next time the Jewish people come under persistent persecution? We have to have international and universal standards by which we stand firm and justify our actions. If we are to win the battle against global terrorism and for global security, it will be won in hearts and minds. That means consistent commitment to principle on our part.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I serve as vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy Committee in the European Parliament. Our task is to deepen the community of values referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to widen the circle of peace within the borders of the European Union. In that, we have worked hard in the past months and years on the enlargement process. We look forward
372
immensely to the enlargement of the Union on 1st May next year, when we will be reflecting the views of 470 million citizens and the Union will be producing one quarter of the world's GDP.
I welcome the single voice that the new Foreign Minister of the European Union will have. Despite his double-hatted position, I still see a weakness—so does my committee—in the democratic accountability of that Minister. There remains a gap between the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission on foreign affairs and common defence and security policy. That is a defect that must be addressed in the long run. It cannot be allowed to continue.
However, as we move towards the new Treaty of Rome, inevitably there is a great sadness over the European Union at the deaths of the Italian military police, the Spanish intelligence agents and the many other Iraqi citizens and civilians of different nations who have died. That draws me to speak about Iraq this evening as it is inevitably my responsibility in the European Parliament, for which I serve as rapporteur.
What is our aim today in relation to Iraq? Many words have already been spoken by your Lordships this evening on whether or not it was correct to invade that country. My own view is well known and well recorded. I saw no way to topple the regime other than by armed intervention. I say that with great sadness— I am no warmonger. I have spent my life trying to pick up the pieces of other people's quarrels. I have worked with many of the wonderful agencies that Britain and other nations have produced—for example, Save the Children and Barnardo's—which help so many millions of poverty-stricken and miserable human beings who do not have the benefits that we have had in our safe and comfortable lives in recent years.
I do not want to waste your Lordships' time this evening in discussing further whether or not it was right to topple the regime. However, I find it a very curious argument that we would have been right to leave the regime in place. Why should that be the case? I cannot see the purpose of it. Twelve years of wasted UN resolutions had achieved nothing. Indeed, I believe that 83 per cent of all the weapons sold to Iraq in the two decades before the 1991, or second, Gulf War were sold by France and Russia. Were not those two dissenting voices the loudest and most pre-eminent in the United Nations Security Council?
That is a debate that will go on for ever, but I want now to talk about the future. Indeed, as James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, said at the Madrid conference,
"Let us not waste further time in discussing why we are here. Let us look ahead and see what is to be done now".
Surely all of us in this House have a similar, if not the same, target: a safe and stable Iraq. That is a prize of inestimable value, first, for the Iraqi people, who, to me, are the top priority—their suffering has been unimaginable and has included genocide—and, secondly, for the settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I see that as a benefit of a safe and stable Iraq, if only because Saddam Hussein and his notorious ancient

373
regime were backing the Palestinian jihad and thereby further enhancing the conflict between Palestine and Israel.
Of course, a safe and stable Iraq will also be a victory for moderate Islam—the Islam that demands civilisation and the Islam that is rooted and grounded in civilisation, stability, the rule of law and human rights. I include human rights for women, too. Your Lordships should remember that human rights for women and for widows—I am a widow—came first with Islam. Hundreds and hundreds of years later, another Abrahamic faith, which is reflected by the Lords Spiritual opposite me today, entered the scene and decided that perhaps women should have equal rights as well. That occurred many hundreds of years after Islam gave widows financial benefits.
A safe and stable Iraq also represents a very large step forward—this is an important point—in the fulfilment of goals clearly outlined in the Arab Human Development Report. A number of noble Lords have talked as though human rights are somehow inappropriate, undesirable or even undesired on the Arabian peninsula. That is not so. The lie is given to that attitude by the Arab Human Development Report. At last, the Arabian peninsula has stood up and said, "We are missing human rights; we are missing equal rights for women; and we are missing access to health and education. This is why we are so far behind".
Therefore, equal opportunities for men and women and a federal structure in Iraq will enhance the chances of the existence of minority rights, as also identified in the Arab Human Development Report. They will give protection, we hope, to the weak and vulnerable and care for children. All those things were totally missing in the previous Iraq because the share of Iraq's wealth that belonged to the Iraqi people—those in the north, middle and south—was held in the hands of the evil few. Therefore, the redistribution of that wealth must surely be the underlying goal.
A larger goal is for the region to be free of weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they were used there—not only in living memory but in very recent years—against the Iraqis themselves and against her neighbours. They were used against the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kuwait at least, as well as inside Iraq. Therefore, that threat of action with weapons of mass destruction from Iraq against her neighbours and other states will have been removed.
Those goals have been incorporated in the reconstruction of Iraq. Madrid was a very good beginning—I was there. But the toppling of Saddam Hussein also uncovered international terrorism inside Iraq. I refer to the notorious MKO. Coincidentally I stayed in one of its largest military bases in Iraq and visited it again on Saturday and Sunday last weekend. Who can say that the members of the MKO were not international terrorists when they had six massive military bases inside Iraq? We have discovered Ansar al-Islam, the Al'Qaeda network and Palestinian jihad fanaticism, and all kinds of Yemenis and others are pouring in from Libya.
374
International terrorism was certainly enhanced by Saddam Hussein and, in some instances, occurred inside Iraq. The reconstruction of Iraq must be matched by an enhanced fight against terrorism in the region and internationally.
We have many reconstruction tools and conflict resolution, which the European Union is well skilled in putting forward. We have seen that in Kosovo and Bosnia, in particular, but also in the rest of the world. We are using those tools. There is also multilateralism. Since the bombing incident in August, the United Nations may not be present physically as much as it was but I am sure that it will be back soon. None the less, based in Amman and Kuwait, the United Nations is very active indeed. Capacity building and the setting up of civil society, including national NGOs, and the establishment of justice and the rule of law are surely the keys to conflict resolution inside Iraq. All those are possible in the new Iraq, just as none was possible under Saddam. No one was free under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the United Kingdom was striving to be a force for good. How does that look on the ground? In Basra this weekend, I saw the splendid changes that have taken place. I have been visiting regularly since April, and earlier from another angle. Basra is considerably enhanced. There is more money and more cars and fewer donkey carts. The economy is improving and the place is considerably cleaner. Many more shops are open and trading is taking place. I was out in the evening, at night and during the day and I was perfectly comfortable.
I turn to the subject of the return of refugees. Here, I pay tribute to Iran, which has been particularly powerful in championing and looking after millions of refugees from Iraq. Essential services are starting to return, albeit far too slowly. I visited the Marshes and went to Al Tarubah village. I remind your Lordships of the armed displacements forced upon the Iraqi Marsh Arabs. Al Tarubah village has suffered from forced displacement. Over the past 12 years, between 14 and 17 times helicopters have descended and streams of soldiers have poured in with machine guns. The Marsh Arabs told me that they moved a maximum of 40 kilometres—a minimum of 10 each time. They lost everything. They have suffered 100 per cent permanent ills, 97 per cent lack of access to medical care for 20 years and 87 per cent illiteracy. They have nothing. They have no jobs and no skills and have been forcibly dispossessed and placed elsewhere time and time again. It is amazing that their social cohesion has persisted through thousands of years of history.
What do we see in modern day Iraq? We see a very difficult time ahead; we see many people still suffering drastically; but we see a real possibility of a free Iraq. There is also a real possibility of an example being shown to the citizens of the Arabian peninsula of freedom, the kinds of freedom that we enjoy here. The opposite, the enemy of peace, is organised crime and assaults on civilisations and cultures that international

375
terrorism represents. While the price of action now is tough and difficult, the price of leaving the situation alone will be far
greater.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, that is a fascinating and a difficult act to follow. Any defence policy needs men to implement it, capabilities, equipment, armaments, heavy lift machinery, intelligence and training, the right command structure and above all, it needs the readiness of nation states to invest in defence and to fund the strategies that they have set for their armed forces. The EU began with a reasonable goal, the Petersberg tasks; that is peacekeeping but not national defence, which was the province of NATO.
The ESDP provided two models: Berlin Plus where NATO provides the operational headquarters and commander, helps with planning and provides NATO assets such as heavy lift gear and intelligence; or the so-called autonomous model where one nation takes the lead as the framework nation, the operational planning is done in and with the national headquarters and the lead nation provides the operational commander. In all EU operations the political and strategic direction is set by the EU's own political and military committees.
From the beginning the EU nations have failed to put into defence the money that is needed to create or to equip an effective force. All the EU nations but the UK, and to some extent France, have conscript armies designed for defence, not for sophisticated peacekeeping intervention. Change will be slow. A review of capability shortfall, which was begun in 2000, reported in 2002 that out of 40 major shortfalls 30 were still outstanding. No plans have been made to address some of them. Others could not hope to be delivered before August 2010 or 2012 or later. A NATO capability review revealed much the same level of shortfall. Reaching the headline goal depends disproportionately on spending by Britain and France. What has happened to the A300 is relevant.
However, two weeks after the capabilities shortfall report, the ESDP declared at Laeken, in December 2001, that the Rapid Reaction Force was operational; which meant that it was able to put an effective force in the field. In January 2000,100,000 troops had been, in theory, committed to the headline goals—12,500 from this country. Were they professional? Were they trained? Quality matters; not merely quantity. Conscript troops are necessarily inexperienced.
All such troops are double-hatted. Initially they were committed, and they remain committed, to NATO. Now the EU has assumed yet another commitment: a formal commitment to the UN involving joint exercises, training and command structures. Nor is it remembered that a handful of key specialists—signallers, intelligence people and highly trained technical specialists—are all double-hatted. Ours are already overworked. They are essential troops who move from commitment to commitment without a pause. Are they soon to be treble-hatted? The
376
probability is that many of them will leave for lucrative jobs in civilian life. Overstretch is a major threat and retention is a growing problem. The EU is not helping in that regard.
The EU has had three small operations: in Macedonia there was a police operation and recently there was Artemis in the DRC led by France, the framework nation, with some British troops, and I believe a handful of Belgians, for three months. It has set up an ever-growing complex of committees and its own intelligence centre, the Joint Situation Centre, is connected to five national military headquarters. It has spent much more of its energy on creating a growing bureaucracy than, for example, training on the ground. Training with NATO has begun only this year.
The present option, Berlin Plus, or the option of the framework nation leading from a national operational headquarters, should surely offer sufficient scope to an organisation whose members are simply not ready to spend on defence and who, like our own government, appear to regard their armed forces as simply another useful lever for perceived political advantage. Our country, like the others, will spend on social issues— there are votes in that—but not on the most valuable asset that it has in its international relations, its armed services which do not have a voice—no big conversations with them—and whose duty is our defence.
Does anyone suppose that the special relationship would last five minutes without our military card? Yet we see our Government today choosing, quite unnecessarily, to become the ally of the French and the Germans in their new venture when instead they should be acting as the leader of the newly freed world—the Poles, the Hungarians, the Czechs and such European countries as Denmark, Holland and Spain who look across the Atlantic for their protection but who also value NATO for its very imaginative programmes with the young as well as its military effort.
Russia has not gone away. It thinks long. NATO does not threaten the EU, but the reverse is true. The French and the Germans are prepared to use their relationship with Russia to drive the Americans out of Europe and to establish a hegemony of their own to dominate Europe, with Russia sharing the spoils. I am not talking in military terms, but simply in terms of weight and power. We are supporting them in a totally unnecessary, expensive and militarily inoperable new organisation with more institutions, more grand commitments—even a building—and more grand strategies by the high representative Mr Solana. But whose boots will be on the ground? Ours. Let us remember that once a common strategy has been agreed in any area of EU policy, implementation is by QMV, even for defence. The French and the Germans have committed a mean-spirited act of vanity, pique and ambition to control, which contributes nothing to EU capability.
At the last joint meeting with the Russians the EU discussed the use of Russian long-haul aircraft for EU-led crisis management operations and other promising

377
new avenues for EU-Russian co-operation in the area of ESDP. Soon we shall be told that NATO assets are not necessary; yet NATO is our only guard against the asymmetric threat. We do not need yet another EU institution which will proliferate in bureaucratic bodies while none of the nations concerned are increasing their defence spending or moving in any way to actual capability.
Nor do we need the grand vision of yet more commitment of troops and resources which is represented by the EU plan rushed through in September 2003 without proper consideration for EU/UN co-operation in crisis management, which includes the framework for practical arrangements on security, crisis management exercises, training activities and crisis assessment. The Brahimi plan is dead so the EU has produced something even more ineffective that will produce endless committees. The demand for staff officers for all that bureaucracy is draining from the services, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said, the very officers whom we need to train real troops for real military tasks.
Decisions in the EU on military matters are being made for purely political—and inept political— reasons. We cannot deliver on any existing ESDP or NATO requirement without spending on our over-stretched services; nor can we defend our country. While the Treasury is simply not prepared to fund the Government's own defence programme, that same Government have taken on a totally unnecessary and offensive new initiative which is guaranteed to be developed to threaten NATO and to drive our best friends out of Europe. In my view, the one thing that the Government have to do now is to put their money where their mouth is and support the services if they wish to use them.
7.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak late in a debate that has seen the distinguished maiden speeches of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who is well known and well regarded in both Hampshire dioceses.
I was glad to note in the gracious Speech the Government's commitment to,
"help war-torn countries, particularly in Africa, to seize the opportunities for development which peace can bring".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 4]
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, first there has to be peace. I want to bring to the attention of the House the situation that is still faced by millions of people in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in northern Uganda. In raising those matters it is fascinating to find myself speaking after the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who in April spoke most intriguingly about her own experience when representing Her Majesty's Government in Brazzaville and Leopoldville 40 plus years ago when I was still an undergraduate. I hope to elicit from the Minister the Government's intentions, now and in the coming months, in response to the latest report, published in
378
October this year, of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the DRC.
I speak both as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region and Genocide Prevention and as Bishop of the only diocese in the Church of England with a partner relationship with the Anglican Church in the Congo. I spent nearly three weeks there a year ago and I remain in close contact both with Congolese and with expatriates living and serving in some of its most pressured areas. I am also privileged to be in contact with a number of Ugandans living in northern and central Uganda, where hundreds of thousands of people continue to be at the mercy of the LRA and other insurgent and bandit groups.
It is essential first to note that there have been very significant positive developments in and for the DRC in the past year. In particular, the establishment of a Transitional National Government and modest progress in establishing the national army; the stabilising of the situation in Bunia by the remarkably swift deployment and excellent service of the interim emergency multinational force, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred, and the opening of humanitarian access to all parts of Bunia; and the arrival there in September of a fresh UN force, MONUC, with an enhanced Chapter VII mandate. These are real gains. There are others, too, and Her Majesty's Government, through painstaking work by Ministers and officials, have played an important part in their achievement.
But the progress remains extremely fragile. I quote from a report, MONUC: Mandate to Succeed, published in September by Refugees International:
"The tasks facing international leaders, the UN, MONUC, and the new civilian transitional national leadership—many of whom are leaders of the armed groups committing the atrocities—are monumental. Lack of funding, internal power struggles, the presence of armed groups that have little to gain from peace, outside influence from Rwanda and Uganda and an untested MONUC force all add to the difficulty of the situation"
Oxfam has recently repeated that:
"The Eastern DRC remains one of the world's Worst humanitarian crises".
Human suffering in eastern Congo between 1999 and 2003 has been greater than in any armed conflict since World War II. What haunts those few brave people, Congolese and expatriate, who are in a position to provide the rest of the world with this kind of appalling information, is that they know how very little of a vast area is accessible to the kinds of observation upon which it is based. But they have only too credible reports, often from people they know and trust, about what is being perpetrated away from the eyes of any but the victims.
In the time available, I can only point summarily to four matters around which I urge the Government to further action, with EU partners, with the Governments of the Great Lakes countries and at the UN, if the present fragile moment of opportunity is to be consolidated and built upon. Those four matters are MONUC; UK companies and individuals involved in exploitation;

379
what Refugees International called "internal power struggles" and "outside influence"; and arms control, with particular attention to so-called "small arms", which are not small when they enable atrocities upon yourself and your loved ones and the pillage or destruction of everything that makes a hard life just possible.
MONUC II has to be better supported, better equipped and better led than its predecessor, encouraged fully to fulfil its mandate and very significantly enlarged so that its presence can make for the order and security for which people long down the whole length of eastern Congo. There is no security, no access for observers or medical personnel and no possibility of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the atrocities of the past years even 20 miles from Bunia. But mass killings, violent rapes and other atrocities continue to occur many hundreds of miles to the south, across the Kivus and along the shores of Lake Tanganyika. The UN force in Liberia is, I understand, around twice the size of that now being deployed in Bunia, and Liberia is smaller than Ituri, the region in which Bunia stands, which itself makes up perhaps a quarter of the area which needs to be in view.
The October 2003 report of the UN panel of experts continues to name UK-based companies and individuals as having participated in the illegal exploitation of Congolese natural resources. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of that report, on page 6—in a welter of acronyms that I shall not lay upon your Lordships—the panel notes its meetings with the OECD's Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, made up of the national contact points of the 34 countries subscribing to its guidelines. It notes that a participant described the meeting as a "wake-up" call for those involved and for the whole system.
Those close to all this are concerned that Her Majesty's Government are dragging their feet about acting against UK-based companies and individuals named by the panel on the ground that the panel's evidence remains insufficient. But how, in the conditions obtaining in the DRC, could the panel have done more? What further will the Government do to show that they are serious about all this and to gain the information that is required? Could the Trade and Industry Select Committee play a part?
The panel has produced for the UN further ample evidence that most, if not all, of those participating in the TNG are at the same time continuing to compete with each other in maintaining and developing their bases for power and mineral exploitation up and down the eastern Congo, thus prolonging the conflicts and the suffering of the people. In this, many of them continue to have the active support—indeed, to be acting as proxies—of powerful elements from neighbouring states whose forces have not comprehensively withdrawn within their own borders. Ugandans, let alone NGO personnel, have further linked Uganda's continuing failure to bring to an end the murderous activity of the LRA with the corruption of its armed forces by their years of largely
380
illegal activity in the DRC. What further steps will the Government take in the light of this continuing, depressing information in support of the TNG process?
Lastly, and briefly, the panel repeatedly notes that illegal exploitation, the continuation of the conflict and the flow of arms are inextricably linked. Your Lordships, let alone the Government, will have seen Shattered Lives: the case for tough international arms control, recently published by Amnesty and Oxfam. Will the Government make the DRC an embargoed destination for arms, including so-called "small arms", sold from the UK or by UK nationals? Will they initiate effective end-use monitoring and effective sanctions? Why should powers of this order be in place with regard to UK nationals suspected of paedophilia or of terrorism but not of the trafficking of small arms?
Perhaps the Government's joint strategy paper for the Great Lakes Region, long required and anticipated and promised in October for 6th November, has been delayed so that it can include a full response to the range of questions that I have tried to summarise, raised for us all by the UN panel's report.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, 2003 was not a good year for the international organisations upon whose effectiveness and credibility much of Britain's foreign policy depends. This dependence is no matter of choice. Not for us the illusion of choice which beguiles the neo-conservatives in Washington and which led them to believe—wrongly as it turned out— that the world's only extant super-power could look after its own interests perfectly well without having to rely on others. We ourselves surely know that in any but the most exceptional circumstances we have to work collectively to protect and to further our own worldwide interests. For collective action to work, we need international organisations in good order, which are capable of acting not merely as international debating societies, but as a political, legal and operational framework.
The idea that all this can be done by rustling up an international posse when we need one—throwing together a coalition of the willing on the spur of the moment—is another illusion and is doomed to be revealed as such when we most need support; and when it is too late to try the alternative of a genuinely collective response. So that bad year in 2003 for international organisations is a bad year for our diplomacy too, and not something that we can afford to regret from afar and to pass by on the other side.
The most damaged of the organisations is the United Nations. It was paralysed in the early months of the year by divisions in the Security Council over how to handle Iraq and grievously wounded by the suicide attack in Baghdad, which led to the withdrawal of most of its personnel and thus to a weakening of its crucial input if a stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq is to emerge from this year's events.
The positive side of the coin is that 2003 has also shown that even when the UN is scraping the bottom of one of its cyclical downs, it remains as indispensable

381
as ever. Why otherwise is it being asked to take on complex and daunting peacekeeping duties in Liberia and the Congo, as the right reverend Prelate has just reminded us? Why is it to the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency that we are all turning to help head off a crisis in Iran? Why will we almost certainly need that agency's international inspectors in North Korea if that crisis; too is to be headed off? If it is to be to the UN that we look for the political, legal and operational framework within which to handle these problems, it cannot possibly be in our interest that the organisation should be deprived of the support and resources it needs to bounce back from this year's low.
Less damaged, but nevertheless in far from brilliant shape, is the European Union. It too was damaged by the Iraq crisis, which split it down the middle and cast doubt on the viability of attempts to rise to one of its next great challenges—the implementation of a common foreign and security policy. Most of its main economies until very recently have stagnated and are struggling to achieve the structural reforms without which it will rapidly cease to be competitive in a globalised environment.
The challenge of settling the terms of the proposed constitutional treaty is before us; of absorbing the new member states; and of appointing a new commission which can restore the institution's credibility and capacity to act for the common good. All these challenges are upon us already; and failure to find a response to them will damage us all.
The latest inmate of the field hospital is the World Trade Organisation, which was damaged by the failure of the Cancun conference. We need to convince the developing countries with deeds as well as words that we are prepared to find remedies to their justified grievances, whether over agricultural trade or textiles, and to persuade them that their stake in a freer and fairer, rules-based, world trading system is as great as ours. They may have damaged themselves more than us by the failure at Cancun—as I believe they did—but that should be no cause of satisfaction or complacency, since in the long run we all stand to lose massively if the world were to slip back into protectionism or to split up into trading blocs.
So what should Britain be doing, faced with the weakening of these crucial organisations? Let us dispose immediately with the alibi that there is not much we can do. Britain plays a key role in all three, either directly or, at the WTO, through our membership of the European Union. If Britain sits on its hands in any of the three, if we are satisfied with reactive responses, simply fending off new ideas with defensive reflexes, we will severely undermine the efforts needed to repair the damage done in this unhappy year and to strengthen these organisations to face the challenges of the future.
At the UN the Secretary-General is setting up a panel— on which I have had the honour to be invited to serve—to analyse the security challenges of the present and the future and to advise on how best to achieve a collective response to them. Kofi Annan's
382
speech to the General Assembly on 23rd September did not shy away from the need to consider pre-emptive action against terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; but nor did he mince his words about the danger of unilateral responses to those threats. We should surely give him our full support in this task. We need to provide the UN, either directly or through the European Union, with the resources in men and material that it requires to manage peacekeeping operations, both in military and in civilian reconstruction terms—the latter often being even more important than the former.
In the European Union we also have a key role to play, even if the continuing uncertainty over our own membership of the euro hardly helps us to play it. The constitutional treaty, as the recent report of your Lordship's Select Committee shows, is moving broadly in a direction which meets Britain's interests; the development of a union of sovereign states, united in their diversity, but not slipping, as the myth-makers of Euro-scepticism would have it, irresistibly towards the creation of a superstate.
The Government made some constructive contributions to the work of the convention. They should continue to do that and not yield to the temptation, so often succumbed to in the past, which I fear the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, showed signs of yielding to, of fighting for battle honours which consist solely of points excluded and other people's ideas seen off. The agreement recently reached with France and Germany on defence issues shows that point is being taken.
The deadlines are just as short for the World Trade Organisation. It is really crucial that when the contracting parties meet in Geneva on 15th December that they should reach a consensus on getting the Doha round back on the rails. It is surely time for the European Union to give a lead—as it has begun to do but needs to do at the highest level—and to set an example. I hope that the heads of government will do that when they meet in 10 days' time.
All that sounds quite a lot to do in 2004. But it seems to me that, and as the debate has shown, none of these things are matters that we can afford to duck or skimp. We have had a year in which foreign policy, as a number of noble Lords have said, has been very high on the agenda. But that height has not always produced very happy results, so far. In 2004 we shall need a great deal of perseverance if we are to carry some of these tasks through to a more satisfactory state than they are in at the moment.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am going to make a plea to those who arrange our debates to have a look at the structure of today's debate and to consider whether in future years a different structure when debating the Queen's Speech might be more satisfactory.
I am not in any way criticising the quality of the speeches. They have been excellent. But I am left with a feeling of regret that I could not follow up any of

383
them. By the time we reached my speech, in the welter of different subjects discussed everyone would have forgotten what was said.
We are debating four different topics: the European Union, international affairs, defence and international development. They are all extremely important and deserve separate days or substantial hours of debate.
I shall make two suggestions. The first is that there should be a Select Committee on international affairs. It should not deal with the European Union; that is excellently dealt with by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I shall mention some of the topics which I think are important examples of what such a Select Committee could deal with. I include European defence policy because this is not simply a European matter, it is a transatlantic matter of great international importance. In order to be quite clear about the proposal I ask: why is the European defence policy necessary? I have never really had a satisfactory answer to that question. One would like to be sure that to make this proposal work there will be more spending by European governments. Those are two examples of what one could follow up if one had been able to debate the subject more today.
I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater said about Iraq. That particularly would have been very useful to follow up if we had been able to do so closer to his speech. The Middle East also is immensely important. One would like to know whether President Bush will keep to his undertaking to put as much pressure into solving this problem as the Prime Minister Tony Blair has put into solving the Northern Ireland problem. One would like also to follow up the recent speech by Kofi Annan in which he criticised the building of the Israeli wall.
On Afghanistan, one would like to follow up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has already been referred to, about the importance of stationing extra troops there. One would like to discuss the growing role of the warlords and how that can be controlled; one would like to discuss the extraordinary increase in the production of opium since the Taliban were overthrown.
On terrorism, one would like to debate the recent United Nations report, which states that most countries are not adequately dealing with or considering that problem. It is a worldwide problem, not one relating only to Western countries. As another example, one would like to discuss in that committee the United States's strategy of pre-emption, with especial reference to Iraq—a strategy that has recently again been criticised by Kofi Annan in another important statement.
One would like to explore nuclear proliferation, which has only recently been referred to in this debate. I am surprised that it has received so little discussion, because, as has been said, there is the question of Iran's nuclear policies, which divide the United States from European countries. I was astonished recently to read a report in a reputable British newspaper that Mr El Baradei, the
384
director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had said that according to his calculations up to 40 countries could before long be capable of developing a nuclear weapon. If the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate has come across that remark, I should be interested to hear her comments on it. It seemed a most extraordinary statement.
Georgia was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who also referred to the Chechen problem. That has become a more sensitive issue in recent days when a coup took place in Georgia—I am of course speaking of Asian Georgia, not American Georgia. That country may become much more important, because various American interests want to lay a pipeline through it and it is also a haven for Chechen rebels in the Pankisi Gorge. So that is another topic that would be relevant.
Africa is an enormous problem. The House knows that I have taken a close interest in Zimbabwe, which is an interesting country at the moment. The principal opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, recently changed its policy, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness who was replying to the debate yesterday, to call on the British Government to take the lead in calling for change in Zimbabwe.
The New Partnership for Africa's Development is another subject that we could usefully discuss in the Select Committee that I propose, because the President of Senegal has recently questioned the lack of impetus that he sees behind the development of NePAD's policy of exerting peer pressure in favour of good governance, the rule of law and human rights.
So there are about 10 subjects that would be suitable for the proposed Select Committee. I have not even mentioned defence or international development— defence would of course not be a matter for that committee.
So my impression of today's debate—one that I have received in previous years—is that it could have been much more coherent if it had been organised on a different basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, has amazing skill in pulling together various threads—any number of them; an unparalleled skill, in my experience—at great speed and within the 20 minute limit, if that is the limit. Nevertheless, that will not solve the problems to which I have referred. I hope that those who are concerned with these matters will consider how we could improve such Queen's Speech debates.
The way might be to separate the topics: three hours on a certain aspect; three hours in the same day's debate on a different topic. That would at least reduce what I consider to be the incoherence of today's debate.
We in this House have an unrivalled experience of international affairs. It far exceeds that in the other place. I say that having been in the other place for many, many years. I am told by a Member of the other place that in the debate there on international affairs a few days ago, for most of the debate two Back-Benchers were present on the Government side and six on the Opposition side. The skills and knowledge that

385
we have as regards international affairs in this House could be better used and I hope that my proposal will be seriously considered.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Radice: My Lords, speaking as someone who was recently in the other House, I agree with what the noble Lord just said: the foreign affairs debates there are not nearly as good as they are here. I am certainly not yet in a position to criticise how we organise our business.
If I had been in the House of Commons on 18th March, I should have voted with the Government at the end of the Iraq debate—although with some serious misgivings. One of my misgivings was about the impact of the UK decision to back the United States, without a second UN resolution, on our relations with our European partners, especially France. That is the issue that I want to explore in my brief remarks.
As everyone knows, the Prime Minister has always insisted that there is no contradiction in being both a strong supporter of the United States, on one hand, and playing a leading role in the European Union, on the other. The Prime Minister's concept is that of a bridge, with the UK acting as a bridge across the Atlantic between the United States and Europe. There is no doubt that as a consequence of Iraq, the Prime Minister's bridge was for a time severely damaged.
Our decision to back the United States caused a serious breakdown in our relationship with our main European partners, especially France. As a consequence of that breakdown, things were said in London and Paris that should not have been said. In my view, that breakdown in our relationship was a big set-back to the United Kingdom's European policy. Something had to be done—and quickly—to remedy it, because the United Kingdom cannot achieve its objectives inside Europe without a good relationship with France.
By the same token, an effective, united European Union needs the United Kingdom, especially as regards defence and foreign policy. Here I should perhaps declare a non-pecuniary interest as chairman of the Franco-British Council, which was set up by President Pompidou and Prime Minister Heath to promote understanding between the two countries.
The two countries have a great deal in common. We were allies in the First World War and the Second World War; we are partners in the European Union and NATO; and we are big trading partners. Geographically, we are close neighbours, with large two-way flows of people on business, on holiday or even living in each other's countries. We are old nations with worldwide interests. Both countries have substantial armed forces that they are prepared to use—sometimes very effectively together, as we have seen in the Balkans and the Congo.
Despite what one might think, we have common attitudes in the European Union, especially over European Union institutions. We now need to build on those common attitudes and co-operation. We need to ensure that we co-operate more together. I welcome
386
the recent summit between Prime Minister Blair and President Chirac—which, contrary to the reports in some newspapers, was in fact a success. I also welcome the recent mission of Britain, France and German Foreign Ministers in Iran. That was a good initiative and we must ensure that good comes out of it. We are certainly not finished there by any means.
Contrary to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in a vigorous speech, I welcome last weekend's agreement between Britain, France and Germany to set up a small EU operational planning unit. It will join the existing European Union military staff attached to the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that even the most hardened Eurosceptic can describe it as a threat to NATO. I do not believe that it is. Indeed, if it is backed up by enhanced military capability—I agree with all that has been said about the laggardness of European countries to provide their own defence—it could be extremely valuable as an additional arm in areas where NATO has decided not to operate.
I turn to the draft constitution. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grenfell on his skilful chairmanship and on the report that he produced. Contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who normally makes skilful and brilliant speeches, I do not see the convention or the draft constitution as part of a slippery slope to a federal superstate. Frankly, I see the opposite. I see it as a success for Franco-British ideas for a European Union based on the nation states. If the noble Lord doubts me, I invite him to read the first 16 clauses of the draft constitution. He will find that its language is quite different from the language of the Single European Act or the language of the Maastricht Treaty. It is important to read them all in context.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say that; the Belgian Prime Minister said it and I quoted him. I believe that only a minority is fighting for a superstate and it will probably be defeated. But the broader concern exists. It is not my view; my view is that the constitution will fragment Europe, as it is already doing, and will create divisions between the small and the large countries. That is quite a different proposition.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord has said that because his quote from the Belgian Prime Minister was a major part of his speech. I am pleased he says that it is not all that significant and I accept that.
Finally, your Lordships will know that 2004 is the centenary of the entente cordiale between Britain and France. I believe that we should mark it by celebrating 100 years of shared history and values. I hope that my noble friend, in her skilful winding up, will tell us what the Government intend to do about it. It is a question not only of celebrating our values but of using the event to deepen the relationship between the two countries. That relationship is vital both for Britain and France and for the future of Europe.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made clear, it is obvious from the debate that a wide range of questions on foreign affairs, European affairs, development and defence have been raised today and that they are most important to Members of your Lordships' House. However, the width of the debate is almost limitless. As I listened to it, I wondered whether the Minister has skills in three-dimensional chess. If so, she will reply well to the debate because its elements are rather disparate.
For me, the whole world is a bit too big for a short speech, so I intend to concentrate on European Union affairs. Even that limitation leaves a wide field because the three principal elements of the EU's current policy—namely, the enlargement of the Union, the international trade negotiations which must follow on from Cancun and the draft constitutional treaty—are large and important topics in themselves.
On enlargement, which is now close, I have great confidence that all will go well. However, it is our duty to encourage the favourable elements in that development. It is important that we should concentrate on the positive advantages for all member states—new and old—and not to overplay some of the smaller problems or differences of view which will no doubt appear. Solidarity is the key element of the European Union, and eastern European countries know very well the importance of solidarity.
On trade negotiations, we have to move forward as the Union probably has the greatest interest of any state, or group of states, in the outcome. I was pleased to see in today's Financial Times the headline, "Ministers back Lamy", because that strategy paper is intended to push forward the negotiations. I do not know whether that will be achieved, but it is the intention and I am pleased that the member states are standing with the Commission on that line.
At the same time, our commitment in the Union to a liberal trade agenda should not make us hold back from vigorously defending the interests of our businesses and citizens when protectionist barriers are erected against us, as was recently the case in the steel sector and elsewhere. International trade is not an academic exercise and we must be careful that we do not arrive at a situation in which the future looks better but in the short-term we are dead.
I turn to the constitutional treaty and I do so for four reasons. First, the recent substantial report of the EU Select Committee on the draft treaty has been specifically put on today's Order Paper. Secondly, like everyone in the House, I want to make my contribution to the "big conversation". Thirdly, the intergovernmental conference is moving on and some believe that it will conclude this year. Therefore, we should not let time go by without probing the Government's latest position. Fourthly, the Select Committee's report, whether or not everyone agrees with its conclusions, puts its finger on the key points. The Government have replied rapidly and clearly to
388
those points in the document distributed to us. We must ask ourselves—and there is not much time: are we satisfied and what remains to be done?
I want to take up a number of specific points. On a draft treaty, which Parliament can accept or reject but cannot amend, we need to be specific now. We do not have the chance to be specific later. I therefore make no apology for putting a number of specific points on the table and asking the Minister to reply. In order to put the points in context, I want to repeat what I have often said in this House: that the new draft treaty has a simple and clear statement of the EU's values, objectives and competences; relations between the EU and the member states; and the rights and freedoms within the EU. In my view, the public can see what it is.
The definition of competences, referred to here quite a lot, is set out simply and clearly for the first time: namely, the exclusive competencies, the shared competencies and the areas for supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action which we, the member states, have conferred on the European Union. I am favourable to the much simpler presentation of European legislation; to European laws which are, in effect, primary legislation of direct application; to European framework laws which are primary legislation on which the member states are free to choose the form and means of achieving the results; and to European regulations which are, for the most part, subsidiary or delegated acts. That is a better system and I wish we had thought of it when I was working in Brussels. It would have cut down my work quite a lot!
I should be grateful if, in reply, the Minister, while basking in the glow of my positive remarks, would comment on the following points. It is difficult to fit them all into the pattern which will return to us in the form of a draft treaty for approval in this House. I know that there are many good documents—there is the Government's White Paper and the recent reply— but I want to pose the questions now, particularly because the press reported at the beginning of the week that further agreements had been reached on defence and on several other matters and that the end was nigh. I want to do something before the end is closer than nigh.
My first point relates to two provisions in the draft treaty that have been mentioned. One is the so-called passerelle or escalator clause—Article 24(4)—under which the European Council can, by unanimity, transfer an area from unanimity to qualified majority voting. That is an important point. With that goes the flexibility clause, which, I know, has already in the treaty, but I never liked it there. Under that clause, the Council, acting unanimously, can act in areas in which the constitution has not provided the necessary powers. That is another important article.
I do not like those articles. Our power to agree and argue with the public that they must have confidence in the stability provided by the new treaty is diminished by them. I hope that the Government can say what line they are taking. Will they rely on the fact that the articles can operate only by unanimity, or will they try to change them? That is my first point.

389
My second point relates to what is happening on voting weights. I like the new system in the draft treaty. It is a better system. Will it come about, or are we to have the old Nice arrangement back? I emphasise that, in reality, voting weights are often more important below the level of the Council—I know that from bitter experience than they are in it. Someone lent me a book on comitology today. I did not bring it down; at over 460 pages, it was too heavy. In it, we can see that quite a lot needs to be done by qualified voting majority or by voting below the level of the Council.
My third point is on the Council's legislative role. The Government agreed with the Select Committee and stated that they were confident that the new system would be reflected in the final text. Is it so reflected?
My last point relates to criminal procedure. The Government stated that they were arguing for unanimity in certain key areas of criminal procedure in Articles III-171 and III-172. Have we got anywhere? I know that, in a negotiation, the Government cannot always tell us, but we might be a friendly and supportive body, if the Government told us that they had made some progress. I add those specific questions to the three-dimensional test that the noble Baroness faces.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall take up a theme launched by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester: how do we deal with the conflicts in Africa, before we get to the point of seizing the opportunities for development that peace can bring, as the gracious Speech urged us to do? In the past, we failed. We did not intervene in Rwanda, where the genocide claimed 800,000 lives. We acknowledged the failure of the United Nations then, as set out in a report by independent audit, but, since then, we have created no international mechanism to prevent the killing of even larger numbers.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned, in particular, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Three million people have died since 1998, yet it was only in July this year that a UN force was authorised under Chapter VII of the charter. I apologise for adding to the many questions with which the noble Baroness will have to deal, but I must ask when that force will be up to the authorised strength of 10,800? Will the Security Council need to give it further powers to deal with local groups—as well as dealing with the international groups, for which it has a mandate from the Security Council—by demobilising them or integrating them into the state's armed forces, a process for which some militias have already volunteered? In particular, will local children's organisations be able to resettle any under-age combatants in their community, or should the UN consider separately enhancing the capacity of such local organisations to do the job?
I accept that, with our many commitments elsewhere, Britain will not be able to offer additional troops for MONUC, but there are other things that we can do, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
390
Winchester mentioned some of them. We could respond actively to the recommendation made by the Security Council at its meeting on 19th November that states proceed with their investigations of the illegal exploitation of the DRC's resources that has funded the warlords.
The Liberal Democrats wrote to the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, when the expert panel report was published, asking her what steps she would take to investigate the activities, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, of British companies and individuals against whom allegations had been made. Some, such as Oryx Natural Resources and Mr John Bredenkamp, have been mentioned in previous debates on the DRC, but we have had no feedback from the Government. After reading the article in the Independent on Sunday, we are not sure whether they appreciate that they are obliged to do more than act as a messenger-boy between the accused and the United Nations, as Mr Stephen Timms seems to think.
The National Contact Point, the agency supposed to investigate breaches of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, such as are alleged to have been committed in the DRC, has insufficient resources to carry out the work effectively. We would like a response to the request that we made to the Secretary of State for the unit's capacity to be increased Our concerns are not limited to the DRC; the first complaint made to the NCP, which related to Zambia and was lodged in February 2002, has still not been resolved. We have also asked the Government to seek a binding agreement at the OECD that the guidelines will be strengthened to require compulsory disclosure by companies of their trading activities in designated areas of conflict.
The expert panel proposes that the World Bank and the IMF make implementation of the Publish What you Pay initiative a condition for the funding of projects in the DRC. Why not generalise the idea? If the people of resource-rich countries knew what amounts their governments received from oil and mining revenues and where the money went, there would be less likelihood of clandestine arms deals such as there have been in Angola.
Your Lordships will have seen that, in France, three senior executives of Elf have been convicted of skimming money from the company's slush funds. A much bigger scandal was the £350 million arms deal between Angola and Russia in 1993–94, which was paid for out of concealed oil revenues. Elf, since merged into Total, funded both sides in Angola's civil war and was an accomplice in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people. Angola has still not joined either the Publish What you Pay initiative or the Prime Minister's extractive industries transparency initiative. Will the Government propose that every state seeking assistance from the IFIs must have acceded to both initiatives?
As an aside, I think that we ought to set a good example in Iraq. President Bush has signed a Bill requiring the Coalition Provisional Authority to submit to Congress a monthly report detailing Iraqi oil

391
production and oil revenues and the use of such revenues. There is no parallel obligation for the CPA to report such information to Parliament. We would like that to be corrected, but surely the Iraqi people also have a right to know the figures and to have representatives in the auditing team. We can hardly be taken seriously when we promote transparency through the EITI, if we cannot even use our influence in the CPA to ensure that the spirit and the letter of that initiative is followed in Iraq.
Another scene of conflict, among the many in Africa, is Somalia. Since 1991, a plethora of well armed clan factions have been in an almost constant state of low-level war. While the top warlords gather for the 15th round—I think—of peace negotiations in Nairobi, the militias are deploying battle wagons on the streets of Mogadishu and driving many thousands from their homes in the central and southern regions. The UN has established that arms sold illegally to the Somali warlords have been passed on to international terrorists and were used on the attack on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa last year in which 15 people as well as the three bombers were killed.
The Security Council has just sent a mission to the region to see how the flow of arms into the country can be stopped. Is it not about time that the UN established a permanent mechanism for stopping illicit arms deals and for closing down the supply networks, rather than treat every instance of arms smuggling as a temporary problem relating to one country? Could we not recommend that the UN establish in the Department of Political Affairs a unit to gather intelligence and report to the Secretary-General on all instances of illicit arms trafficking?
If we are to stand any chance whatever of reaching the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa, the scourge of armed conflict must be dealt with more effectively. That must cover not only conventional UN peacekeeping and peacemaking, but also a comprehensive strategy to stop the illicit arms deals and the diversion of wealth into the pockets of kleptocrats and their foreign allies. We cannot do all this alone, but the UK can and should promote international action and set good examples whenever it has the power to do so.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I think that we should pay some attention in this debate to one of the main questions in international affairs, which is what attitude we should have in future towards the new United States. All of us here know of the decisive role played by the United States in securing victory for ourselves in 1918,1945 and at the end of the Cold War. Many in your Lordships' House, like I myself, have spent long periods in the United States. I have been a visiting professor in the United States. I do not know what I would do without my American publisher. I do not really know what I would do without the line of publications of Henry James and Edith Wharton which are in my
392
library. I have been long persuaded of the benevolent role of the United States—the United States, that is, of Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
But happy memories do not always constitute a policy. We ought, particularly if we are old friends of America, to take a cold look now at the present situation. Here now is a power that is in a unique position. It is a uniquely strong power—uniquely strong in relation to its neighbours, its old allies such as ourselves and other Europeans, and institutions such as the United Nations which it did so much to found, not to speak of its old enemies. The United States now has the capacity to intervene in force anywhere in the world which it chooses, in the strength which it judges appropriate and at the time which it thinks right. The present administration also seem to be consciously developing a policy that would establish that dominance as a permanent feature of world politics.
Americans recoil when they are accused of establishing a new empire, and I agree that that is an inappropriate word for their standing. None the less, the government of President Bush seem to be tempted by their great strength to make what used to be called "a grab for world power", or perhaps "a grab for world hegemony" would be better. All the older ideas of trying to solve world problems on a collective basis, to which America contributed so much, such as culminated in the United Nations, seem at present to be consigned to a rather remote shelf of Washington's history libraries. The question is whether we think that that is a good or a bad development. It is certainly extraordinary, but is it in our interests that that should go on, as well as in the interests of the European Union, the Commonwealth and the other international associations to which we belong and to which we have devoted such attention over such a long time?
Our present Government seem to be acting as if they judge that development as by and large good. Their attitude is very comparable to that of the late Harold Macmillan, the late Lord Stockton, when he argued that it was Britain's post-imperial role to act the Greek philosophers to the new Rome in Washington. I understand that attitude because I think I used to be a Macmillanist myself. I can also see that there is a case for thinking that a single world dominant power could be a benign force. I have quoted before in this House, I think, from the Chicago historian W H McNeil. Writing in the 1980s, he predicted that in the 21st century we would see developing some kind of imperial power able to do away with all sources of tension, reducing the risk of world war certainly to nil by insisting on the abolition of all nuclear stockpiles save its own.
But—there is always a "but"—the conduct of the United States in the year 2003 does not quite justify the hope that that government, in a position of unique power, will always be uniquely benign. For, this year, the American administration led this country and some of our European friends such as Spain to war on what to many of us seemed false pretences; very like the Suez operation in 1956 as a matter of fact. The

393
present administration also seem to have committed themselves to a doctrine of pre-emption, or preventive war, as a legitimate instrument of policy.
Then, the United States's treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, the prisoners whom they made in Afghanistan, appears "a monstrous failure of justice", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, put it in his F A Mann lecture, a document which makes very chilling reading for democrats. The United States also seems to suppose that it is above international law in the normal sense of the word, insisting that no American serviceman will ever be tried by any international court whatever they may have done.
Those developments together suggest that we should now do all that we can to make common cause in security and defence matters with our European partners—especially France, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, eloquently argued—so that we can hope in the long run for an alternative source of world authority. The European Defence Agency may seem modest now, and much to be laughed at, but it is a welcome step forward. There could be no better way of celebrating that moving alliance, the entente cordiale, than to emphasise European defence—British and French defence collaboration—strongly and make it a major plank of our policy. Would it not be better to have in the future a concert of powers in the world, as the Security Council was supposed to be initially, rather than having just one superpower, even if it is the United States, on which we can suppose we have some influence?
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to point out many of the practical difficulties with European defence, as were the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Guthrie and Lord Inge, the latter warning eloquently against wishy-washy practices. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, had some harsh words on such matters, too. But I do not see why it should be interpreted as risking our security if, in the long run, we aspire as part of a revived European defence community to be a partner of the United States in an Atlantic alliance of equals. On that, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
These are momentous issues. Such a European defence policy, pressed by ourselves, as we pressed a similar development in the 1950s, when we were backed by the United States, would not only be in our own interests, it would be welcomed by the many Americans who have been critical of the present administration's policy of preventive war, even if recently they have not always found it easy to secure a good hearing of their own.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like several previous speakers, I wish to address that part of the gracious Speech dealing with the European constitution. Rather than comment at this stage on the details of that text, I wish to remark on the wider canvas and in the context of the effect of the proposed constitution on Britain's and Europe's place in the wider world.
394
We should be clear that there are two very different visions of the future of Europe on offer. Both are respectable views to hold, but they are not the same. One vision of Europe, represented in this constitution, holds that common action across Europe is a source of strength, whether in economics, foreign affairs, transport, energy or almost any other aspect of public policy that can be linked to the European Union's very wide declared objectives in draft three of the constitution.
This is not a constitution that entrenches power in the nation states in the way that the noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Hannay, have said. Its goal is to forge powerful European institutions capable of taking common action and to legitimise that centralised power by the development of the European Parliament to be the direct and primary expression of the democratic will of the people of Europe. That is not a new vision or a new goal; it has been the objective of most of our continental neighbours since the common market was first created. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that many of the building blocks are in existing treaties. What is new is the clarity with which the European constitution sets out that end point.
Before we sign up to that, we need to question whether the objective of common European institutions taking common action on behalf of the European people across a European bloc is likely to benefit Britain in the world of the 21st century. Common action across Europe strengthens Britain's hand only if it is common action with which we agree. If it is not, it dilutes our influence and limits our freedom of action. I do not believe that at this point, or for the foreseeable future, our interests will be always aligned with many of those on the Continent, and there is no reason why they should be. An EU model that would force us to give up our independence of action to join a stronger bloc because, as it is argued, we are too weak to stand on our own, is old thinking. It is a legacy of the last century's world of superpower conflicts and trade blocs no longer relevant to the more global and intertwined community of nations that we now have.
On economic development, for example, Europe is no longer—if it ever was—the most important trading market for driving UK economic growth. The strength of the EU may well have been useful in helping to lower world trade barriers over the past decade, but free trade throughout most of the world is now close to reality. In a free trade world, we have much more to gain from growing our share of the fast-growing Far Eastern markets, especially in China and India, which over the next century are likely to play the same role as the engine of world growth as the US played in the last century. That is where our economic focus should be, and although some on the Continent recognise those realities, the European Union is still dominated by a protectionist mentality and the belief that it can support an inflexible, high-cost social and market economy, as long as equal costs and equal misery are imposed on every business throughout Europe. As long as that mentality dominates, it cannot be in our

395
interests to adopt policies that lock our economy into its slow growth and uncompetitive and unfunded social costs.
The same is true in foreign affairs and defence. The European Union is dominated by a desire to build a power bloc to rival that of the US. In many ways however, our perspective on the world and our interests are more closely aligned with the US than with our continental neighbours. Although I cannot claim expertise in defence matters compared with many noble Lords who have spoken, the alliances that we need to defeat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are international alliances, not only European ones.
Forgoing any element of our freedom in order to strengthen a common European voice is unlikely to strengthen our voice in the world. It is more likely to dilute it, given our differences in interests and emphasis. However, the constitution seeks common action well beyond those areas. Whatever Ministers here may have represented, the additional powers ceded to the common European institutions are substantial, even excluding the areas bounded by the Government's red lines. For the first time, a whole catalogue of policy areas not directly to do with the functioning of the single market are moved into a class of shared competences, ranging from justice and home affairs to economic and social cohesion and even public health.
As I have argued before, shared competence is really a misnomer. In each of these areas, European institutions have the power to legislate directly whenever the Commission thinks that it should have a role, subject only to majority voting in the Council and a very weak yellow card offered as a gesture to national parliaments. As opposed to nation states controlling the agenda, they are left as the junior partners, allowed to legislate only in the limited areas left to them by the European Union institutions. I cannot interpret that as a shift in power towards the nation states.
What is more, it is clear that the constitution is not intended to bound the scope of powers transferred to the centre. Given the wide range of broadly worded objectives, together with the powers of co-ordination and common policy development set out in the constitution, there will be endless room for continuing the scope-creep facilitated by the role of the European Court, which on past history can be relied on to take every opportunity to extend the powers of European decision making. Again, that is not a new phenomenon, but this time it will be operating from a new and even more powerful starting position than that provided by previous treaties.
In many of the capitals of Europe, what I have just described as the set of European goals and objectives encapsulated in the constitution would not be contested. It would be acknowledged openly and welcomed. Indeed, there are many in this country who may also welcome it. Before we accept that as desirable for Britain, we should recognise that there is another vision for Europe, one that many of us find more comfortable and realistic. That alternative vision is of a European Union of free nations, trading together, co-operating together
396
and growing close together in harmony and friendship, but where democratic sovereign power remains close to the people in the nation states and their parliaments and where the institutional structures of Europe are limited to the secretarial and administrative roles needed to develop the single market and support the European Council.
Before we sign up to the proposed constitution and all that it entails, we need to hold a serious debate about both alternatives. Both are respectable views to hold, but my own judgment is that only the second offers a viable and stable structure in the near term. I do not believe that one can operate democratic government with popular consent unless it is a nation that accepts a single government operating under the principle of majority rule. I fear that the differences throughout Europe and between Britain and the Continent are still far too great to have that type of democratic acceptability. The danger is that a single remote government will be seen as operating on behalf of one nation or group at the expense of others and its actions will exacerbate national tensions rather than reduce them.
However, those are arguments to pick up another day. The important thing is that we do not shy away from the debate or dismiss the arguments as unimportant. It will not be enough for the Government to claim that they have defended some arbitrary red lines and that, in consequence, the rest of the constitution represents a British negotiating victory that we should pass without further ado.
That is why I repeat again today what I have said in previous debates. If the Government do not offer a referendum on the European constitution, I shall seek to join with others in this House to pass an amendment to any ratification Bill that requires it to be supported in a referendum before becoming law. I hope that many Peers, whatever vision of Europe that they support, will support that call for a national debate.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the narrow issue of internal security arrangements in Iraq. Perhaps I may remind the House that I supported military intervention in Iraq for reasons that I set out in my contribution on 18th March. My only reservation has been about the decision to justify war on weapons of mass destruction grounds, which is a view that I repeatedly expressed prior to the conflict and at a memorable Labour Peers' meeting earlier in the year. For me, the issue is simple; that is, human rights abuses in Iraq.
However, despite my support, I have some concerns at the strategy, primarily in the areas of internal security. The problem is that the delay by the United States administration in recognising the need to transfer internal security back to the Iraqis has been very costly in terms of coalition credibility, despite the IGC-CPA Washington-approved agreement, which is too slow.
Long before the military intervention started, I repeatedly argued in this House that a viable alternative Iraqi military leadership should have been established

397
immediately following the occupation. That would have enabled the early re-establishment of the Iraqi army under a cleansed leadership. That failure, based on a lack of trust and a misreading of the internal security position by the US military, has created major problems.
In a very frank admission on 26th November reported on AFP News Services, the former US administrator for Iraq, retired US General Jay Garner, stated:
"We shouldn't have disbanded the army. We should have brought them back in as rapidly as we could".
The result has been that the military are new perceived as brutal. Yet, as we all know, the credibility of occupation forces inevitably rests on the sensitivity of the squaddy on the street. In the case of Iraq, the occasional indiscriminate shootings in conditions of post-ambush panic, the provocative searching of women and the use of dogs in house searches have all provoked an anti-US military backlash. Yet it is those very military personnel who are coalition ambassadors for the policy of military intervention. We must get them off the streets as soon as possible.
As Gary Samore of the International Institute of Strategic Studies put it, it must be for the Americans to be replaced by the Iraqis, for the Americans to withdraw into fortified bases and for them to run specific targeted raids. His case was reinforced by Ahmad Chalabi who, at a dinner in the Lords Dining Room only a month ago, told us that responsibility for security should be transferred to the Iraqis and that the Americans should be withdrawn to garrisons to be used in targeted operations.
Only last week, Rend Rahim Francke—newly appointed Iraqi representative in Washington and a friend of the United States—criticised what she described as the,
"wholesale disbanding of the Iraqi army due to US reluctance to take the Iraqis from the first day of liberation as full partners in the political process".
In a report in Baghdad in Al Dustur newspaper on 4th November, IGC member Mamoud Othman is reported as saying that the reason behind the increase in terrorist acts is the lack of an organised security plan and because the Iraqi authorities and police have not been given control over security. On 3rd November, the same newspaper reported an official of the Badr organisation calling for security in the city of Basra to be transferred to the Badr organisation, the Basra tribes union and the local police, which he said would,
"undertake the responsibility of safeguarding security and stability in the governate".
On Al Jazeera television on 21st October, there was an interesting report on the comments of Jalal Talabani, who is, in my view, Iraq's most impressive elder statesman. He called for the reinstatement of the former Iraqi army officers, arguing that the army included thousands of people who had been opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein. In a recent speech, Sheikh Ali Mohammed al-Abbassy, who leads the Beni Hassan faction, was reported as saying that he and other leaders could improve order if given the authority:
"We are just waiting for the word".
398
My most serious concerns lie in the narrower area of the handling of intelligence. I have very little confidence in the mechanisms for using internally generated intelligence in Iraq. A huge number of intelligence opportunities have been lost. Why is that? It is because the Americans are simply unable to respond speedily to incoming intelligence leads. The only people who can deal effectively with matters of intelligence and internal security are the Iraqis themselves. They know who is who, where they live and who are their contacts. They know the streets, the networks, and they know the gangs. Mahmoud Othman, a prominent IGC member, put it this way:
"The coalition should leave these things to the Iraqis. We could do a much better job. If we don't act soon, more and more American soldiers will be hit".
On 13th November, Naseir al-Chadirchi, another IGC member, pleaded on Al-Jazeera, saying:
"We have repeatedly asked them to hand over the security files as it is the Iraqis who know best about security. The Iraqis need all this so that they can start assuming responsibility for the security file in a real and effective manner".
On 11th November, Hoshiyar Zibari, the Foreign Minister, was reported as saying on the BBC World Service that:
"Security responsibilities should be handed over to a new force made up from the Saddam Hussein opposition".
Finally, we have Adnan Pachachi, another IGC member, who on 8th November in the Baghdad newspaper, Al Nahdah, called for the setting up of an intelligence service and the proper arming of the Iraqi police.
What has been the response of the Americans? Yes, we have the CPA/IGC Washington-approved agreement, but as the Russians and the French have rightly twigged, the agreement is still loose on security matters. How will the Americans respond to the request of former party Staff Major-General Mahan Hafiz al-Faithd, number two in the civilians officers movement, who on 11th November told AlHayad that his movement had submitted a plan to Bremer for the handing over to senior officers from the former armed forces responsibility for security in Baghdad?
There was a very interesting article in the Voice of the Mujahadin on 24th November which alleged that Bremer had suggested that a military leader should head up a transitional government—I presume up until July of next year—until the new Iraqi arrangement is established. I wonder about that, although I have not been able to confirm the story. Anyhow, I think that it may now be too late for a military leadership. And what is going to be the response to the IGC's proposals for a new intelligence service?
I am afraid that, despite the CPA/IGC agreement, I foresee foot-dragging by the Americans. I suspect that it will all end in a set-to argument between the IGC, the CPA and the administration over the transfer of sovereignty, and in particular security. It is one thing to train up a new Iraqi army with sufficient security intelligence and equipment support—that is going forward—but it is another thing to hand over the responsibility for deciding what it does, and that is where I foresee problems. I hope that, if we are called

399
on to support members of the IGC in their inevitable arguments with Washington over these matters, the British Government will be supportive of their position.
I have a number of other issues that I want to raise, but I have gone over my time. However, I should like to make one final comment. I would ask Ministers to thank the BBC Monitoring Service for the very excellent service it provides to Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords. The material that it provides is very useful for those of us who follow daily events in Iraq. I have spent many hours a week reading its reports on Iraq and other areas of the world. I hope that my noble friend will thank the service, on behalf of us all.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like mainly to focus on the achieving of the millennium development goals, mentioned specifically in the gracious Speech. As noble Lords may know, it is intended that the eight internationally agreed development goals should be reached by 2015.
I come straight to my main theme by using a quotation from Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. Last year, he said:
"The Millennium Development Goals, particularly the eradication of poverty and hunger, cannot be achieved if questions of population and reproductive health are not squarely addressed. And that means stronger efforts to promote women's rights, and greater investment in education and health, including reproductive health and family planning".
For supporters of the importance of reproductive health, that is a most encouraging statement, especially in the context of the current American administration's influence in that area.
The three millennium development goals—MDGs— that have a particular component of reproductive health are: reducing infant mortality, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/AIDS. We are fortunate that the Department for International Development appears to realise the importance of reproductive health. We should be grateful to the department for extending the remit and title of its MDG team to include reproductive health. We have also had welcome reassertions from the department of the firm commitment to the target, agreed at the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.
Most notably, that was positively restated by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in answer to my Question at the time of World Population Day on 10th July this year. In that Answer, we were told that her department would write a statement on public policy on reproductive health before the end of the year. Is the Minister, in her reply, able to tell us when this policy document might now be published? As I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is helping on the Front Bench, I might remind her that she said clearly that a policy statement was expected from the department. I hope that we get nothing less.
400
Next year, as we are coming up to the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Cairo Conference, it might be useful if Her Majesty's Government could institute a review of how far we have been able to meet our commitments given in 1994. Our record is probably better than most, but less than 50 per cent of the pledges by the developed world at that time have been honoured. In all the eight individual MDGs, there are already signs that there will be difficulty reaching the targets by 2015. The three most vulnerable targets are in those three fields that I mentioned as having particular relevance to reproductive health.
I hope that the department can continue to take a lead in trying to remind others, particularly internationally, of the targets, and the vital components of reproductive health in achieving them—as my earlier quotation from Kofi Annan emphasises. That is in the context of what one can only call the negative attitude of the present American administration in these matters.
My last point concerns in particular one of the MDGs—that of combating HIV/AIDS—especially with the background of World Aids Day this week. I am mindful of what was said on that Monday, in the first oral Question in this House, when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, announced further money and the publication that day of DflD's document, the UK's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS. It was my impression that in this document, the contribution that reproductive health services can play in assisting in that field is downplayed.
In relation to prevention, there seemed to be hardly any significant mention in that document of the importance of condoms generally. This week, Marie Stopes International has been campaigning and advocating that,
"a simple condom is the most effective technology we have to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS".
It pointed out that the international community now supplies fewer subsidised condoms than it did in the mid-1990s. To the extent that the international need can be gauged and projected into the future, we are falling short by a factor of more than five times.
I shall give just one statistic from all the horrific information that we have had this week on this subject: it is estimated that the global figure of new infections, per day, is about 14,000. Condoms are low tech and should be affordable. This apparently simple provision should not be discounted because of its simplicity.
Part of the campaign this week of Marie Stopes International has been to draw this issue to the attention of Members of another place. This it tries to do by getting constituents to send a pre-printed card, with a single condom attached, to their MPs with a short text and a request. That single-sentence request to MPs is,
"that you make representations to HM Government to continue to take a lead in encouraging the international donor community to ensure that affordable condoms are readily available across the developing world, and to resist any international pressure to endorse abstinence only programmes".

401
I echo that request, and ask the Government and DfID to keep up the pressure for the achievement of this and other MDGs, and in particular to promote reproductive health as a vital and essential component of such aims.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I take the debate back to Iraq. After 11th September 2001, the United States had the most widespread sympathy and support in the struggle against terrorism. However, what has now become pellucidly clear is that it instantly made up its mind—I believe, unwisely—to pursue Iraq. Any doubts on that have recently been dissolved in a splendid book by General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 1997 to 2000, entitled, Winning Modern Wars. He shows how the neo-conservative hawks in the United States administration took the decision to "go after" Iraq, even though there was no suggestion of a link between Iraq and Al'Qaeda terrorism.
By pursuing that goal, the United States divided world opinion and squandered so much of the good will felt for it after 1lth September. It failed to get the backing of the United Nations and ignored the clear statements from the weapons inspectors that their work was not yet completed and that they should be given more time. This country supported the United States at the cost of internal divisiveness as sharp as that which surrounded the Suez adventure.
I share the view that the invasion was misconceived. I shall give just one reason in the time available. Fundamentally it deflected us from devoting our full energies to the real conflict against terrorism. General Clark rightly says,
"nor was any evidence presented of any imminent Iraqi threat to the United States or its allies".
It is now clear that our Government knew, in spite of the hyperbolic 45-minute claim, that that was so. General Clark goes on to say that,
"the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had weakened our counter-terrorist efforts, diverting attention, resources, and leadership, alienating allied supporters, and serving as a rallying point for anyone wishing harm to the United States and
Americans".
Add to that—as we now know but were not told at the time—the intelligence assessment in this country was that the invasion of Iraq would add to the risk of terrorists striking at our own country. In Iraq itself, we are seeing the growth of a powerful and previously non-existent terrorist movement. All that suggests that the invasion put us at a sharp disadvantage in the struggle to counter the threat of terrorism, which is immensely demanding but a priority.
I am but one of the many lawyers who consider that the war was totally contrary to international law. International law is strikingly simple and clear. The invasion of another sovereign state is an immensely serious act specifically prohibited by Article 2(4) of the United Nations charter, unless the action is being taken either in self-defence or under the specific authority of the United Nations. That applies to humanitarian action,
402
too. That protection of sovereignty is the rock on which the whole international community, particularly its small nations, can safely set its feet.
What was the position in Iraq? We could not rely on a contemporary United Nations resolution authorising the use of force, and the Government abandoned the attempt to suggest that any potential attack was imminent. They formed the so-called coalition of the willing, the very phraseology of which is contrary to the principles of law, and went to war, all on the basis of the summary of advice from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General published in a parliamentary Answer. That advised that an old resolution passed in 1990 to permit the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait—Resolution 678—had somehow magically revived and permitted an invasion in 2003.
The great majority of international lawyers, and indeed the legal community generally, was thoroughly unconvinced by that suggestion. Kofi Annan did not accept it. Indeed, the first President Bush and John Major had both publicly stated that Resolution 678 had not authorised them to go to Baghdad. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has written that the reasons of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General were, "straining at a gnat". In spite of that unease, the noble and learned Lord has declined requests that he should publish his full advice.
The noble and learned Lord has said that the summary of his advice was made by way of an exception to the normal convention that the advice of the Attorney-General is not disclosed. But that is not an absolute convention, and there are clear precedents in the past for disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice. What seems untenable is that he can waive the privilege partially, but then invoke the convention to prevent his reasoning being known. No client would accept advice given on that curious and inconsistent basis. I know of nothing that supports that principle of cherry-picking.
Why should we see the advice? It is probably the most important advice given to the government for a generation, as without it our country would not have been able plausibly to go to war. The military would not have accepted to do so. Soldiers and civilians have been killed. We are simply entitled to know how the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General dealt with the reservations of so many international lawyers. Where did the curious doctrine of revival spring from in international law? What about the doctrine that force could be used only where necessary and proportionate, at a time when the inspectors were asking for more time to do their work? What was the factual basis on which he advised? How in common sense could he say that an old resolution entitled all the action, when in fact the United Nations denied a new resolution?
The argument has slightly moved on. Richard Perle, a close adviser to President Bush, said in a lecture given at the Old Vic recently that,
"international law stood in the way of our doing the right thing".
That seems to me to confirm all the concerns, that many feel about United States supremacism.

403
I believe it is time that we were told the full reasons that the Government felt they were justified in law in their invasion. We are a country that values the rule of law. Either the Government's reasons will survive scrutiny or they will confirm the view that the arguments are threadbare. But what is important in this area of uncertainty is that sunlight will be the best disinfectant. Personally, I doubt that any arguments can stand up. I share the view expressed extra-judicially by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, a Law Lord, that this deeply controversial war fractured the international legal order.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, Iraq has probably been the most divisive issue in the history of this and most other Parliaments. I spoke on several occasions in this House opposing the war. I believe, and still believe, it to have been illegal.
The case made by the Government was that Iraq represented an immediate threat: it had weapons of mass destruction and could deploy them within 45 minutes of the order being given. Few people now believe that to have been accurate. I doubted it at the very beginning. It seemed unlikely that a third-world country—for that is what Iraq had become after being defeated in the first Gulf War—suffering punitive sanctions for over a decade and being bombed intermittently by ourselves and the United States, could still be a threat to its immediate neighbours, let alone to ourselves and the United States. I said at the time that we were planning to attack Iraq not because it was strong but because it was weak; hence, there would be an easy military victory, as, indeed, there was.
As has been explained again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the United Nations charter provides for the use of force only when the Security Council, having ascertained the existence of a threat against peace or an act of aggression, deems it necessary to use force under its direction and control to re-establish international security. The only exception to that general rule is the right of self-defence of a state which is attacked. Of course, that did not apply in the case of Iraq.
We are now left with the consequences of our support for this illegal action. No weapons of mass destruction have been discovered, and it now seems unlikely that they will be. Those who supported the war now claim that that does not matter—the important issue is that Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and the world is better off without him. However, there is no authority in the United Nations charter for a war to produce regime change or for individual states, however powerful, to decide that certain regimes are unacceptable and must be replaced by external force of arms.
It is argued that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein—that is, better off than before the war. But is that really so? What of the thousands killed and injured as a result of the tonnes of high explosive dropped on Iraq? What of the children injured by
404
cluster bombs, which a number of noble Lords— notably, I remember, the noble Lord, Lord Elton— begged the Government not to use? What of the survivors of the bombardment who have been left without homes or jobs? What of those suffering from the complete breakdown of the civilian infrastructure following the war? And what of the Iraqi conscripts, killed or horribly injured when the United States forces used napalm on them? Did we imagine that people who suffered in that way would welcome us as liberators?
We hear much about the members of the coalition forces who have been killed or injured in the militancy which has arisen among some Iraqis since the end of the war. That is awful—no one can possibly be other than concerned about casualties among our forces. But we hear very little about Iraqi casualties during and since the war. There was some publicity about little Ali Abbas. Because of press interest, he has received good medical treatment and will be provided with artificial arms to replace those he lost in a coalition missile attack. But his parents, who lost their lives in that attack, cannot be replaced. He is one of many children orphaned or seriously injured as a result of the war.
Those who opposed the war did so not because we supported Saddam Hussein; nor were we appeasers, and we certainly did not support terrorism in any form. We regard modern war as such a catastrophe for the unfortunate people involved—those caught up in it on the ground—that it must be absolutely the very last option, rather than what sometimes seems to be the first.
I do not support the doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention either. There are many regimes in the world whose internal arrangements and treatment of minorities are questionable to say the least, but that does not give other individual states, however powerful, the right to send in the B52s. Sometimes it is argued that we did that in Kosovo, but there was not the same level of objection then as there was in relation to Iraq. That is true, but many of us— I was one of them—objected to the 78-day aerial bombardment of a largely civilian population. Again there was no UN mandate and moreover Kosovo is still unstable.
To those who claim that humanitarian intervention is different because the intentions are benign I say that that does not have much effect on the kind of injuries and deaths sustained by the unfortunate civilian and often conscript military personnel. Surely there is no greater human right than the right to life. Modern warfare is a direct threat to the lives of many people who can have absolutely no influence at all on their governments or their misdeeds. Armed intervention seldom has the results that its proponents predict.
Those who opposed the war did so because they felt that it had been possible to deal with the problems by other means. France, Germany and Russia proposed that the inspectors be given time to complete their task. It now transpires that the Iraqi Government were so anxious to avoid a war that they sought to make an

405
approach to the United States Government through an intermediary, offering the United States the opportunity to inspect for weapons of mass destruction and proposing that there should be elections in Iraq within two years under international auspices. That was rejected outright by the United States administration, presumably because it did not trust the Iraqi Government, but one can usually trust people to act in their own interests when their survival is at stake. However, the mindset of present Western leaders, particularly that of President Bush, appears to be one that perceives international affairs as a contest between good and evil the good guys versus the bad buys. That is a gross over-simplification and it must make negotiations rather difficult as one cannot really do deals with the devil.
So what is to be done now? Most people want to hand over to an Iraqi administration and get our troops home as soon as possible. That appears to be the view of the Security Council at the moment. There appears to be some kind of regional or local administration in existence in Iraq that may provide the basis for an interim representative government. The present council does not seem to have popular legitimacy. Clearly, elections should be held as soon as possible, but the results may not be very welcome to Western governments. An Islamic state seeking to apply Sharia law might be a backward step for many women who, under the previous regime, bad as it was, at least had access to education, healthcare and jobs. If the country is to be stabilised there must be a regime in place that has a degree of democratic accountability. Everyone appears to be agreed on that.
I also believe that we should compensate the Iraqi people for what our war has done to them. Apparently very minor moves have been made in that direction by the United States, but only for Iraqi civilians injured or killed in confrontation with United States forces since the official ending of the war, and even then only in some cases. I believe that people should be compensated for the loss of their homes and for death and injury during and since the war.
The commitment of our Prime Minister that the Iraqi oil reserves and wealth should be held in trust for the Iraqi people should be honoured. The oil industry should not be privatised and sold off to foreign corporations at bargain basement prices; otherwise, why should the Arab world believe the West when we say that the war was not about oil? Finally, we must reassert our commitment to the United Nations and to the United Nations Charter. We must seek to involve the UN much more fully in the present and future of the Iraqi people.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am delighted for the first time to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Although we have strong disagreements on most subjects she knows that I have reason to hold her in the highest esteem.
With all dutiful respect to Her Majesty, I thought that the gracious Speech was a rambling affair, but at least its bloated contents provide a good illustration
406
for my broad economist's critique. I start from a besetting sin of democracy, drawn from a splendid text by my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg, who cannot be with us. He wrote a book in 1974 under the title The Reigning Error. He summed up that error in a single word—"inordinacy". This is the human tendency of carrying things too far—a vice that besets most aspects of government policy both at home and abroad. Carrying things too far is a vice of which politicians, and new Labour politicians in particular, are among the worst offenders. Politicians today seem to have lost all sense of the practical limits to what is attainable through the apparatus of government.
I have often paid elaborate tribute to Her Majesty's Government for doing better than their predecessors in checking inflation. Significantly, they did so by abdicating control over money to the Monetary Policy Committee. But in most other directions new Labour has massively inflated central government. It is more than personal lapses; it is over-government that explains the systemic failure of Ministers and the appearance that things are running out of control.
Politicians, especially new Labour politicians, seem to think that government is such a good thing that we cannot have too much of it. Economists know better. Being brought up on the law of diminishing returns we understand that increased spending—for example, on health and education—is not likely to yield proportionately increased output of satisfactory' services.
The efficiency of the economy and the polity depends ultimately on making the best use of scarce human skills, time and attention, especially the time and attention of top entrepreneurs, top managers, teachers, doctors, administrators, even politicians. Yet, instead of top talents being concentrated on tackling top priorities, they are increasingly distracted and dissipated by multiplying initiatives, ceaseless reforms and a tidal wave of regulation.
If top talent is scarce, there is no shortage of jolly wheezes to win popularity, at least in the short term, That alone would explain why almost everything is now carried to excess. Thus legislation is inordinate; regulation is inordinate; government spending is inordinate; and the visible outcome is that Government failure is also inordinate.
Turning abroad, we find a similar excess afflicting the European Union. From the early bright promise of the Common Market, ceaseless extensions have overstretched the attention and talents of the Commission. Every expansion of its powers since Maastricht has strained its limited capability. Today, the increase in membership from 15 to 25 members should be matched by pruning functions, not least to respect subsidiarity and national diversity. Instead, the insatiable appetite for the Euro-elite is now to be fed by increasing the so-called competencies—although "incompetencies" might be a better description.
We should be concentrating top time, talent and attention on high priorities such as eliminating the appalling fraud, slimming down the monstrous acquis communautaire and phasing out the scandalous CAP. Instead, our Euro-masters amuse themselves devising still more powers to mishandle.

407
All of them, from the rather bumbling Signor Prodi to his pampered apparatchiks, have of course the strongest possible self-interest in constantly enlarging their empire, and the Emperor-in-waiting, Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing, has been only too ready to oblige. As many have predicted, this cumulative extension of control and regulation will not stop short of the dreams of the French and German elite—though not of their unhappy subjects—for a "United States of Europe". All this is yet another manifestation of inordinacy, of pushing a good, even a noble, concept too far.
I must reserve my final minute to put on record my concern that some senior men among us with the most direct experience of the inner workings of the EU may be especially reluctant to criticise the acknowledged excesses and corruption at Brussels. My courageous friend the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was barracked and mocked in this House on 6th September—Hansard at cols. 1 to 4—for daring to draw attention to the possible hold the Commission and the European Court of Justice have over former employees of the European Union. Thus, when a British commissioner is sworn into his job, he makes a solemn declaration of loyalty to the Union that appears possibly to be in conflict with his primary oath as a Privy Counsellor. Likewise, any official of the Commission who criticises the European Union, even after retirement, can be disciplined by losing his pension rights.
Might this be another rather heavy-handed example of political or administrative inordinacy? My personal conclusion is that, instead of discussing trifling amendments to this inordinately inflated draft constitution, we should urgently be contemplating terms on which to withdraw from a grievously costly and distracting entanglement.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I would like to speak about some of the justice and home affairs aspects of the draft constitutional treaty. These have not attracted as much attention as other elements of the treaty, but, as the Select Committee's report on the treaty points out, some of its most significant changes relate to the development of the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. For the past three years I have chaired Sub-Committee F of the EU Select Committee, whose work has given it a close insight into these issues. I speak primarily in that capacity.
I want to concentrate on three of the most important JHA issues. First, the abolition of the so-called third pillar and the integration of police and judicial co-operation into the community structure; secondly, the application of qualified majority voting (QMV) to immigration and asylum matters; and, thirdly, the implications of the proposed changes for the United Kingdom's "opt-outs" on frontier controls and immigration policy.
408
The collapse of the third pillar should, I believe, be welcomed unreservedly. Ever since the Maastricht Treaty the pillared structure has been a source of bewilderment to all but the most assiduous students of EU procedures. That treaty erected the third pillar for most justice and home affairs matters, which were thereby made subject to a totally different set of procedures from the traditional Community method, with different legal instruments, a different voting regime, a different level of involvement of the European Parliament and limited jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
Although the Treaty of Amsterdam chipped away at the third pillar by transferring immigration and asylum matters to the first, or community, pillar, this created further anomalies. The whole Schengen acquis had to be divided up between the two pillars; and even then, the procedures governing immigration and asylum were not fully aligned with the Community method.
The division of responsibility between the pillars means that often there have to be separate instruments for what is essentially a single area of policy. My sub-committee has seen many instances of that. I give one example: action to combat illegal immigration requires both immigration and policing measures. The former have to be taken under Title IV in the Community pillar and the latter under Title VI in the third pillar. Now, with only a few exceptions, the same procedure will apply to justice and home affairs matters as to other business, which will have benefits in terms of transparency, accountability, judicial oversight, simplicity and the effective despatch of business.
The use of qualified majority voting for immigration and asylum matters is a significant departure from current practice. Although the Government are not totally converted to QMV, they support it for immigration and asylum matters. I welcome that. But that support is somewhat disingenuous when considered alongside the Government's stated intention of retaining their ability to decide whether or not to participate in any particular immigration and asylum measure.
That brings me to my next point. As the House will recall, the Government secured two protocols to the Amsterdam Treaty: one enabling it to retain its frontier controls with other member states; and the other enabling it to choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether to participate in each immigration and asylum measure that is proposed. The Government have said several times that they intend to retain both those protocols unchanged in the new treaty. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will be able to explain the rationale for seeking to retain the immigration and asylum opt-out; and tell us what form it is likely to take, given that with the abolition of Title IV in its present form, it will be impossible simply to transpose the protocol without amendment.
The Government profess to be strongly committed to a common European immigration and asylum policy. They accept that QMV is necessary to achieve that policy, yet they draw back from participating fully

409
in the measures on which it is constructed. In practice, the Government have participated fully in the many asylum measures negotiated under Title IV and have not exercised their opt-out. That has been generally beneficial, so it is difficult to understand why they take a different view on immigration.
My final point is a related one, illustrating in a different way the complications resulting from the UK opt-out. The draft treaty establishes a specific legal base for the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders. Last July, my sub-committee published a report on proposals for a European border guard. I do not want to go into the detail now, because I hope that there will be a chance to debate it before too long.
As noble Lords may recall, the Prime Minister has taken a lead—notably at the Seville European Council last year—in arguing for the need for the EU to take stronger and more urgent action to strengthen its external frontiers. In our report, we welcomed the Government's commitment to co-operate with other member states in that area. Indeed, we were impressed by the amount of operational co-operation already in place. A few weeks ago, the Commission unveiled proposals to fulfil conclusions reached by the European Council for a European agency for the management of operational co-operation at the external borders—an initiative, as I said, dear to the Prime Minister's heart.
Yet what do we find when we read the draft regulation? Because of the United Kingdom's non-participation in the relevant aspects of Schengen, the draft expressly excludes the UK from participation in the agency. That seems a most unfortunate—if not unexpected—consequence of the Government's policy of trying to have it both ways. I hope that the noble Baroness can provide some reassurance that the Government will examine how they can ensure that they are not excluded from such important developments.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I draw your attention to a country that has been all but forgotten by us. I recently spent two weeks in Burma and came away with an overwhelming feeling of sadness. It is a beautiful country with warm and friendly people; it is safe and welcoming. But Burma is portrayed in a very negative light in our press and is seen in a very negative light by the FCO.
Since the election of 1990, the West's focus has been entirely on the Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. The UK, EU and USA have chosen to isolate Burma. We even refuse to use the name by which it calls itself, which is Myanmar. It smacks of a colonial hang-up to refuse to use the name that a country has chosen for itself after independence. By the same token, should we not be calling Zimbabwe "Rhodesia" and Harare "Salisbury"?
We all know that Suu Kyi is a most remarkable person. She is tenacious and has dedicated her life to bringing democracy to Burma.
410
She was described to me as someone who is pure of heart. She is the daughter of General Bhojo Aung San, who is the national hero of Burma. In 1940, he went to Japan and fought with the Japanese against the British. Then he changed sides and joined the British in 1944. In 1947, he was assassinated in the secretariat building in his council with eight other members of the council. It has never been clear how that came about, but he had tried to bring all the differing ethnic groups in Burma together in his council.
One can never be too sure how a military council would have developed. There is a tendency towards military rule in Burma. The first Prime Minister of the country was U Nu and in 1962, when there were ethnic uprisings in the country, he invited General Ne Win to form a military government. That was the slippery slope which continues to this day. General Ne Win was, by all accounts, a rather unpleasant person. He closed the whole country to foreigners for several years.
Suu Kyi rightly wants to see an end to the military dictatorship. Who would not? Her personal sacrifice is exemplary. Thirteen years have passed since the election which her pro-democracy organisation won, but nothing much has changed in Burma in those 13 years. If anything, the position has become yet more entrenched. Suu Kyi has consistently refused any compromise. She refused to join the constitutional commission in the mid 1990s and she refused the position of Prime Minister, which was offered to her by the military junta.
It is quite likely that that was window-dressing and that those positions were offered to her to impress people like us. However, in politics, one must try to reach a compromise in order to see whether anything can be achieved. She has never engaged with the military rulers, as we should be engaging. I hold no brief for them and I want no one in the Chamber to believe that I think they are in any way good for the country, but it is important to avoid the bunker mentality that has been achieved.
I read the advice to visitors issued by the Foreign Office dated 17th September. When I did so, I could not believe that it related to the country I had visited. If I were writing in the same vein advice for visitors to Britain, it would be far worse than the advice written for visitors to Burma. I believe that we have a greater fear of crime and terrorism and that we are not as safe on the roads as people are in Burma. The incidence of violence and terrorism is greater here than it is there.
Recent American sanctions have so far made up to 100,000 government workers destitute. They have not affected the regime. Burma is not South Africa. South Africa was a wealthy trading nation and sanctions hurt it. There is nothing left in Burma to hurt. When the West puts sanctions in place, only the ordinary people suffer because they have very little. They subsist on about 10 dollars a month and now many government workers have no jobs.
We are, as I said, creating a terribly entrenched bunker mentality among the military rulers. They are afraid of change. They do not know what would

411
happen to them or their families if they let power slip from their hands. There are plenty of examples in south Asia of military rulers and their families who have ended up in prison or worse. Nobody hands over power just like that, least of all a military dictatorship.
We should help the other south Asian nations that are engaging with Burma to help that country move towards a more democratic form of government. They need our support; they need us there working with them, not sitting on the sidelines, doing what Suu Kyi says. Suu Kyi has been incarcerated for a long time, and she is not a politician. We must act like politicians and work with the government. Isolation has been tried and has failed.
One country in south-east Asia that I must mention is China. China's attitude to Burma is ambivalent, perhaps because it is responsible for the gambling, the sex tourism and the drugs trade in Burma. We must not forget that China does not have democracy and that its record on human rights is not great, but still it enjoys favoured nation status. It seems that self-interest drives policy towards China. We have nothing to gain from Burma, so we overlook it and boycott all contact. The British Government should reconsider their policy towards Burma and actively help that country to move to a better situation.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. However, I rise to examine what the gracious Speech calls the "new strategic environment". I hope to show that the new environment challenges Her Majesty's Government, the international institutions and this nation.
We fondly imagine that we live in a peaceful, globalising world, from which poverty will soon be eliminated. However, the reality is that several states have failed in their main purpose of upholding the common good of their inhabitants. One thinks immediately of Somalia, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Liberia. Next, we see post-conflict countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. There, everything requires reconstruction, which is made more complex by huge numbers of refugees. Separatism has provoked all too many internal conflicts, from Northern Ireland to the Basque region and on through Kosovo, Chechnya, Georgia, the Sudan and Sri Lanka. Issues of self-determination and separation are at the heart of some inter-state conflicts, notably that between India and Pakistan over Kashmir or between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
India and Pakistan, with their huge armies and nuclear potential, on the one hand, and Israel, Palestine and the Arab neighbours, on the other, are the two greatest threats to world peace. Their wars, which have caused immense human suffering, cannot be allowed to go on unresolved from generation to generation. Huge responsibilities lie on the United Nations, on the Commonwealth—in respect of the Indian subcontinent—and on the United States, in respect of Israel.
412
There are other post-imperial situations. They can be found, for example, in Indonesia, central Asia or the Philippines, in the wake of Dutch, Soviet or Spanish and US dominance. The question we face is whether these large multiethnic states can succeed in holding together while progressing towards democracy.
I hope that this quick sketch is sufficient to show that peace is very fragile in nearly every continent. Frozen wars abound which could re-ignite all too easily. There are conclusions to be drawn for our defence and foreign policy. We should seek allies for the task of reforming the United Nations and its agencies. In particular, the United Nations needs a way of providing trustee services for the failed states, some of which I have mentioned. We should complete the enlargement of the European Union, expanding the area of prosperity and security, under a constitution which minimises the risks of over-centralisation, bureaucracy and corruption. We should press on with debt relief and fairer trade for poorer countries suffering the double scourge of war and disease.
In particular, export subsidies for the goods of rich, developed countries should be rapidly ended. I welcome the mention in the gracious Speech of debt relief and fairer trade. It also spoke of the underlying causes of conflict and extremism. Those include loss of personal and group identity, leading to despair and violence. It needs to be clearly shown as widely as possible that self-determination can be gained and can provide real benefits at levels less than complete independence. This country should give a lead to the world by stricter control of its arms exports and of the activities of British arms brokers. Our example could be effective over small arms and light weapons, which cause most of the deaths in the current fighting.
I should like to see annual increases in the funds of our Conflict Prevention Pool. That reflects essential co-operation between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. I urge our allies to adopt this model of working.
I come now to terrorism and the strategic environment. We should never underestimate the cleverness of terrorists or their ability to find soft or unsuspecting targets. They will, however, be worn down and overcome by long-term, co-operative and multinational intelligence work leading to arrests and convictions. That is the lesson to be learned from Northern Ireland, as previous speakers have mentioned.
The rhetoric of "war against terrorism" has been too prevalent and is, I believe, unwise. Military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fact that most recent terrorists have been Muslims, give the false impression that the West is opposed to Islam and to Muslims as such. Everything should be done to correct that misapprehension. Visits to and from Muslim heads of state could help; so could visits by our Ministers and others to Muslim institutions in Britain. We should be using all the media to present co-existence and co-operation as the right relationship between Europe,

413
the Americas and the Islamic world. The rebuilding of the Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka, Bosnia, could be a symbol of such co-operation.
Dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims is essential. The Three Faiths Forum, St Ethelburga's, in the City of London, and the Ammerdown Centre in Somerset are leading the way. Religious convergence for peace, as shown in the Alexandria Declaration, is the key to Middle Eastern solutions. The United States and the European Union will be judged by their handling of the search for agreement between Israel and it neighbours. The more success there, the worse will be the prospects for Al'Qaeda.
Anti-Semitism does not just mean persecuting Jews; it includes despising Muslims and not responding when faced with the just needs and demands of Palestinians and Arabs. Unless the conflicts of the Middle East are resolved, hatred and violence are likely to be exported to the city centres of Europe. Policies must uphold justice, human rights and democracy as the best alternatives that we know to tyranny and war. To do otherwise would be untrue to ourselves.
This country welcomes a challenge, so I urge the Government to provide one by pointing out how homelessness, war, injustice and poverty affect so much of today's world, and by showing how those evils can be reduced. Our country has such a wealth of overseas experience among diplomats, missionaries, businessmen, academics, volunteers and development workers. Will the Government challenge and focus their skills and goodwill in the cause of peace and justice?
9.26 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and it was an even greater pleasure to be in the House on the occasion of the maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, from whose sage advice I benefited for a couple of years when I was at the Ministry of Defence. Having spent two and a half extremely undistinguished years in the Andrew some 60 years ago, it is wonderful to have a sailor back on these Benches again. We look forward to many contributions from the noble and gallant Lord.
I was extremely impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Grenfell. It was an extraordinarily lucid exposition of extremely technical subjects that enlightened us all. Although I disagree profoundly with my noble friend on many matters, I only wish that a voice as sane, lucid and intelligent as his were heard around the Cabinet table. I know that that will not do him much good, but still.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, referred to rumours about the future of defence expenditure. We are hearing only rumours at present, so I shall not say much on the matter. I hope that those rumours are not realised. For many years, I have held the view that defence expenditure in this country should be about 25 per cent higher than it is. I realise that it will take us some time to get there, but I only wish that there were a general will in that direction.
414
I am quite relaxed about one or two items in the defence equipment programme of my noble friend Lord Bach. I assure him that he will receive no criticism from me if he sees fit to diminish the Eurofighter programme—a subject on which I have yet to speak utterly candidly in this House—and he will get nothing but fulsome congratulations from me if he gets rid of that abortion of a programme the A400M. The Minister knows my views on that subject.
Apparently, the new European initiative will have 30 or 40 people to begin with. Of course, it is not serious at that level: it has no assets with which to fight; it can only talk. The most assets that it will ever have will be for peacekeeping. However, it is possibly an extremely sinister development. I recommend that noble Lords read the article in The Times today by Irwin Stelzer, who says that this development could very well give those in Washington who wish NATO no goodwill an excuse to bring about a very serious diminution in United States adherence to NATO.
I have very strong views on that—contrary to some of those held in this House. One must choose between the United States and Europe. One must choose between the United States and Europe almost every day of the week if one thinks seriously about those matters.
Not so long ago, I heard one noble Lord on these Benches say that he did not think that we would ever have to choose, but that if we did, he would choose Europe. Just to show that there is balance in this House, I would not. I would choose the United States and I am not ashamed to say so, not because I share all American values or that I find everything done by this or the previous Administration congenial or palatable, but because the exchange of highly classified intelligence and access to cutting-edge technology that we get nowhere else is fundamental for the security of this country. Why do we get this with the Americans? It is a matter of trust. They trust us and we trust them and noble Lords can draw their own conclusions about why that is the main international channel for the exchange of highly classified information.
In the years that I was at the Ministry of Defence— I was there a couple of times—I saw huge amounts of paper labelled "Top secret: UK Eyes Only". I saw quite a lot of paper labelled "UK/US Eyes Only" and occasionally some labelled "CANAUKUS Eyes Only"—Canadian, Australian, UK/US eyes only— but I cannot remember seeing a single piece of paper that said "UK/French Eyes Only" or "UK/German Eyes Only". I was told that, once upon a time, there were some items labelled "UK/German Eyes Only", but they would have been a great exception. They were there before I was, and I was first there 25 years ago.
Having got that off my chest, I want to say something about Iraq. I entirely share the views of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about why we went into Iraq. I am told that regime change is not a respectable reason. In fact, it is against international law. As a layman, I have a view of law. Law is what the lawyers tell you it is. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, told us that international law said one thing and the noble and learned Lord the

415
Attorney-General told us that it said something else. What are we poor laymen to make of that? I make of it something quite simple. If international law is as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, says—and it may well be— there is something fundamentally wrong with international law. If it stops us from dealing with tyrants such as Saddam Hussein, or stops us, as it did, from dealing with Pol Pot, which is a shame and humiliation on us all, something is seriously wrong with international law and we should examine the problem.
I happen to think that the world is much better off without the vileness of Saddam Hussein and now that Mr Milosevic is on trial. The only people who do not think that the world is better off are those who had a vested interest in those two regimes. The noble Lord, Lord King, said that security would be the critical element in Iraq in the future. I have had the benefit in the past few days of listening to some senior Americans who tell me that, for the Iraqis, security is a matter of peace on the streets, the absence of looting and being able to go about their business without fear of being mugged. One of the mistakes that we made was not only unnecessarily winding up the Iraqi army, which did not fight us, but putting their police back in the wrong colour uniforms. That is not an insignificant matter and I hope that it is redressed. I hope that my noble friend will take a look at that in the future.
I am worried about Iraq because the Americans are saying that they want to get out by next summer and leave their troops there by invitation. They are inviting a serious humiliation if that becomes their policy because I do not think that, in that time span, the Iraqis will manage to reconstruct the forces of law and order on a scale necessary to look after their own security
However, I am a great optimist about the future of Iraq, even though, as one noble Lord said—I apologise, but I forget who it was—it is possible that Iraq will break up into three sections. That is quite a possibility. If it happens, there is absolutely nothing that we can or should try to do about it.
I have great faith in the people of Iraq, who have not been mentioned in my hearing during today's debate. It takes courage to co-operate with a coalition knowing that assassination at home, in a restaurant or in a shop is possible. Your Lordships must admit that the people of Iraq run a far greater risk than do our troops. They are not going out in trained patrols; they are people going about their business. They are being threatened and blackmailed, as are their families. There are very brave men and women in Iraq who are standing up to these threats. That is why I have great confidence in their future.
9.36 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to focus on the mention in the gracious Speech of underlying causes of conflict, referring to areas that I have recently visited; namely, North Korea and Nigeria. There is a possible ray of light in a very dark part of the world—that is, North Korea. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I,
416
having both been robust critics of the widely reported violations of human rights in North Korea, felt that we should visit the country to learn about the situation.
Brutal persecution of religious believers had been widely reported. So we were encouraged to meet 19 Christian pastors from South Korea who were worshipping at the Protestant Church at Bongsu. They had come to celebrate the opening of a new Protestant seminary and to learn of some positive developments concerning the Russian Orthodox Church.
Of course we found predictable causes for continuing concern, but we left with unexpected grounds for cautious optimism. The overarching issue is the threat posed by North Korea's escalation of its nuclear programme. However, all the government representatives that we met, including the President of the Praesidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, emphasised willingness to begin a process of denuclearisation if they could receive two assurances. One assurance they wanted was the promise of no pre-emptive first strike by the United States and the other was respect for the peaceful co-existence of two systems within one country. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are able to provide some reassurances on those issues, as appropriate?
One of the most encouraging findings was the positive assessment by independent international aid organisations working in North Korea, such as the World Food Programme, World Vision and Concern. All were upbeat about the improving conditions with regard to access, independent monitoring and cessation of policies by the regime of the manipulation of aid as a tool against political and religious dissidents.
I do not think that either the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or I have a reputation for being "soft" on human rights issues. But we returned feeling sufficiently encouraged to believe that the time may have come to offer a helping hand to North Korea if it is beginning to embark on a process of glasnost. We therefore established the UK/ North Korea parliamentary group as an arena for continuing dialogue, as well as for raising continuing concerns. Perhaps I may say that we would be happy to make available to noble Lords a copy of our report that would give full information on our findings.
I briefly turn to Nigeria, having returned yesterday from a visit which was related to several serious issues that threaten Nigeria's development of civil society and a stable democracy. I refer to the conflicts that are occurring with disturbing frequency in the northern states associated with the imposition of Sharia law, which is now in force in 12 states. In January, I visited Jos, Kaduna, Kano and Bauchi states, which have all been subjected to violence in which hundreds of people have been killed and numerous villages burnt. I visited some of those villages and saw the destruction of homes and places of worship. Violence has continued, and as recently as 18th November, riots erupted in Kazaure in Jigawa State. Out of 11 churches, nine have been razed to the ground and the other two completely vandalised. Two people were killed and 5,000 displaced, some of them taking refuge in Kano.

417
The implications of these conflicts, which are associated with the imposition of Sharia law, spread far beyond Nigeria. It is often argued by those who promote Sharia law that it will not affect non-Muslims. But that claim is disproved by, for example, a current case in Bauchi State, where 11 Christian nurses have been dismissed from their posts in a federal hospital for refusing to accept the Islamic dress code as it violates their professional and human rights. Their case has been upheld in the secular court, but the local administration has refused to re-employ them. I met these nurses on Monday and heard how they are suffering as a result of their unemployment. Many can no longer afford to send their children to school, while some do not have enough money to feed their families.
That is just one example of the fundamental problems associated with the incompatibility of some aspects of Sharia law with the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as equality before the law and the freedom to choose and change religion. For example, under Sharia law, there is no equality before the law between men and women or between Muslims and non-Muslims, and there is no freedom for Muslims to change religion without incurring the risk of the death penalty for apostasy.
It is issues such as these which underpin the resistance to Sharia law in many parts of Nigeria, resulting in the conflicts which over the years have been responsible for the deaths of thousands and massive destruction of property. The stability of Nigeria, and President Obasanjo's commitment to democracy and a secular constitution, is vital to the stability of West Africa and beyond. Can the Minister indicate ways in which Her Majesty's Government are assisting or may assist further President Obasanjo to fulfil these very important commitments? They are important for Nigeria and important for Africa.
Problems concerning the imposition of Sharia law are also fundamental in other conflicts such as that in Sudan where this is still an unresolved issue and one which has been a major obstacle to the very important peace process being undertaken.
The issue of Sharia law may be sensitive, but it is serious and needs urgent consideration. Will Her Majesty's Government consider whether one possible way forward in such situations might be the inclusion in any negotiations or settlements of the requirement to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by analogy, with the "Basket 3" portion of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement?
To conclude, it is encouraging to observe some rays of hope in one of the darkest parts of the world, North Korea. But dark clouds still brood over others, including Nigeria. It is vital to consider appropriate measures to resolve the problems there if those storm clouds are not to become even more violent storms of conflict in the months and years ahead, causing even greater suffering for the people of Nigeria and dangerous ripple effects throughout Africa.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as always, this Queen's Speech debate has been wide-ranging. When I rise to speak, I am always tempted to throw a question and demand a response from the Minister on some country which has not yet been mentioned in the hope of raising a look of panic on her face.
We have heard some very welcome contributions, and I want to mark that more contributions from Back Bench speakers have come from the Cross Benches in this debate than from any other part of the House. That is particularly welcome because Members on the Cross Benches have a great deal of expertise to offer.
I want to focus on four of the many issues that have been raised: first, Europe, which is extremely important; secondly, the transatlantic relationship; thirdly, the Muslim world; and, fourthly, the question of international order and international law, with which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has just dealt so rumbustiously.
We heard very useful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Norton of Louth, on the Select Committee reports and I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said about the current treaty. It is a curate's egg. It is not what we really needed or what the Laeken declaration promised us, when it set out to define a shorter and clearer treaty that we would all understand. The treaty is too long; part 3 ought to be subordinate legislation and not in the full treaty. Too many issues have been fudged again, including what exactly the new Foreign Minister—or whatever he or she is to be called—will do, to whom he or she will be responsible, what exactly the president of the Council will do, and so on.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the new proposals strengthen the Council. In that sense, it is more necessarily inter-governmental. However, we also need a strong and effective Commission to hold together an EU of 25 members. I regret that we may be heading towards an even weaker Commission, if there are 25 or 31 commissioners and there is a failure to pursue the necessary reforms of the structure of the Commission. Commissioner Kinnock has managed to push that a certain amount of the way, but he has not had the active support of most national governments, and not always very active support from our own.
Having said all that, I am puzzled by the continuing paranoia from the Conservative Benches on all this. Each new treaty since the Single European Act has been denounced by the Conservatives as a final step too far, which ends Britain's autonomy—from the Maastricht Treaty, to the Amsterdam Treaty and then the Nice Treaty. Now the noble Lord, Lord Howell, tells us that he actually prefers the Nice Treaty to the new one, that it is not too bad when one looks back on it, and that the new treaty would be a step too far.
I find it a little odd of the noble Lord to have deplored any criticism of American policy towards Iraq but to have offered us nothing but criticism of developments in the EU. We need a balance in that respect; Britain needs to balance between Europe and

419
the United States, and we need to be intelligently critical of both, without cutting ourselves off from either.
I regret that the Government have given us for so long an uncertain trumpet on Europe. The case for closer co-operation has not always been made strongly at home. The arguments for reform of EU policies and institutions have not always been sustained by Government Ministers on the Continent. There is a fear of the press and the cultivation of the Daily Mail and of Rupert Murdoch.
I was very struck and puzzled by the interview that Mr Rupert Murdoch gave on British television two weeks ago, in which he talked about whether he would be willing to maintain his support for the current Government. He said that it would partly depend on whether the Government would be willing to yield our sovereignty. The phrase "our sovereignty" is being used by someone born in Australia, who is now an American citizen, with companies based in Bermuda to avoid paying tax in this country. That seems rather rich to me, and I am not sure that I want to entrust the defence of our sovereignty to the hands of a foreigner like that.
There are, of course, other problems with the European Union. There is a very uncertain trumpet from France and Germany at present on the question of economic governance, which is something to which I hope the European Union Committee will return. Absurd things are said regularly by Belgian Ministers, whether the Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister, which Eurosceptics love to quote all the time. However, I share the view that Will Hutton set out well in the Observer last weekend, that the biggest danger for British interests is that the European Union will emerge as too weak from enlargement, rather than threatening to be too strong.
I refer briefly to the European defence proposals, on which there has been a lot of discussion this evening. When one considers what European governments are doing, it is actually quite creditable. At any point in the past two years, there have been more than 50,000 troops from European Union governments in places outside the EU. There have been 9,000 to 10,000 Germans in service at any one point, and Spanish ships have patrolled the Indian Ocean. Spanish troops, Italian carabinieri and Poles have been in Iraq, Danes have been in Afghanistan, and Swedish special forces were useful in Operation Artemis in the Congo.
Of course, those troops are short of transport; the logistical chain is not good enough. It is interesting to read speeches in the same week by the French commander of the Congo operation and the German commander of ISAF, each saying that we need more effective logistical support and, of course, long-range transport—be they the A400s beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, or C17s. But we shall not get very much more defence spending in Europe. The logic, therefore, has to be closer co-operation and a degree of specialisation to squeeze more out of our limited budgets. I welcome the closer co-operation between the British, the French and the Germans. I am not
420
fazed by the proposals for the planning staff. I recognise that NATO does not do nation building, so EU crisis management with a full mix of instruments from the military element through the police to civilian administration and economic assistance is something which appropriately the EU should plan for itself.
I also welcome the proposal for a European arms agency, although I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I hope it will not promote arms exports with quite the degree of enthusiasm of which he spoke. It seems to me that there are too many arms of all sorts floating around the world at the present moment. We should be working with our partners in the EU to restrict arms exports, not to encourage them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is called at the present time the European Defence Agency, not the European arms agency. I do not think that it will end up being called the European Defence Agency, but it certainly will not be concerned, as I understand it, with exports. It will be concerned with capabilities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I was referring to the noble Lord's commendation of British success in arms exports.
I turn to the United States. We need to be realistic about the limits of British influence over the current Republican Administration. There is in Washington intense admiration for Tony Blair, but this does not translate into British influence. Just before President Bush's state visit I read a Heritage Foundation briefing that started by saying that Britain was America's most important ally and that Tony Blair was the most important leader supporting President Bush, but then went on to say that under no circumstances should any concessions be offered to British positions during the Bush state visit.
After all, our Prime Minister's strategy over Iraq was of public support and private criticism intended to extract from the United States, first, an active American commitment to the road map for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine and, secondly, a central role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq. We have gained neither of those. There are strict limits to the special relationship. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, remarked, it is an intelligent relationship with mutual and reciprocal benefits on both sides and occasional mutual misrepresentation, as over the question of who did or did not buy uranium from Niger. However, that does not overcome the different drift of the American debate on foreign policy and, indeed, on values in recent years. Certainly we need to engage actively within the Washington debate and to do so as far as possible in consultation with our European partners to amplify our voice.
The excellent FCO strategy paper published yesterday notes as British priorities: an international system based on the rule of law; a greater emphasis on the real dangers of climate change—both areas in which we are now pushing in a very different direction from Washington—and a commitment to an open and

421
expanding world economy. Protectionist forces within Congress and the US Administration are currently pushing us away from an open world economy.
I turn to NATO. We should be careful not to be left exposed as more loyal to NATO than the US Administration. Europe is no longer the centre of American global strategy. NATO is written about in Washington as a tool kit out of which to build coalitions of the willing. If that is the case, it is perfectly natural to accept that NATO is adapting and that the pursuit—as several noble Lords have said—of a transatlantic partnership of equals between the overwhelming majority of members of NATO who are also members of the EU and the United States is an entirely proper goal to pursue.
Let me say a little about relations with the Muslim world, which I am glad to see was flagged and emphasised in the FCO strategy. We are in some danger of drifting towards a clash of civilisations between the United States and the Muslim world. I was reading an article by Norman Podhoretz the other day that talks about the fourth world war, between the West and the Muslim world, in which we will have to force wholesale regime change across the entire Middle East. That is not in Britain's interests or the interests of the stability of the world. I agree with everything said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool about the need for inter-faith dialogue, and for closer relations between Christians and Muslims for the cultivation of the moderate Muslim voice.
There are real problems of development across the Muslim world. I have just read the second Arab human development report, which is excellent, particularly as it is written by Arabic economists and intellectuals themselves. We clearly need a long-term strategy, working with and through the leaderships of Muslim countries and the 15 million Muslims who are citizens of European Union states. However, that also requires us to finish the job in Afghanistan, Iraq and, of course, Israel and Palestine.
We have heard a little today about the glimmers of hope again that, after the depressing events in Israel and Palestine in the past few months, some on both sides are returning to the only possible solution, which is and has to be a two-stage solution. Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with all their partners, should push as hard as they can to get back to that route.
Lastly, let me say a little about international order. The international institutions under which we live are, after all, one of the great legacies of the United States of President Roosevelt. One thing that worries me most about the current mood in the United States is the extent to which those on the neo-conservative Right wish to tear down every aspect of the edifice that FD Roosevelt left, including international institutions and international law. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, surely it is in our interests to strengthen the United Nations. I am very glad to know that he is on Secretary-General Annan's panel, and I hope that he will keep us well informed of its progress in discussing potential reform of international institutions.
422
It is in our interests to maintain the World Trade Organisation talks. I welcome the latest proposals by European Commissioner Pascal Lamy to relaunch the discussions after the failures of Cancun. It is in our interests to maintain international law, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, may say. Guantanamo is still an offence against international law. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that Iraq has fractured international law.
We need international institutions to combat global disease. The first person to die of SARS who was a member of an international organisation was a World Health Organisation doctor who played a large role in bringing that epidemic to light. We need international institutions and co-operation against the AIDS epidemic, about which my noble friend Lady Northover spoke very eloquently. We need them to manage global migration, one of the major challenges of the next 10 years as, again, the FCO strategy rightly points out. We need them to grapple with global inequality and the corruption and civil conflicts that make inequality worse.
We are in a highly inter-dependent world in which the British Government have to share their responsibilities. The problem for British foreign policy is that we have high ambitions but very limited resources. It therefore makes sense to share so far as we can with our European partners, as part of a stronger Europe with the United States and, where we can, with others through NATO, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. That is the right direction for British foreign policy.
9.59 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is my great privilege to respond to the debate on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. I consider it a great honour to do so, although it is a somewhat daunting challenge. This has been a long and fascinating debate. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not refer to all the excellent speeches that have been made, but I shall try my best.
Before I begin, I want to mention in particular the help and guidance given by my noble friend Lord Vivian in preparing for this debate. I, too, join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, on their remarkable and outstanding maiden speeches. We are most fortunate that they contributed to this important debate today and we hope to hear much more from them both in the future.
While the world is undoubtedly a better place following the end of the Cold War, it is also, in many ways, more dangerous and more unpredictable. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater stressed that clearly in his excellent speech, concentrating, too, on the importance of people. We welcome the Government's commitment in the gracious Speech to tackling the threat of global terrorism. It is the most dangerous international threat that we face today—a threat that must be pre-empted. Indeed, almost everything that we have debated today falls within that context.

423
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, welcomed the good intentions to reduce world poverty and bring about effective debt relief for developing countries committed to reform. There is also the challenge of the millennium development goals, which, I am afraid, the Government are way off meeting.
Two weeks ago, we witnessed the tragic events that unfolded in Istanbul. This House was very sorry to hear of the loss of our Consul-General, Roger Short, and two of his staff, Lisa Hallworth and Nanette Elizabeth Kurma. We pay tribute to all those who lost their lives and we offer our thoughts and prayers to those who are injured or left behind.
If we are to tackle such threats effectively, we must have a clear understanding not simply of what we seek to achieve but also of the resources available to achieve it and whether the two match up. It is in this context that I now turn to address the matter of the military resources available to us.
In response to the closing remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, I must assure him that both our new leader and our party take the defence of the realm very seriously indeed. We on these Benches have always argued that, above all, the first duty of any government is the defence of the realm, both at home and abroad. That includes protecting British interests from military threats as well as the current threat of international terrorism.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery, courage, dedication and professionalism of our Armed Forces. As we speak, British troops in different parts of the world are playing vital peace-keeping roles. I also pay tribute to the families of our troops, who have steadfastly supported them. It is vitally important that our troops continue to receive all the support and resources that they need from Her Majesty's Government in carrying out these often dangerous duties.
Given the threats that I outlined a few moments ago, it is vital that we allocate sufficient resources to defence. The Strategic Defence Review stated that 2.5 per cent of GDP should be reserved for defence, but the figure has fallen to 2.3 per cent. In her reply, can the Minister explain why that is the case?
Our Armed Forces are stretched to capacity. Indeed, they are over-stretched, as we have heard today, with operations ongoing in both Iraq and Afghanistan and with little sign of an immediate reduction in our troop commitments in either of those countries.
As at 1st September, the Army was 5,000 below strength. In June, 55 per cent of the Army was deployed on, recovering from or training for military operations. The picture is no better in other branches of the military. Navy warships now routinely take to the seas without their full complement and it is reported that the RAF has cut the number of flying hours devoted to training. Furthermore, since 1997
424
our forces have been heavily deployed but currently there are 12,000 fewer regulars than we had six years ago.
I am sure that noble Lords on all sides share my concern at those worrying statistics. Such cuts are particularly serious at a time of essential change, especially with the introduction of new technologies. As my honourable friend the shadow defence secretary, Mr Nicholas Soames, said:
"the Opposition most earnestly warn the Secretary of State that, in the present circumstances-it would be an act of cardinal folly to use the Army's strength as a peace dividend if normalisation were to occur in Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/03; col. 218.]
The forthcoming defence White Paper is expected to include proposals for restructuring the Armed Forces. We hope that the proposed restructuring is not used as a smokescreen for further cutbacks to our military capability.
Given the situation that I have outlined, we call on the Government to allow sufficient time for the White Paper to be debated properly in this House. I listened, as I always do, with great respect to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and their pleas to HMG against more cuts. We on this side of the House will continue to press Ministers on how they plan to meet our growing commitments and the ongoing threat of terrorism with fewer ships, fewer aircraft and a smaller Army. How can we carry out our foreign policy effectively if we risk being denied the tools with which to do the job?
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever spoke with great sense and wisdom on the importance of the Territorial Army and possible cuts. He raised certain questions and we look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to them.
I turn briefly to the situation in Iraq. We on this side of the House continue to believe that the action that we took in Iraq was right. It is a fact that the regime in Iraq was in clear breach of no fewer than 17 United Nations resolutions. The Government's actions and the actions of our allies and our brave Armed Forces have brought about the end of a vicious reign of terror and have removed a potent threat to regional and international security and stability. We welcome the genuine progress that we have recently seen being made in Iraq, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, in her lucid and informed speech. We continue to press for the establishment of a representative Iraqi administration, but the haste with which that is achieved must not be at the expense of security and stability in the country.
We should be wary of demanding and expecting instant transformations. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Campbell-Savours, who were so worried about the aftermath of the war in Iraq, that it took four years from 1945 through to May 1949 for democracy to flower and a new country, the Federal Republic of Germany, to emerge from the ashes of war, despite the fact that by May 1949 a generous American Government had poured in vast amounts of economic assistance through the Marshall

425
Plan. I was recently reminded of that five-year transition period after attending the memorial service of the late Lord Wilberforce, who had served on the commission and who did such good service in this House. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, put this debate into the necessary historical context. I agree with him.
It is not new for public opinion to judge America to be found wanting. The eminent writer William Shawcross pointed out to me an article in Life magazine written about the US occupation of Europe by the novelist John Dos Passos in January 1946, just a few months after the end of the Second World War. It states:
"Never has American prestige in Europe been lower … All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by the drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease … Before the Normandy landings, liberation meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of civilians for one thing, looting".
It is of course the easy option to adopt such a position, but it is worth remembering that it was that American-led occupation that created the rich, comfortable, modern society from which we all benefit today.
We welcome the many improvements that have taken place in post-war Iraq but are saddened that many aid agencies have left the country, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in his moving speech concerning Afghanistan too. This can only prolong the time that it will take to return Iraq to a level of normality.
We share, too, the alarm expressed by the aid agencies over the diversion of funds away from humanitarian projects around the world, particularly in middle income countries such as those in Latin America and central and eastern Europe, to help with the reconstruction in Iraq. While it is vital that we support the reconstruction in Iraq, this should not be at the expense of our commitments in other parts of the world.
Our membership of the European Union represents a vital strand of our foreign policy, hence I now turn to the proposed European constitutional treaty. I shall not go into the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, at this late hour as we shall be debating that in detail next Wednesday, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, exaggerates about any paranoia on these Benches.
We, as a party, have always supported enlargement of the European Union. I agree that it needs a good treaty not made in haste. It makes sense from both a moral and an economic perspective. Everyone recognises that enlargement brings with it the need to reform the European Union institutions to accommodate the new member states and to enable it to function effectively.
At Laeken, it was recognised that the European Union had lost touch with the peoples of its member states. The Convention on the Future of Europe was a reaction to this disconnection and the need to
426
"reconnect" in some way, and also the need to adapt the European Union to operate effectively post-enlargement.
Sadly, it has proved an opportunity wasted. The proposed European Union constitutional treaty which has emerged addresses neither of these key issues.
As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said in his forceful opening speech, far from simplifying matters, the European Union constitution is wordy and complex. Indeed, it has even left the Government confused. First they said that it was only a tidying up exercise; then it was vital to the enlargement of the European Union; and now it is not necessary to have it at all and the Government may even use their veto. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten noble Lords on all sides by clarifying the current position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the proposed treaty.
Noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, warned us about the proposed European defence project, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. This project appears thus far to duplicate and compete with the structures of NATO and no doubt to dilute it. I fully support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, in his tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robinson, and NATO's importance, especially for the new members from eastern and central Europe.
More importantly, this project could eventually lead to the disastrous decoupling of the United States from the defence of western Europe. We must never underestimate the vital role that the United States plays in providing intelligence and essential transportation, and the contribution that such a commitment makes to our security. That was stressed, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. We are determined that no agreement is entered into that might jeopardise that relationship.
We welcome the Government's commitment to releasing oppressed people from dictatorship and the restoration of democracy around the world. As I set out earlier, that commitment has been realised in the case of Iraq; and we readily pay tribute to the Government for their stance. However, we are disappointed to see absolutely no reference in the gracious Speech to the situation in Zimbabwe, a matter touched on by my noble friend Lord Blaker.
Noble Lords are well aware of the disastrous land reform policy in Zimbabwe, which has contributed to the current food shortage—and has compounded the spread of Aids, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—in the country through the displacement of farm workers. Zimbabwe is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.
The Government have taken the opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to restoring democracy around the world, taking decisive action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as the people of Zimbabwe look to us to lead the international response to their brutal regime, we appear afraid to take any decisive action, either through sanctions or the Commonwealth.

427
Yesterday the Foreign Office produced a White Paper on its priorities for foreign policy; still no mention of Zimbabwe.
In 1997, the Government were looking for the third way but now they seem to have lost their way. Their foreign policy is incoherent and inconsistent. The Government are tough on dictatorship in Iraq but do little about the situation in Zimbabwe. This is a government which is divided with only one way to go. The gracious Speech shows a government on the way out. We shall do all we can to help them find the way.
We have heard many powerful speeches, which included numerous important questions posed by noble Lords. I have every confidence in the Minister. I look forward to her answering and winding up for the Government in her usual stimulating and effective way, which will certainly do justice to all noble Lords' contributions.
10.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate today. It has of course, as many noble Lords have remarked, been very far ranging in terms of the geography of the countries covered and the nature of the issues discussed.
The over-arching themes of this year's foreign defence and development agenda have been Iraq, the Middle East, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan and the continent of Africa. We have had, too, our great international institutions—the United Nations, NATO and the EU. Furthermore, the enormous issues in terms of defence capability, the pernicious effects of international terrorism and the efficacy of international aid have all been raised.
We have also enjoyed two notable maiden speeches. We heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who was characteristically modest about his own career. I was grateful to him for his remarks about the relationship between foreign policy and defence policy. He spoke, characteristically too, about the importance of valuing properly our Armed Forces. He spoke as only someone who knows our Armed Forces can—with expertise, with commitment and with great affection. We look forward to hearing more from him.
The speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool was remarkable too. It is good to see that he is so proud of being a good Celt, although I should warn him that some of my Welsh friends might take exception to his remarks about the versatility of the Welsh language. He spoke with great conviction about the contribution of our faith communities. I believe he was right to do so. I look forward to hearing more of his very human blend of wisdom and gentle humour, a matter remarked on by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
I begin my response with the subject that concerns so many of your Lordships; that is, Iraq. It was touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford,
428
Lord Redesdale and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, Lady Northover and Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon and my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, reminded us of his party's support for the Government's action in Iraq. We agree with his remarks about the courage, dedication and sheer professionalism of our Armed Forces, who have served us so well in Iraq and continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, struck a somewhat different note. He challenged the legal basis for what the Government undertook, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. In one respect, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was right: the legal basis for the war in Iraq was not the removal of Saddam Hussein. But let us be clear: for many Iraqis—the people affected most in that conflict—that was exactly the point. That was why so many of them, then and now, supported what we did. Of course, the noble Lord avoided the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I realise why; those issues are very difficult. The legal base was not the humanitarian argument, but the noble Lord must know that for many in Iraq and elsewhere the humanitarian argument was and is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, made clear, the compelling argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, supported by others, presented us again with his unshakeable conviction that the military action against Iraq was not only wrong politically and in principle but, as he claims, unlawful. We have been over that ground on several occasions, not least in a lengthy debate in this House earlier this year.
Let me make our position clear again. Authority to use force against Iraq existed from the combined effects of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All those resolutions were adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows for the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security. In Resolution 678, the Security Council authorised the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 687, the terms of the ceasefire were set out, but Resolution 687 suspended—it did not terminate—the authority to use force under Resolution 678. A material breach of Resolution 687 revived the authority to use force under Resolution 678, and in Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of Resolution 687. That was and remains the legal basis for the Government's action.
The noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Howell of Guildford, want the advice of the Attorney-General to be published. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that there were "ample examples" of the Law Officers advice being disclosed. I was interested in the use of that word, "ample", because my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made clear in answering a Question on 6th November that he was aware of only two cases in

429
which the Law Officers' advice was disclosed: both disclosures being made for the purposes of judicial proceedings.
There are three other cases in which the views of the Law Officers were disclosed, but not their advice: once in February 1971; once in 1993; and, of course, once by my right honourable friend earlier this year. The noble Lord's argument about disclosure is not strengthened or enhanced by over-egging his pudding. Both the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, make life somewhat difficult if they insist on adopting the maxim: "Don't do as we did when in power; do as we tell you now".
To my noble friend Lady Turner, whose convictions I understand and respect, and in response to her remarks about those who died in conflict, I say, what about the deaths of those whom we have found in the mass graves—the 300,000 bodies? What about the women beheaded in front of their children? What about the children fed into mincing machines in front of their parents? What about the horrors of the possibility of that continuing today?
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised questions about the Iraq Survey Group. The group produced an interim report on 2nd October, but no date has yet been set for the final report. The interim report was a highly classified document and not published in full, but an unclassified version of the testimony of David Kay to the Congressional Oversight Committee was published, and I understand that it is likely that a similar approach will be used again.
Let us turn to the here and now. A great deal has already been achieved in Iraq and despite recent terrorist attacks good progress is being made. We know that for a very large number of Iraqis life is considerably better now than it was under Saddam's regime. As one man who I met in Baghdad last month said to me, "I can sleep now. I am no longer lying awake at night waiting for the knock on the door". Today, Iraqis can read what they want; they can watch what they want; they have more than 200 newspapers; and they have satellite dishes—all of which were illegal under Saddam. There are 14,000 reconstruction projects going forward; electricity has surpassed pre-conflict levels; clean water supplies are improving every day; almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are now functioning; and most schools have newly printed text books.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and many other noble Lords that in the most recent Gallup poll in Baghdad two thirds of Iraqis said they believed the hardship they had endured since the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth while. In a poll undertaken by Oxford Research in October and November this year, out of 3,244 responses the most common response to the question, "What is the best thing that has happened in Iraq in the last 12 months?" was, "The fall of Saddam Hussein". That response was made by 42 per cent of those polled.
I take issue with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I do not know how extensively she has travelled in the Middle East region recently. I have
430
visited the region 10 times in the recent past. But if she will not believe me or other Ministers, perhaps she will believe her noble friend Lady Nicholson about what is happening on the ground. The noble Baroness. Lady Nicholson, has travelled extensively—as extensively as my honourable friend Ann Clwyd—and I must tell her that in all the countries I visited the response on this issue is unequivocal support for what we did in Iraq.
The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said that what really matters is what we are going to do next. The real challenge was identified by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and it is a real challenge of security. The security situation has, indeed, to be got under control, whether the threat comes from the old regime or from terrorist organisations. But I remind your Lordships that 80 per cent of the attacks are in the Sunni triangle and throughout the country as a whole the security situation is improving.
We hope to see the progressive hand-over of power by the end of June 2004. We hope to see that the legislative authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority turns over to the Iraqis completely by then. But during the next seven months, the CPA, including the 150 UK advisers, will have to work very hard to ensure that. I heard what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said and his views about the balance between coercion on the one hand and influence on the other. I agreed with much of what he said, but I hope he will also acknowledge that the Iraqis themselves must settle the question of their fundamental law. It is the Iraqis who must decide on their constitution and what will be best for them when they are in government.
Let me turn to another country where reconstruction is so important and the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I really do not believe that the picture in Afghanistan is as gloomy as he painted. There are now 4.2 million children who have returned to school this year. There are 2.5 million refugees who have returned to the country and 9 million children have been vaccinated against measles, preventing an estimated 30,000 deaths. Most remarkably of all—and I hope that the noble Earl will note this—the economy of that country grew by some 30 per cent in the year 2002–03.
Many of your Lordships remain concerned about what is happening in the Middle East. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale spoke about her reviving hope for an eventual peace settlement. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, remarked on what has been said by the Israeli chief of staff and the former Shin Bet officers. I believe that all noble Lords want to see a comprehensive settlement of the Arab/Israeli conflict for compelling humanitarian reasons and in the name of justice. It provides a focus for anti-western sentiment and it impedes progress on political and economic development in the wider region. The quartet road map remains the way to achieve this vision and we remain actively involved with leaders in the region and the wider international community in helping to translate that into reality. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, that the United

431
States has supported the road map, even though Israel was not happy with it, and has criticised targeted assassination and the security fence in terms unprecedented for a US president addressing a prime minister of Israel.
The ratification of the new Palestinian Cabinet is, of course, a welcome step forward, but we are disappointed that responsibility for security has not been passed to a Palestinian interior minister. Of course, the priority is a visible effort to stop violence and dismantle terrorist capabilities, but, in parallel, the Israelis must freeze all settlement activity and dismantle settlement outposts, re-route the wall and relieve the economic and human suffering caused by the wall and the restrictions on freedom that it implies.
We are gravely concerned about the prospects for peace, and we fear that the window of opportunity for the two-state solution may be closing. We are under no illusions about the efforts needed from all parties. Progress will be difficult, and there will continue to be setbacks. However, we will continue to do our utmost to facilitate a lasting peace.
Many of your Lordships talked about the terrible scourge of international terrorism, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Hylton, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Rawlings. I have just returned from Istanbul, where I saw for myself the carnage and chaos and spoke to many of those directly affected by the attacks on 20th November. It was a harrowing experience, and I know that your Lordships will wish to reiterate the sympathy expressed to all who suffered. It was a terrible crime, committed by fanatics with no interest in negotiation or accommodation and with no qualms about killing the innocent of whatever faith. I pay tribute to our diplomats from the United Kingdom and our local staff, who have been so heroic in the way in which they have dealt with the horror.
In Turkey, people asked me, "Why us? Why here?". The answer is that such terrible events might happen anywhere that terrorists think that they can make an impact. The terrorist threat that we face is truly global, linking New York with Casablanca, Bali with Mombasa. The appalling truth is that more than 60 nations, on five continents, have been affected. In the past five years, 4,000 people have died at the hands of terrorists. The broader impact is enormous. The dreadful attacks in New York and Washington on 1lth September, 2001, are estimated to have cost the world economy £350 billion. Over 200,000 jobs were temporarily lost or relocated. A UN report showed that average income in Bali fell by 43 per cent after those bombings.
Terrorism affects us all, irrespective of race, religion or nationality. It affects men, women and children. It affects those of strong ideology and those of no ideology. It affects those among the most powerful and wealthy in the world and those who have nothing. That is why we have made a point of tackling terrorism as one of our top priorities. Alongside the proliferation
432
of WMD, it is among the main threats that we face. Unprecedented co-operation in intelligence and law enforcement has resulted in the capture of many senior terrorist figures. We should continue those efforts, but the threat will remain.
To have any chance of success, we must use the full range of tools at our disposal—law enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy and military means—and work closely with other countries and international organisations to defend the homeland, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, is our whole fragile planet.
One of the issues that has struck me most forcefully in the past two weeks is the way in which terrorism seeks to exploit any division or any doubt in our international relationships. We often ask ourselves why such terrible events happen, and it is right that we should. However, I say starkly to the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, that we must be careful and that we should never, for one instant, transfer the responsibility—the blame, if your Lordships like—for acts of murderous wickedness from where such responsibility rightly lies. It lies with those who plan the attacks, place the bombs and watch the bodies blown apart, the buildings torn down and the hearts and lives broken.
We should remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, seem to have forgotten, that the terrorists were increasing their activities well before any military action in Iraq and well before any military action in Afghanistan. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, was right to confront the issue of how we must deny support and succour to terrorists, while addressing vigorously the injustices that allow terrorism to exploit and recruit young people.
The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised questions about aid. The Government are committed to making progress towards the UN target on official development assistance to create a national income ratio of 0.7 per cent. The boost given to international development funds in the 2002 spending review will lead to a 93 per cent increase in development expenditure in real terms between 1997 and 2005-06. By 2005-06, at £4.6 billion, official development assistance will reach 0.4 per cent of gross national income, up from just 0.27 per cent in 1997.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, made a very important contribution on reproductive health. He also scored a first: he found the one topic on which I have no briefing and on which we were unable to contact any officials. So I hope that he will allow me to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised important questions about UN reform. I assure him that the UK supports the UN Secretary-General's decision to set up a high-level panel to look at how the UN tackles threats to international peace and security.

433
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, also raised their concerns about Africa. The problems of Africa remain immense but the landscape is changing and there is good news. Ghana, Senegal and Kenya have all seen peaceful transfers of power in the past four years. For all the problems that the right reverend Prelate enumerated, Uganda is among the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world. The recovery of the South African rand is a tribute to the strength and the sound management of Africa's largest economy. Angola is at peace. Sierra Leone is rebuilding itself. The DRC and Burundi are both making fresh starts.
Africa's leaders are making good progress. They have made it clear that they will not wait for the rest of the world to solve the continent's problems. NePAD, the New Partnership for African Development, demonstrates this approach.
I turn to the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester about the final report of the UN panel on illegal exploitation of the DRC's natural resources. It contains a number of important recommendations on how both the Congolese people and the international community should do better in the exploitation of resources. We are working with the transitional national government in the DRC on these issues and I shall write further to the right reverend Prelate on the important points that he raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised points about North Korea. I congratulate her and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on establishing the new group. I found some of the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on Burma a little disquieting. However, she can rest assured that we continue to call on the regime to release the political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi.
I turn to the important questions on Europe raised by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Radice, Lord Howell, Lord Williamson of Horton, Lord Blaker, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, says that the statements of government supporters are rightly ridiculed because we have not said that the convention is a fundamental shift in the constitutional relationship of Europe and its citizens as he believes it to be. I ask him whether he similarly thinks that it would be right to ridicule the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, whose expertise is unchallenged and who sits on the Cross Benches and is politically objective, who said on 9th September that it was not in any way the most significant of the European treaties. Or perhaps he wants to ridicule our own Lords Select Committee, which said in paragraph 134 of its report of 31st October:
"The extension of EU law in this Treaty seems relatively limited by comparison"—
with other treaties. It continues:
"we repeat our earlier conclusion that 'it is clear that the balance of power is going to shift from the Commission to the Member States'".
434
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reiterated that point again today in his excellent contribution to our debate, a contribution on behalf of our own committee, not prompted by party politics but by a clear-headed and objective view of what the treaty may cover.
In particular, I should like to turn to the questions on European defence. European defence issues have exercised many of your Lordships. In addressing them, I must also address the issues around NATO. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his excellent leadership of the NATO alliance. The Government's position remains clear: NATO is fundamental to the UK and European Union security policy. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, said, it is the heart of our defence and the vital hinge between Europe and North America. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—nobody disputes NATO's pre-eminent role. The Prime Minister made that clear very recently, but so have our friends in Germany and France. The German Foreign Minister, who spoke to the UK and France recently, said that it is the "alliance par excellence".
Those comments have not just been made in press conference statements. The UK, France and Germany have jointly proposed language for a new EU treaty that removes any reference to a group of EU states operating a collective defence commitment. Instead it states clearly that NATO remains the basis of collective defence. I hope to reiterate the Government's commitment in that respect when I represent the Government at the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels tomorrow.
The IGC issues have been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in a thoughtful and innovative speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. I shall address, not the IGC issues, but those of defence planning, which lie at the heart of most of the concerns that have arisen. The agreed framework has been that EU-led operations are considered only when NATO as a whole is not engaged. Secondly, when the EU considers options for an operation, it has automatic access to NATO's facilities, in particular to those that shape. Any substantial military operation, such as an EU-led operation in Bosnia, would be planned through NATO. But, thirdly, there will be cases where it may make sense for an EU-led nation to lead the planning of an EU mission. We have been over that ground before.
What is now under discussion in the EU is how to develop the EU's capacity for planning. That includes looking at how the EU carries out longer-term planning to anticipate crises, particularly in operations including civilian and military elements. We are discussing those ideas with allies and partners. President Bush has said that he backs the Prime Minister's judgment on that. I note that the SACEUR said this morning on the radio that what matters here is not the principle of developing EU capacity but how it is done. I agree. When the Government are in a

435
position to make an announcement, we shall do so. But I assure noble Lords that we will do nothing that undermines NATO.
Noble Lords raised issues about defence personnel retention. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 4.3 per cent reduction in overall outflow from the Armed Forces. That is good news to add to the record recruitment figures. On capabilities, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, said that however clever technology was, it did not deliver the ability to be in two places at once. He is quite right, but I can tell him that, as of 17th November, 38 per cent of the Army were committed to operations, of which 20 per cent were actually deployed on operations, by comparison with 50 per cent committed and 54 per cent deployed in late April. The figures are improving. We remain committed to achieving a balance of commitments and aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is absolutely necessary to achieve our military aims. Personnel are withdrawn from operations at the earliest opportunity.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Burlison for his comments about the importance of procurement to our regional industrial base. That is a very important issue, and I am very pleased that the MoD has now adopted a defence industrial policy.
I wish to address the questions on defence budgets raised by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Guthrie, Lord Inge and Lord Boyce. The MoD's budget has not been cut. It remains as agreed with the Treasury and as announced in the spending review of the 2002 settlement in July last year. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that it is this Government, a Labour Government, who have promised the biggest increase in defence spending period over the next three years—the biggest increase for 20 years. Three billion pounds are to be added over the next three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised questions about the size and shape of the Territorial Army. I can reassure him that the enhancements in home defence outlined in the SDR new chapter will add about 700 TA posts. The new chapter in the Strategic Defence Review 1998 remains the foundation. The shape and size of the capability of our Armed Forces will remain as we said.
I will not address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the Black Watch. I will write to the noble Lord about that matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, I was hugely impressed this evening by the breadth of the important issues covered. A number of your Lordships asked questions about specific countries and, when those were raised by only one or two Lords, I undertake to write to them, because we all deserve to go home at some point this evening. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I beg that indulgence.
I end this evening with four conclusions about the foreign policy environment in which we now operate. I do that drawing from my experience as a Minister
436
dealing with foreign affairs and defence since 1997. I dealt with the events of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, the events in Bali, the Iraq crisis and now, of course, the most recent difficulties that we have experienced with our own staff in Istanbul. First, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction present potentially catastrophic threats to our security, especially if those two threats come together. They are and will continue to be our top concerns. We must continue to tackle them assertively using every means at our disposal. The security threats cannot be viewed in isolation, however. They are part of a wider global agenda which includes economic development and tackling poverty and diseases such as HIV/Aids—as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said—malaria and tuberculosis, environmental degradation, conflict and state failure.
That leads me to my second conclusion. By their very nature, those issues affect collective international interests. There are so many of them and they are on such a huge scale that no one country can deal with them alone. We have to work with others. The challenge is to make the collective effective. For that we need strong international institutions. The United Nations is at the heart of our international system. We need a strong world forum to permit strong collective action. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us, we need the WTO to create a global open trading system and the international financial institutions to bolster economic stability. We also need to move on those issues soon, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, made very clear.
We also need the political will to act, so my third conclusion is that, above all, we must get the United States and Europe to work together. Together, we represent over 50 per cent of global exports. We provide about 70 per cent of total overseas development assistance and nearly 80 per cent of global foreign direct investment outflows. We own over 70 per cent of the world's foreign direct investment stock and we are indeed the liberal democracies who have the same fundamental values. Therefore, I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lord Radice said, and I strongly disagree with what my noble friend Lord Gilbert said. I believe that the choice between Europe and the United States is not a real one. We face the same problems and we need to work on them together. We have complementary assets to bring to the table. Over the past 12 months, the concept of transatlantic co-operation seems to have slipped from view in some quarters. Let us face it on both sides of the Atlantic. We must now restore that mutual political confidence.
My final conclusion is not only that our international agenda is increasingly interlinked, but that foreign and domestic policies are also inextricably intertwined. They are linked on the issues of faith and culture and on the importance of dialogue in this country and overseas with those who share our beliefs and cultures and with those who do not. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have made huge efforts on

437
those issues. I do not share the apocalyptic view quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I know that he did not share that view either, but I do think that we have a great deal of work to do on the issue.
That means that international policy is a task for the whole of government. It does not involve just the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. It involves the domestic departments, too. They are the Department of Health on AIDS; the Department for Education and Skills on improving standards in poor countries; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on archaeological issues; and Defra on the environment; and, yes, the Church should be involved as regards interfaith relationships.
The new Foreign and Commonwealth Office strategy paper laid before Parliament yesterday analyses the new international context in more detail. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his kind remarks about it. It sets out our operating assumptions about how the world is likely to change and identifies the United Kingdom's international priorities over the next decade. It is intended to encourage a clearer, more strategic approach across government to the challenges that we face. I commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
438
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned until tomorrow.

European Union Constitution: EUC Report
10.50 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future of Europe: The Convention's Draft Constitutional Treaty (41st Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 169).—(Lord Grenfell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union Constitution: Constitution Committee Report
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution on The Draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union (9th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 168).-—(Lord Norton of Louth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer: Forms of Address
  Questions for Written Answer: Forms of Address
  FCO Strategy
  FCO Strategy
  Autism: Children
  Autism: Children
  Department of Health: Autumn Performance Report 2003
  Department of Health: Autumn Performance Report 2003
  Cambridge-St Ives Guided Busway
  Cambridge-St Ives Guided Busway
  Railway Overbridge, Langley: Lorry Accidents
  Railway Overbridge, Langley: Lorry Accidents